Adultery Issues in the Stream

[Rubidium]

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.

Given that this whole thread started because of a stream featuring Alfonso VI of Leon, it might be worth noting that the historical Alfonso VI of Leon did in fact legitimize his bastard son as his heir. Unfortunately he died in a battle with the Moors, resulting in a succession crisis, but he was treated as heir before then. And once you get out of Christianity, of course, it gets even more common.

More broadly, while it probably ought to be more difficult to get accepted (in particular, I'd like either a vassal opinion malus or an increased "short reign" modifier), and the bastard should definitely go after any legitimate children in line of succession (sort of a reverse of the old CK2 "born in the purple" trait), it shouldn't be restricted to certain cultures. It might be interesting to have it tied to some extent to church authority, however.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Given that this whole thread started because of a stream featuring Alfonso VI of Leon, it might be worth noting that the historical Alfonso VI of Leon did in fact legitimize his bastard son as his heir. Unfortunately he died in a battle with the Moors, resulting in a succession crisis, but he was treated as heir before then. And once you get out of Christianity, of course, it gets even more common.

More broadly, while it probably ought to be more difficult to get accepted (in particular, I'd like either a vassal opinion malus or an increased "short reign" modifier), and the bastard should definitely go after any legitimate children in line of succession (sort of a reverse of the old CK2 "born in the purple" trait), it shouldn't be restricted to certain cultures. It might be interesting to have it tied to some extent to church authority, however.

That's an interesting example I wasn't aware of, thanks (I note the character has his bastard trait removed in vanilla; I'll make him a legit_bastard), and I completely agree with you about the ideal effects of this - having legitimized bastards have a lower priority than legitimate siblings would be a good start, not to mention the relations hits and religious repercussions you mention.

 

[Subcomandante]

Regarding the wife's opinion there were four strikes, weren't there?

1. Religious sin of adultery.
2. Cheating.
3. Acknowledging the child.
4. Legitimizing.

The first three caused -60? Each one on its own might not be so bad, but together they are problematic.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

Can't wait to reform Catholicism to crack down all sexual deviants.
All those bastards bother me.

 

[GiantSpaceHamster]

Being a bit pedantic maybe, but from looking at the examples in this thread there seemed to be different degrees of illegitimacy of offspring.
First you have children born to married parents, but that marriage was in some way irregular or illegal under the relevant laws (one of the parents was already married or the parents were too closely related for marriage to have been allowed or a number of other reasons). It looks like these kinds of irregularities were readily overlooked and the children were legitimised. Or, the child was conceived while the parents weren't married but they got married later, does not seem to have been much of an issue either.
Second, you have nobles fathering children while not married. In Christian doctrine this meant the children were conceived in fornication, which was still a sin but not as serious as adultery. This was as I understand probably the case with William of Normandy and kind of with Sancho Alfonsez. Sancho's case is a bit murky because Alfonso's legal wife at the time was ill and died shortly after Sancho's birth. No doubt in Alfonso's version of events she died shortly before Sancho's conception and so this wasn't adultery, and the Spanish nobles decided to go with that. In those cases children being legitimised seems much more rare of course but there are examples.
Third one is a classic king gets a maid pregnant while the queen is alive and well kind of scenario. This is straight up adultery, and while it was completely commonplace at the time, there are very few if any examples of children of these kind of unions being legitimised.
It seems like in all of these cases children were legitimised only when there were no legitimate hairs.
I don't know if these kind of distinctions can be modelled in the game. It should probably be possible to legitimise bastards but there should be pretty significant opinion penalties from everyone but especially the spouse and the clergy both for the father and the child. Doing this should be costly enough in terms of prestige, opinion hits and piety that you shouldn't be able to just randomly legitimise whole armies of bastards after sticking your thing in anything that moves, legitimising a bastard should be a serious step. I like the idea of linking it to the faith legitimacy level. Under no circumstances should legitimised bastards ever be ahead of legitimate children in succession.

 

[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.

I checked out the map mode you mentioned. It isn't really what I was wanting, though. All it does is takes the political map and changes the realm names to dynasty names. It can be useful to show the top lieges that are your dynasty, but only that.

I've thought this over and I can't see a great option for what I'm looking for. I want a way to see where all my landed family are and what they hold. The problem comes with trying to show that in a game with lieges. You could show only personally held counties so you can see the land directly owned by your dynasty, which is probably the best option we could get for what I want, but then you lose out on seeing the realms ruled over by your dynasty. About the only way I could see it possibly working is for the map mode to either 1) show only the player's dynasty and then it can show the full realms of all your dynasty members and could even highlight the counties directly owned by your dynasty as well, or 2) allow the map mode to take a dynasty name parameter and show only that dynasty so that you can see any dynasty you want, one at a time, though you'd then have to have a parameter field on a map mode, which would just be strange.

Maybe someone else has some ideas? Essentially, if I marry out my sons to landed women and then their children (my dynasty) takes control of that land and if I marry my daughters off matrilineally to those who stand to inherit land and they eventually do and have children who inherit, I would like to look at the map at a later date and see how well my dynasty is doing in terms of taking over the world even if I were to keep my own realm smaller. CK2's dynasty map mode would only show me where they are if they were the top liege of their realm, which is very limited. I want to see them even if they are the lowliest count in a major empire. I know I can list my people and sort by rank and look at where they are one by one, but that is nowhere near as nice as being able to view them all on the map at once.

 

[Tuo]

I checked out the map mode you mentioned. It isn't really what I was wanting, though. All it does is takes the political map and changes the realm names to dynasty names. It can be useful to show the top lieges that are your dynasty, but only that.

I've thought this over and I can't see a great option for what I'm looking for. I want a way to see where all my landed family are and what they hold. The problem comes with trying to show that in a game with lieges. You could show only personally held counties so you can see the land directly owned by your dynasty, which is probably the best option we could get for what I want, but then you lose out on seeing the realms ruled over by your dynasty. About the only way I could see it possibly working is for the map mode to either 1) show only the player's dynasty and then it can show the full realms of all your dynasty members and could even highlight the counties directly owned by your dynasty as well, or 2) allow the map mode to take a dynasty name parameter and show only that dynasty so that you can see any dynasty you want, one at a time, though you'd then have to have a parameter field on a map mode, which would just be strange.

Maybe someone else has some ideas? Essentially, if I marry out my sons to landed women and then their children (my dynasty) takes control of that land and if I marry my daughters off matrilineally to those who stand to inherit land and they eventually do and have children who inherit, I would like to look at the map at a later date and see how well my dynasty is doing in terms of taking over the world even if I were to keep my own realm smaller. CK2's dynasty map mode would only show me where they are if they were the top liege of their realm, which is very limited. I want to see them even if they are the lowliest count in a major empire. I know I can list my people and sort by rank and look at where they are one by one, but that is nowhere near as nice as being able to view them all on the map at once.

Though it still isn't quite what you're looking for, you can click open the sub-realms within a realm with ctrl+left click, both in political map mode and dynasty map mode.

 

[Riamus]

Though it still isn't quite what you're looking for, you can click open the sub-realms within a realm with ctrl+left click, both in political map mode and dynasty map mode.

Yeah, but you would have to do that everywhere. That is a LOT of clicking. Though it is less work than using the list and checking each individually.

 

[Puking Panda]

I find it a bit odd that there's such a hefty malus for Catholic men cheating on their wives seeing how they historically did it pretty much all the time and many times their wives even tolerated it. Hell it's likely most male nobles cheated on their wives, especially the more powerful ones. Though it was morally questionable usually not such a big stink was made over it.

Trouble of course starts when women do it because it makes the paternity of any of her children questionable or when a male ruler's bastards get to inherit because it disrespects the wife and her legitimate children and should become especially problematic when there's powerful fathers-in-law involved.

 

[Zhetone]

the hyperbole regarding affairs in the medieval period is getting pretty absurd

 

[ChromePoison]

I find it a bit odd that there's such a hefty malus for Catholic men cheating on their wives seeing how they historically did it pretty much all the time and many times their wives even tolerated it. Hell it's likely most male nobles cheated on their wives, especially the more powerful ones. Though it was morally questionable usually not such a big stink was made over it.

Trouble of course starts when women do it because it makes the paternity of any of her children questionable or when a male ruler's bastards get to inherit because it disrespects the wife and her legitimate children and should become especially problematic when there's powerful fathers-in-law involved.

Where are you getting this from? It was absolutely frowned upon for Catholic nobles to cheat on their wives. It caused numerous scandals throughout history. The king was seen as having a diving right to rule, so doing things that so blatantly go against the Christian idea of the sanctity of marriage was frowned upon. There’s a reason today that “bastard” is still an insult.

 

[Karlington]

Where are you getting this from? It was absolutely frowned upon for Catholic nobles to cheat on their wives. It caused numerous scandals throughout history. The king was seen as having a diving right to rule, so doing things that so blatantly go against the Christian idea of the sanctity of marriage was frowned upon. There’s a reason today that “bastard” is still an insult.

It honestly sounds like some people confuse Game of Thrones with the middle ages, heh.

 

[Sushurashi]

What's your evidence for "affairs with a lowborn woman" being common?

It's a little after this time frame, but George the III was considered to be mentally unsound by his advisors because he refused to sleep with the house hold staff and was faithful to his wife.

 

[Sushurashi]

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.

It generally only shows the top tier lieges dynasty for all the land under control by that liege as belonging to that dynasty, so if you have a count or a duke under a liege of a different dynasty, it won't show it.

 

[Sushurashi]

Harold the III of Denmark was the Bastard child of Sweyn II who had 19 children with an assortment of Concubines (mistress). He (Sweyn II) also had multiple simultaneous marriages (though the church dissolved one of them), but he likely ignored that and kept her as a wife in practice, if not in fact. In fact, Sweyn II had 4 bastard children who all became King of Denmark, and one of whom was canonized by the Pope, so bastard children could inherit, and even be considered so legitimate by the Church that they could be sainted.

 

[Zhetone]

It's a little after this time frame, but George the III was considered to be mentally unsound by his advisors because he refused to sleep with the house hold staff and was faithful to his wife.

a little? You mean several hundred years with an entirely different conception of religion as a cornerstone of the state's legitimacy?

Harold the III of Denmark was the Bastard child of Sweyn II who had 19 children with an assortment of Concubines (mistress). He (Sweyn II) also had multiple simultaneous marriages (though the church dissolved one of them), but he likely ignored that and kept her as a wife in practice, if not in fact. In fact, Sweyn II had 4 bastard children who all became King of Denmark, and one of whom was canonized by the Pope, so bastard children could inherit, and even be considered so legitimate by the Church that they could be sainted.

aren't Norse cultures a bit of an exception as they had looser marital bonds? I would be careful about using them as an example that proves a generality

 

[Sushurashi]

a little? You mean several hundred years with an entirely different conception of religion as a cornerstone of the state's legitimacy?

Yes and no. The idea that the King would, and even should, have multiple sex partners is a trait carried down through out history, and as for the morays of the faiths, well, Anglican church is closer to the Catholic faith than it is to other Reformation faiths. Even today powerful people are expected to have multiple sex partners even while married (more so with men then woman). People have a "Celebrity Free Pass" list, which is of famous people that some one is allowed to have sex with and their partner/spouse must forgive. American Presidents through out history have had mistress's and or cheated on their spouses and no one cares. No one cared about Kennedy's affairs, no one cared about Clinton's affairs and no one cares about Trump's affairs. If a person is considered "powerful" by what ever metric that is measured, even up til today, they are expected to have multiple sex partners even while married. This is a moray that has it's roots in the very origin of the Human species, and while it may be "frowned" upon, it is also expected.

aren't Norse cultures a bit of an exception as they had looser marital bonds? I would be careful about using them as an example that proves a generality

To a certain extant yes, in part because both polygamy and concubinage were common in Norse culture prior to Christianization, and Sweyn II is only shortly after the conversion of Denmark, some traditions were still sort of sticking around (although Sweyn II was raised Christian from birth as a 3rd generation Christian), but that can not account for the Pope's Canonizing of his, absolutely a, bastard son. The Church way down in Rome didn't see the distinction of his actual birth and his legitimacy, and that is from a tradition of 700 years of Christian morays on marriage and birth legitimacy.

 

[Zhetone]

how does canonization relate to bastard status? you've made a giant leap in logic here

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

how does canonization relate to bastard status? you've made a giant leap in logic here

Bastardy was considered a massive stain on the bastard, which could get in the way of them being recognised at all by the Church, must less vaunted as an example to be followed.
So it would be unlikely that you would be in a position to be recognised as sufficiently holy to be canonised in that circumstance.

 

[Karlington]

The idea that the King would, and even should, have multiple sex partners is a trait carried down through out history

Citation needed.

Even today powerful people are expected to have multiple sex partners even while married (more so with men then woman).
[...]
If a person is considered "powerful" by what ever metric that is measured, even up til today, they are expected to have multiple sex partners even while married. This is a moray that has it's roots in the very origin of the Human species, and while it may be "frowned" upon, it is also expected.

That's definitely not true, though. Confirmed affairs cause major headlines and often cause the end, or at least severe trauma, to the relationship. Gary Hart had to give up his run for the presidential nomination after a photo was published of him with a woman who was not his wife on his lap - without any actual confirmation of his affair. John Edwards's political career ended when he cheated on his wife when she was in the hospital. Infidelity is a major political problem in the U.S.A.

People have a "Celebrity Free Pass" list, which is of famous people that some one is allowed to have sex with and their partner/spouse must forgive.

Most people don't have those, but those who do usually don't expect that their partner would ever get the chance to have sex with that celebrity (which is usually correct). I'd wager that if there were, say, a 75% chance of getting the chance then that practice would decrease a whole lot.

American Presidents through out history have had mistress's and or cheated on their spouses and no one cares.
[...]
No one cared about Kennedy's affairs

People generally didn't know.

no one cared about Clinton's affairs

Are you being serious here? I'm shocked to think you'd say that with a straight face. He was put before a grand jury, almost indicted, and became the second president in U.S. history to be impeached. At the time adultery was even a federal crime in the District of Columbia. It dominated U.S. politics for the latter part of Clinton's presidency, and made it significantly harder for him to achieve political goals.