Adultery Issues in the Stream

[Fierabras]

Perhaps in the very murky 'not quite feudalism' era of 867 and before, sure, and especially when it came to pagan cultures or those which were rooted in paganism (i.e. the 'Danish' or 'handfast' common law marriages of the Scandinavian kings) later on, but for most of Europe it didn't happen[...].

No king of France - even during the post-feudal age during which they wielded far greater power and often ignore Parlement - had ever legitimized a bastard and made him a prince of the Blood and part of the succession. It wasn't permitted and would never have been sanctioned.

Pierre-Charlot (1205?-1249), the bastard son of Philip Augustus and a "certain lady from Arras" (according to Guillaume le Breton), was officially legitimised in indult by pope Honorius III - sure, he was far down the line of succession and would go on to pursue an ecclesiastical career anyway, receiving the diocese of Noyon in 1240, but he was acknowledged as a legitimate son nonetheless.

From the 14th century on, the Valois monarchs of France claimed the right to legitimise bastards as a royal attribute, seen as essential as the conferment of nobility or the creation of notarial offices. There are several examples of such legitimisations in the Late Medieval era - Anthony, the Grand Bastard of Burgundy, is a very prominent one, being right at the tail-end of the CK3 timeframe.

And yeah, sure, the legitimisation of bastards was never super common. But it wasn't unheard of, nor was it restricted to cultures with Norse or Celtic influences.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Pierre-Charlot (1205?-1249), the bastard son of Philip Augustus and a "certain lady from Arras" (according to Guillaume le Breton), was officially legitimised in indult by pope Honorius III - sure, he was far down the line of succession and would go on to pursue an ecclesiastical career anyway, receiving the diocese of Noyon in 1240, but he was acknowledged as a legitimate son nonetheless.

From the 14th century on, the Valois monarchs of France claimed the right to legitimise bastards as a royal attribute, seen as essential as the conferment of nobility or the creation of notarial offices. There are several examples of such legitimisations in the Late Medieval era - Anthony, the Grand Bastard of Burgundy, is a very prominent one, being right at the tail-end of the CK3 timeframe.

And yeah, sure, the legitimisation of bastards was never super common. But it wasn't unheard of, nor was it restricted to cultures with Norse or Celtic influences.

Your examples are poor.

Charlot was granted a papal dispensation to enter ecclesiastical office; he was never legitimized and never entered the line of succession. This has never been done.

Le grand bâtard was a bastard - hence his name - and was given titles and achieved great renown fighting alongside Charles the Bold, but he was never legitimized and was never considered eligible to inherit Burgundy after Charles' death. He died years after Charles and Burgundy was divided and annexed.

I honestly think people are unable to differentiate between acknowledgement and legitimacy - many bastards were acknowledged and given great estates and titles, as befitting the natural-born sons of kings or dukes, but that does not mean they were ever considered legitimate or entered into the line of succession.

In neither of your examples did the line of succession change, which is the basis of this discussion.

 

[Fierabras]

Your examples are poor.

Charlot was granted a papal dispensation to enter ecclesiastical office; he was never legitimized and never entered the line of succession. This has never been done.

Le grand bâtard was a bastard - hence his name - and was given titles and achieved great renown fighting alongside Charles the Bold, but he was never legitimized and was never considered eligible to inherit Burgundy after Charles' death. He died years after Charles and Burgundy was divided and annexed.

I honestly think people are unable to differentiate between acknowledgement and legitimacy - many bastards were acknowledged and given great estates and titles, as befitting the natural-born sons of kings or dukes, but that does not mean they were ever considered legitimate or entered into the line of succession.

In neither of your examples did the line of succession change, which is the basis of this discussion.

Despite his nickname, Anthony was indeed legitimised after his father's death by King Charles VIII in 1485, and Pierre-Charlot was effectively legitimised by indulgence, which allowed him to obtain benefices from the church.
His brother, Philip Hurepel (1200-1235), who would become count of Boulogne and Clermont, had also been legitimized, in his case by Innocent III in 1201, as was his sister Marie. It is true that these cases had no consequences for the factual line of succession, but the fact remains that legitimisation was a legal right claimed and exercised by popes and secular rulers.

And, no, legitimisation was not always inconsequential for succession - consider House d'Este. Niccolò d'Este (1383-1441), was the product of an illegitimate affair between Alberto V d'Este and his lover, Isotta Alberasani, but as he was legitimised, he succeeded his father as Marquis of Ferrara. Continuing the proud tradition of unfaithfulness in his family, Niccoló himself later produced his own bastard son, Leonello d'Este (1407-1450), who he had legitimised in order to prevent his legitimate daughters from inheriting. All of these cases occured in the game's timeframe.

So, again, legitimisation existed, was a legal right claimed by the church and secular rulers, and could result in bastards inheriting their parents' titles, without any celts or vikings in sight.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Philip Hurepel was legitimized because his parents were married; the reason for the legitimization (and his controversial birth) was that his parents' marriage was 'suspect' as Philip II had already been married but refused to live with his wife. The pope rejected Philip's claims and forced him to reunite with his previous (and legal) wife. Philip Hurepel being in the succession is distinctly unclear as he was not in line to inherit anything due to having 'legitimate' elder siblings, and his being a bastard made no difference to him being given the county of Clermont.

I don't know about your Italian examples (I'm not well-versed on the d'Este) but if you're correct then they would be the first examples you've provided in three or four posts who were legitimized and inserted into the line of succession. If so, I'm still not sure why you feel this ought to be a default gameplay option for Continental rulers.

 

[Duditsfireguy]

Philip Hurepel was legitimized because his parents were married; the reason for the legitimization (and his controversial birth) was that his parents' marriage was 'suspect' as Philip II had already been married but refused to live with his wife. The pope rejected Philip's claims and forced him to reunite with his previous (and legal) wife. Philip Hurepel being in the succession is distinctly unclear as he was not in line to inherit anything due to having 'legitimate' elder siblings, and his being a bastard made no difference to him being given the county of Clermont.

I don't know about your Italian examples (I'm not well-versed on the d'Este) but if you're correct then they would be the first examples you've provided in three or four posts who were legitimized and inserted into the line of succession. If so, I'm still not sure why you feel this ought to be a default gameplay option for Continental rulers.

why don't we just remove Matrilineal marriages as well since they were done so rarely in that era and not in every pocket of europe.

 

[Fierabras]

I don't know about your Italian examples (I'm not well-versed on the d'Este) but if you're correct then they would be the first examples you've provided in three or four posts who were legitimized and inserted into the line of succession. If so, I'm still not sure why you feel this ought to be a default gameplay option for Continental rulers.

What all of my examples demonstrated together was: a) that legitimising of bastards occured in European Christian cultures long after the 'not quite feudalism era'; b) that legitimising of bastards occured in realms that were neither Celtic, North Germanic, nor Norman; c) that powerful European monarchies (such as France) indeed had their bastards legitimised - even though these particular cases had little influence on the factual course of succession, as the Capetian-Valois line of succession was remarkably stable outside the crisis of 1316-1328 and then before 1498, so the matter never assumed an urgent character; d) that legitimisation was a legal right claimed and exercised by both spiritual and temporal authorities; and e) legitimisation resulted not only in bastards becoming their parents' primary heirs, but was actively used to prevent legitimate children from inheriting.

In summary: Legitimising your bastards was a thing. yo.

And yeah, nobody ever said that it was all the rage and that cheating fathers legitimised their compromising offspring left and right. It wasn't that common. But it was common enough, and I can't see any historical arguments that are compelling enough to somehow make the devs retroactively not implement this niftly little gameplay option. Even if it's default.

 

[Riamus]

I think there is value in considering alternative ways of handling bastards in the game. It's true that if you can just legitimize all of them without anything more than an opinion penalty (in CK2: 10 years for your kids, life for your spouse, though if you're just an unmarried seducer, the spouse penalty doesn't even apply) then it's not really offering much of a benefit to gameplay. I do like legitimizing my bastards just because I want as large a family as possible who can pass on my dynasty, but I don't see why it couldn't be improved in some way. An option is to take the legitimized bastards out of the running for succession, but allow them a weak claim on the titles as a way of saying that the bastard could make the attempt to wrest control of one or more titles from the real heirs if the bastard could get enough backing to do so. I don't know if there are historical situations where a bastard not in line for succession decided to get backing and take control of some title or not, but it could make for a bit more interesting mechanics.

For me, I'm less interested in using bastards for succession. I just want to legitimize them so they pass on my dynasty name. It's the same reason I do my best to marry my daughters matrilineally even though I might not get as good of a marriage out of it. One of my goals that I usually have in the game is to spread my dynasty across as much of the world as possible. It sounds like in CK3 there is a map mode allowing you to see which dynasty holds titles, which would let me see where all my dynasty who are rulers are located and I love that idea. It will make me want to spread my family even more than I wanted to in CK2.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

It sounds like in CK3 there is a map mode allowing you to see which dynasty holds titles,

There is one in CKII as well, although it's not massively obvious.

 

[Rokh]

So my takeaway from this thread is:

Did bastard legitimization happen during this time period in Europe? Yes.
Should it be a gameplay option for players or the AI? Yes.
Should it be common, or normal, or the default for most cultures in Europe? No, no and no.

How close am I?

 

[Pied-Noir]

What all of my examples demonstrated together was: a) that legitimising of bastards occured in European Christian cultures long after the 'not quite feudalism era'; b) that legitimising of bastards occured in realms that were neither Celtic, North Germanic, nor Norman; c) that powerful European monarchies (such as France) indeed had their bastards legitimised - even though these particular cases had little influence on the factual course of succession, as the Capetian-Valois line of succession was remarkably stable outside the crisis of 1316-1328 and then before 1498, so the matter never assumed an urgent character; d) that legitimisation was a legal right claimed and exercised by both spiritual and temporal authorities; and e) legitimisation resulted not only in bastards becoming their parents' primary heirs, but was actively used to prevent legitimate children from inheriting.

In summary: Legitimising your bastards was a thing. yo.

And yeah, nobody ever said that it was all the rage and that cheating fathers legitimised their compromising offspring left and right. It wasn't that common. But it was common enough, and I can't see any historical arguments that are compelling enough to somehow make the devs retroactively not implement this niftly little gameplay option. Even if it's default.

You provided a single example (d'Este) of bastards who were legitimized and able to enter the line of succession as a result. Your other examples are meaningless and essentially amount to a favour from the Pope in order for the ruler in question to save face - and usually these were political appointments of some sort.

Anthony of Burgundy is an especially odd example; he was never considered legitimate and had he been then Burgundy would not have been dissolved in 1477. The fact he was later retroactively declared legitimate by Charles VIII is completely irrelevant and was done more out of courtesy (or perhaps pity) than anything else.

The whole point of legitimization of bastards in CK is to put them into the line of succession so your game doesn't end prematurely; here, there are two issues: 1) should that be possible by default, simply because your faith allows it? To that, I'd say emphatically no, because it barely ever happened and you've struggled to find a single example of it doing so outside of my cultural criteria; and 2) should legitimized bastards take precedence over legitimate siblings in the line of succession? Again. that should be a no.

In summary: legitimizing bastards should be possible, but it shouldn't be something that is available by default.

This is clearly an example of an extremely niche exception which, bizarrely, you and others are arguing ought to be the rule. Why, I have no idea.

 

[sstabeler]

This is clearly an example of an extremely niche exception which, bizarrely, you and others are arguing ought to be the rule. Why, I have no idea.

One reason is because it's the current behaviour that if your religion allows it, you can legitimise your bastard. There's also the fact that there really isn't an equivalent to Doctrines for cultures- Innovations (which I think you are thinking of) aren't the same thing. However, I would point out that there are several things that in RL would be cultural as opposed to religious that in CK3 are dictated by religious doctrines. Legitimization of bastards is just one of those.

Not to mention that it's scarcely the only ahistorical thing in CK3 included for gameplay reasons. One of the biggest being that cultural innovations weren't really a thing in RL. For that matter, a fair few perks wouldn't occur in RL either.

 

[Riamus]

There is one in CKII as well, although it's not massively obvious.

There is?! Can you tell me where to find it? I'd really like to check it out!

 

[Karlington]

There is?! Can you tell me where to find it? I'd really like to check it out!

Above the minimap one of the icons is a tree. That's the one. It has the shortkey 's' which is a bit easier to find. Hopefully.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

In summary: legitimizing bastards should be possible, but it shouldn't be something that is available by default.

This is clearly an example of an extremely niche exception which, bizarrely, you and others are arguing ought to be the rule. Why, I have no idea.

Tying it to cultural innovations or whatever would have the opposite effect to representing historical situations, where it was *more likely* that a bastard's parentage could be overlooked if they were in a position to contest the thrones or titles of their parent, because inheritance law was not so heavily codified. Acknowledgement of a son was more likely to make them "acceptable" as an heir than in later years.

Waiting to have it unlocked by a cultural innovation (as you suggested earlier) would mean that legitimisation of bastards (or ignoring their bastardy) would become more common over time.

I can't speak much to continental inheritance, because I am not much of a student of the lines of inheritance there, but for England the fact that Henry I even considered his bastard son to be a possible successor, and that this was repeated again with Henry VIII suggests that legitimisation of bastards was something that could be done in extremis. Henry VIII's bastard died whilst Henry was still healthy and had potential for new, male heirs, but he was being treated around court in the way you'd expect for an heir presumptive until it became obvious he would predecease his father - hence the probable reason he was never formally legitimised.

In this article (unsourced, but written by an associate professor on the subject of history) https://blog.oup.com/2017/03/bastards-thrones-medieval-europe/ we have some statements that suggest it to be not uncommon for bastards to inherit.

William’s success, despite his dubious birth, is not unique. Kings before and after him, and even queens, successfully inherited and reigned despite allegations of illegitimacy. We find many cases in which the children of illegal marriages, including even the children of monks and nuns, inherited noble and royal title throughout the twelfth century. Children born to a high status couple could inherit from those parents, even if their union violated contemporary prohibitions on marrying close kin, marrying those already married to other living spouses, or marrying those sworn to celibacy. Indeed we find little evidence that anyone challenged the rights of such children as heirs.
[...]
To be sure, marrying legitimately certainly received a good deal of lip service throughout the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, in this pre-thirteenth-century world the most intense attention was paid not to the formation of legitimate marriages, but to the lineage and respectability of mothers. Only beginning in the second half of the twelfth century did birth outside of lawful marriage begin to render a child illegitimate, and as such potentially ineligible to inherit noble or royal title. In the thirteenth century both “bastard” and “spurius” came to signify a child born to anything other than a legitimate marriage, as defined by the canon law of the Catholic Church.

And from another article by the same author: https://thewire.in/history/history-bastard-europe

Perhaps the earliest signs of this can be found in the annals of English legal history, with the Anstey case of the 1160s. This might have been the first time an individual was barred from inheriting because her parents had married illegally. And it happened not because the Church intervened, but because one clever plaintiff figured out how to exploit some scraps of theological doctrine. After that time, more and more plaintiffs began to do the same.

 

[Olden Weiss]

Yep just checked, the bastardy doctrine will decide if they can be legitimized.

In addition, only the dynasty head can legitimize bastards. Often that will be the player, but once your dynasty starts sprawling, if you're not careful, one of your distant cousins may claim that right. (I believe they said the dynasty head is the head of the house with the most lands, or highest title, or something like that?)

 

[Riamus]

Above the minimap one of the icons is a tree. That's the one. It has the shortkey 's' which is a bit easier to find. Hopefully.

Thanks. I'll take a look. I didn't think that showed what counties have a liege from your dynasty, but I'm probably wrong. One thing it may not do that I'd really like is to show where all your dynasty rulers are even if they are vassals. But that's probably asking for too much. I just like to see where all my dynasty has expanded and gained titles.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

In addition, only the dynasty head can legitimize bastards. Often that will be the player, but once your dynasty starts sprawling, if you're not careful, one of your distant cousins may claim that right. (I believe they said the dynasty head is the head of the house with the most lands, or highest title, or something like that?)

I was under the impression that the father can legitimise (possibly only at birth), and the dynasty head can *also* legitimise.

 

[Olden Weiss]

I was under the impression that the father can legitimise (possibly only at birth), and the dynasty head can *also* legitimise.

Come to think of it, that may be the case. I'm not certain, because isn't the king in the Spain streams also the head of his dynasty?

 

[Riamus]

Come to think of it, that may be the case. I'm not certain, because isn't the king in the Spain streams also the head of his dynasty?

Yes, he is. They commented on it in the stream, saying that only the head can legitimize a bastard. At least, that's how I remember it. I'd have to watch it again to be sure I didn't just misunderstand what was said.

 

[Alenarae118]

Yes, he is. They commented on it in the stream, saying that only the head can legitimize a bastard. At least, that's how I remember it. I'd have to watch it again to be sure I didn't just misunderstand what was said.

Yeah only the house head can legitimize a bastard.