I was doing some thinking to myself on what is really meant by de facto and de jure, especially in terms of roleplaying and what it all means. A de facto independent county within the de jure boundaries of a created king-or-empire level title is still subject to some of the laws imposed by the monarch (that's why you can't have primo succession if your de jure liege has low crown authority, etc.)
Both terms go hand in hand with one another; de jure usually means by law but not necessarily by practise, while de facto means in practise but not necessarily the letter of the law. I know you all know this, I'm not treating you like fools I'm just trying to lay down my train of thought. That is to say (using Ireland as an example because everyone knows it), let's say I'm playing as an independent Earl of Desmond, with all the other Irish counties/duchies created and in vassalage to the King of Ireland. Within game terms, then, doesn't this effectively mean that I am part of the realm that is the Kingdom of Ireland and subject to its laws, however my character is choosing to ignore those laws and rule moderately independently (in roleplaying terms this would be in stark contrast to an independent lord who has no existing de jure titles above his own).
To put it more plainly, imagine the governor of (say) Texas decided to ignore the Federal Government and do his own thing, even though he had never formally seceded from the United States and was therefore still a part of it. Isn't that more or less what de facto independence within a de jure kingdom represents? As far as the king is concerned, we (the independent player) are his lawful vassal; we just choose to ignore that fact and do our own thing.
I'm not writing this post to make any particularly important point or to suggest some change to the game itself I just though I'd voice my thoughts regarding how de jure realms are viewed by roleplayers and people writing AARs. I think it's an interesting point to think about, and could colour your actions if you're one of those players (like me) who lets their roleplaying affect the decisions they make in-game.
Both terms go hand in hand with one another; de jure usually means by law but not necessarily by practise, while de facto means in practise but not necessarily the letter of the law. I know you all know this, I'm not treating you like fools I'm just trying to lay down my train of thought. That is to say (using Ireland as an example because everyone knows it), let's say I'm playing as an independent Earl of Desmond, with all the other Irish counties/duchies created and in vassalage to the King of Ireland. Within game terms, then, doesn't this effectively mean that I am part of the realm that is the Kingdom of Ireland and subject to its laws, however my character is choosing to ignore those laws and rule moderately independently (in roleplaying terms this would be in stark contrast to an independent lord who has no existing de jure titles above his own).
To put it more plainly, imagine the governor of (say) Texas decided to ignore the Federal Government and do his own thing, even though he had never formally seceded from the United States and was therefore still a part of it. Isn't that more or less what de facto independence within a de jure kingdom represents? As far as the king is concerned, we (the independent player) are his lawful vassal; we just choose to ignore that fact and do our own thing.
I'm not writing this post to make any particularly important point or to suggest some change to the game itself I just though I'd voice my thoughts regarding how de jure realms are viewed by roleplayers and people writing AARs. I think it's an interesting point to think about, and could colour your actions if you're one of those players (like me) who lets their roleplaying affect the decisions they make in-game.
