Agnatic-cognatic primogeniture not working as intended? (Wrong heir)

[NewbieOne]

I wouldn't like to copy the thread but please see the link:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...geniture-not-working-as-intended-(Wrong-heir)

In short: the game seems to apply proximity of blood in primogeniture, missing the principle of representation. Grandchildren don't fill in for dead sons. There is some room for debate in the case of the dead first son's only daughter vs the living second son in agnatic-cognatic but I believe the preference of senior lines of descent should be absolute here, i.e. even in agnatic-cognatic the grand-daughter should win in this case because her father, while not a ruler himself, basically eliminated his junior brothers from succession. You could argue that her uncle was still a suitable male heir, though. What I would like is clarification, to be honest. I can easily accept that in CK2 the second son wins against the dead first son's only daughter under agnatic-cognatic primogeniture if this is confirmed to be WAD. But I'd like to know that it is indeed WAD and not e.g. a missing script for the principle of representation. People have reported grandsons getting skipped and it has actually happened to me once but after reloading the game from a save the heir was different (properly the grandson). You could make proximity of blood a separate optional law perhaps? Even brothers of monarchs sometimes preceded their sons but that was generally an ad-hoc form of dynastically closed election, not an organised form of primogeniture.

 

[K-vald]

Just to make sure I understand you right:
You argue that the still living son of the living ruler shouldn't be the heir since the living grandson of the ruler should be more eligible as heir to the kingdom of the ruler?

If this is the case then yes, I would say it's indeed WAD since sons are "more" next-in-line than grandsons.

 

[londoner247]

For primogeniture a grandson of the first son would trump the monarch's second son (e.g. Prince William is second in line to the British throne behind Prince Charles but ahead of Prince Andrew).

What the OP seems to be saying is that if you have agnatic-cognatic then the first son's only daughter should trump the second son if the first son dies before succeeding to the throne. He seems to be correct in theory but he accepts that the game mechanic may have been deliberately implemented differently.

 

[NewbieOne]

Just to make sure I understand you right:
You argue that the still living son of the living ruler shouldn't be the heir since the living grandson of the ruler should be more eligible as heir to the kingdom of the ruler?

If this is the case then yes, I would say it's indeed WAD since sons are "more" next-in-line than grandsons.

Yes, you understood me right. Thanks for the confirmation. The most important thing is off my plate. I can live with that even though I disagree with the interpretation (kings were sometimes powerless against succession laws too).

But. I believe a more historically accurate interpretation of primogeniture is not blood proximity but representation. Please look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture

Edward the Black Prince's son Richard II inherited despite having three living uncles, including John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, which led to the Wars of the Roses. Currently, Prince William and Prince Henry precede Prince Andrew and Prince Edward.

As for male preference: If both Prince Charles and Prince William died but William managed to have a sole daughter, Harry wouldn't become the King and neither would Andrew. Elisabeth II had plenty of uncles and male cousins and still inherited because she was dynastically senior (this is seniority of descent, not of age, as in the seniority succession in which the eldest living dynast inherits regardless how far removed). On the other hand, she wouldn't have inherited if she had had an elder brother (so no absolute cognatic).

For primogeniture a grandson of the first son would trump the monarch's second son (e.g. Prince William is second in line to the British throne behind Prince Charles but ahead of Prince Andrew).

What the OP seems to be saying is that if you have agnatic-cognatic then the first son's only daughter should trump the second son if the first son dies before succeeding to the throne. He seems to be correct in theory but he accepts that the game mechanic may have been deliberately implemented differently.

Agreed on both accounts.

The first account is basically the principle of representation a.k.a. substitution. In everyday situation this means that when an ordinary person dies, the two children of a deceased child of the inheritee get each a half of the share that their uncles or aunts get (they substitute, together, for the dead heir).

On the other hand, you could probably identify a principle of proximity in blood (closest relative, no representation/substitution) in some systems but this wouldn't be standard primogeniture. The very name primogeniture implies this all-trumping emphasis on the seniority of descent (inheritance on proximity basis could still favour the elder brother just like gavelkind does in giving him the best title, second best to second oldest etc.).

The reason why I primarily wanted to know if this was WAD was because I recognise that there could be different interpretations. But I believe that standard primogeniture certainly has grandons by dead elder sons trump uncles who are younger sons. (I also believe that grand-daughters would trump junior sons, i.e. their uncles, because they stand in the place of their dead father under the representation principle).

 

[K-vald]

Yes, you understood me right. Thanks for the confirmation. The most important thing is off my plate. I can live with that even though I disagree with the interpretation (kings were sometimes powerless against succession laws too).

But. I believe a more historically accurate interpretation of primogeniture is not blood proximity but representation. Please look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture

Edward the Black Prince's son Richard II inherited despite having three living uncles, including John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, which led to the Wars of the Roses. Currently, Prince William and Prince Henry precede Prince Andrew and Prince Edward.

As for male preference: If both Prince Charles and Prince William died but William managed to have a sole daughter, Harry wouldn't become the King and neither would Andrew. Elisabeth II had plenty of uncles and male cousins and still inherited because she was dynastically senior (this is seniority of descent, not of age, as in the seniority succession in which the eldest living dynast inherits regardless how far removed). On the other hand, she wouldn't have inherited if she had had an elder brother (so no absolute cognatic).

That's an interesting point. However, you described the problem as a male descendant to the ruler was more eligible than the DAUGTHER (pardon my mistake in writing grandson earlier) to the deceased rightful descendant to the ruler. This seems to be quite adequate, but if there was a male son of the ruler, having precedence over the grandSON of the ruler then I must say that this indeed sounds a bit off, at least considering primogeniture as it is in real life.

 

[londoner247]

That's an interesting point. However, you described the problem as a male descendant to the ruler was more eligible than the DAUGTHER (pardon my mistake in writing grandson earlier) to the deceased rightful descendant to the ruler. This seems to be quite adequate, but if there was a male son of the ruler, having precedence over the grandSON of the ruler then I must say that this indeed sounds a bit off, at least considering primogeniture as it is in real life.

It seems like there is some confusion over what was being queried here.

As I understood it, the OP was saying that the King had had at least two sons. The eldest son had had one daughter before he then died. In agnatic-cognatic primogeniture that should mean that the King's grandaughter, the only child of his (now deceased) eldest son should be his heir but in fact the system was showing her uncle, the King's second son, as the heir.

Perhaps the OP could confirm if I am right and, either way, perhaps K-vald could confirm what should happen in the scenario I have outlined.

 

[K-vald]

It seems like there is some confusion over what was being queried here.

As I understood it, the OP was saying that the King had had at least two sons. The eldest son had had one daughter before he then died. In agnatic-cognatic primogeniture that should mean that the King's grandaughter, the only child of his (now deceased) eldest son should be his heir but in fact the system was showing her uncle, the King's second son, as the heir.

Perhaps the OP could confirm if I am right and, either way, perhaps K-vald could confirm what should happen in the scenario I have outlined.

Yes, some confusion indeed. But that ought a be cleared up soon, hopefully..

In that scenario you described it should, according to the agnatic-cognatic part, be the uncle (the second son of the king) who's inherits the kingdom instead of the granddaughter.
Just to make everything perfectly clear; the agnatic-cognatic succession system means that women CAN inherit, but only if there is no eligible males. That is, if the king did not have any more children then the granddaughter would be the heir.

 

[londoner247]

Thanks for that.

The games rules are clear now, to me at least.

 

[NewbieOne]

As for the confusion regarding my situation: King Siegmund has his first son Gilbert, second Godfrey and so on. Gilbert marries a foreign queen and has daughter Blanche (in my court, just to rule out any interference with allegiance mechanics), no other children. Gilbert dies before King Siegmund. Godfrey the Insolent Ungrateful Rebel gets appointed heir by the game while in prison. Blanche does not get appointed to be the heir. SO: I thought that Blanche should yield to any brothers but not to any uncles (younger than her father), as in male preference applying between siblings. It turns out under K-vald's explanation that male preference is more total. Basically as long as there is any male heir to be construed in any way, Blanche gets nothing (even the king's brother, and he has a couple, would inherit instead of her).

So case solved, right?

Yes, some confusion indeed. But that ought a be cleared up soon, hopefully..

In that scenario you described it should, according to the agnatic-cognatic part, be the uncle (the second son of the king) who's inherits the kingdom instead of the granddaughter.
Just to make everything perfectly clear; the agnatic-cognatic succession system means that women CAN inherit, but only if there is no eligible males. That is, if the king did not have any more children then the granddaughter would be the heir.

I see. That's fully clear now when it comes to offspring. I basically didn't know at which point the male preference was applied by design.

But, what about the grandson, since we've mentioned them? Example: Prince Charles dies before Elisabeth II, does Prince William become the heir or does Prince Andrew get lucky? This one I'm more tense about, since to favour Prince Andrew would mean to put proximity above primogeniture (William should represent/substitute for Charles). I do remember getting a second son as an heir despite the eldest son having a son. The elder son's son should precede a junior son.

Hypothetical in-game example (after reloading): Gilbert has a son Eric after Blanche. Gilbert dies. Under primogeniture Eric should become grandpa's heir to the Kingdom of Poland under primogeniture, whereas proximity would favour Godfrey. I know that proximity is more intuitive, as a school child I always pitied those uncles of kings and it seemed unfair to me, but in law, a dead son's living son will stand in his place to inherit from grandpa.

 

[K-vald]

As for the confusion regarding my situation: King Siegmund has his first son Gilbert, second Godfrey and so on. Gilbert marries a foreign queen and has daughter Blanche (in my court, just to rule out any interference with allegiance mechanics), no other children. Gilbert dies before King Siegmund. Godfrey the Insolent Ungrateful Rebel gets appointed heir by the game while in prison. Blanche does not get appointed to be the heir. SO: I thought that Blanche should yield to any brothers but not to any uncles (younger than her father), as in male preference applying between siblings. It turns out under K-vald's explanation that male preference is more total. Basically as long as there is any male heir to be construed in any way, Blanche gets nothing (even the king's brother, and he has a couple, would inherit instead of her).

So case solved, right?

It would seem like it's case closed, yes!

I see. That's fully clear now when it comes to offspring. I basically didn't know at which point the male preference was applied by design.

But, what about the grandson, since we've mentioned them? Example: Prince Charles dies before Elisabeth II, does Prince William become the heir or does Prince Andrew get lucky? This one I'm more tense about, since to favour Prince Andrew would mean to put proximity above primogeniture (William should represent/substitute for Charles). I do remember getting a second son as an heir despite the eldest son having a son. The elder son's son should precede a junior son.

Hypothetical in-game example (after reloading): Gilbert has a son Eric after Blanche. Gilbert dies. Under primogeniture Eric should become grandpa's heir to the Kingdom of Poland under primogeniture, whereas proximity would favour Godfrey.

It's implemented exactly as in reality. Meaning that, yes, "Eric" would be grandpa's heir. Same should go for the other example with Prince William.

 

[NewbieOne]

It would seem like it's case closed, yes!

Thanks. Hope I wasn't being too annoying in the process. Clarity and brevity are not my virtues.

Come to think of it, more options in succession laws could make a nice DLC. Just saying. Darn, I probably should try my hand at modding. Wish I had more free time.

It's implemented exactly as in reality. Meaning that, yes, "Eric" would be grandpa's heir. Same should go for the other example with Prince William.

Great! I was scared because I had that one game in which I had a living grandson by the dead first son and the second son became heir, once.

 

[BlckKnght]

So according to the Wikipedia page on Primogeniture there's a subtle difference between "Agnatic-Cognatic" Primogeniture and "Male Preference Cognatic" Primogeniture. The first says that women can only inherit if all of the men of the line have died out. The second says that women can inherit if they have no brothers (or if their brothers died with no children). The latter this seems to be what is implemented in the game.

The Wikipedia page does not specifically say if granddaughters via a deceased first son would take precedence over a second son under a Male Preference system, but I suspect so. For instance, in the current British line of Succession, Princess Beatrice of York (daughter of the current Queen's second son) is higher in precedence than Prince Edward (her Uncle, the Queen's third son). From the OP's report, it seems like this does not get handled correctly in the game.

To summarize: What the game calls Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture is really more like Male Preference Cognatic Primogeniture, as the current ruler's daughters are preferred to his brothers and more distant male relatives. In such a system, a ruler's granddaughters by a deceased older son should be preferred over younger sons (and their decedents), but the game currently does not do this. To solve this issue, the succession should either become truly Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture (picking female rulers only when there are no living males left in the dynasty) or granddaughters should be able to substitute for their fathers, as in a regular Male Preference Cognatic Primogeniture system.