Proximity means the kind of succession law where the closest relative gets the crown, regardless of seniority.
Example: Brother will inherit before grandson.
This is similar to seniority succession, although the closest relative won't always be older that all of the cousins, of course.
This is also how claims effectively work in this game. You can't inherit a strong claim if you haven't yourself been a 'pretender' in a previous succession and haven't been awarded a strong claim as one of the top 3 people in the line of succession when a previous ruler died.
Thus, if a deposed king only has a son after being deposed, that son will inherit only a weak claim, if any at all. But the deposed king's next oldest brother (and even perhaps some of the uncles) will have strong claims. The result is that the brother will be able to press that claim, whereas for the son it will be difficult (weak claimants face a lot of restrictions, like regency/imprisonment/female incumbent).
This is not reflective of how things work in primo.
If de facto succession to the crown is decided on the basis of seniority of line (not seniority of age, or generation, or proximity of blood), as in eldest son of eldest son and son, then claims and succession of claims also should follow the same system.
For example, in my current game the original kings of Norway were at some point reduced to dukes on the Swedish side (same dynasty). But instead of those dukes, a mere bishop somewher is the better claimant because, well, he has that strong claim.
By contrast, the rightful king is claimless. Well, he would be the rightful king under primo. But this is also possible under primo.
Recap
The current claim succession law is proximity of blood, no matter what law the actual throne/crown follows. This is good for Elective (where it makes sense to restrict claimants to very close relatives of a previous holder) and not very relevant in Seniority, but it's a bad fit for Primo or for normal Gavelkind.
Falsifiability
My suggestion is obviously a little biased in favour of tracking the rightful heir Aragorn-style, while showing less regard for things like actually raising your claim or facing prescription (expiry). Still, I believe that if a childless Primo king gets deposed, his eldest son born after the deposition should inherit a strong, not a weak claim. It would be useful also to have long-standing Trebisond/Komnenos-style claims. In fact, even the Plantagenet claim that gave rise to the Hundred Years War — in CK2, after white-peacing and dying, your king's heirs would only be weak claimants, basically making HYW only viable when the incumbent Valois king of France is a child, incapacitated, imprisoned or on a pilgrimage.
Thus, it's possible to disagree and have a point, but it can't really be dismissed, and it would be beneficial anyway.
Example: Brother will inherit before grandson.
This is similar to seniority succession, although the closest relative won't always be older that all of the cousins, of course.
This is also how claims effectively work in this game. You can't inherit a strong claim if you haven't yourself been a 'pretender' in a previous succession and haven't been awarded a strong claim as one of the top 3 people in the line of succession when a previous ruler died.
Thus, if a deposed king only has a son after being deposed, that son will inherit only a weak claim, if any at all. But the deposed king's next oldest brother (and even perhaps some of the uncles) will have strong claims. The result is that the brother will be able to press that claim, whereas for the son it will be difficult (weak claimants face a lot of restrictions, like regency/imprisonment/female incumbent).
This is not reflective of how things work in primo.
If de facto succession to the crown is decided on the basis of seniority of line (not seniority of age, or generation, or proximity of blood), as in eldest son of eldest son and son, then claims and succession of claims also should follow the same system.
For example, in my current game the original kings of Norway were at some point reduced to dukes on the Swedish side (same dynasty). But instead of those dukes, a mere bishop somewher is the better claimant because, well, he has that strong claim.
By contrast, the rightful king is claimless. Well, he would be the rightful king under primo. But this is also possible under primo.
Recap
The current claim succession law is proximity of blood, no matter what law the actual throne/crown follows. This is good for Elective (where it makes sense to restrict claimants to very close relatives of a previous holder) and not very relevant in Seniority, but it's a bad fit for Primo or for normal Gavelkind.
Falsifiability
My suggestion is obviously a little biased in favour of tracking the rightful heir Aragorn-style, while showing less regard for things like actually raising your claim or facing prescription (expiry). Still, I believe that if a childless Primo king gets deposed, his eldest son born after the deposition should inherit a strong, not a weak claim. It would be useful also to have long-standing Trebisond/Komnenos-style claims. In fact, even the Plantagenet claim that gave rise to the Hundred Years War — in CK2, after white-peacing and dying, your king's heirs would only be weak claimants, basically making HYW only viable when the incumbent Valois king of France is a child, incapacitated, imprisoned or on a pilgrimage.
Thus, it's possible to disagree and have a point, but it can't really be dismissed, and it would be beneficial anyway.
Upvote
0