Disinheriting legitimate children

[Jaevelklein]

I'd like to suggest a mechanism where we can disinherit our legitimate children under certain conditions.

Per wiki:

• Traitor:
  • a direct vassal who rebelled, and liege won
  • a direct vassal who refused to stop backing a plot
  • a direct vassal who refused a demand for gavelkind or liege interference in a war, with Late Feudal or Imperial Administration
  • if stacked (failed imprisonment of a character who was already a traitor?), allows revoking all titles instead of just one
• Murderous Traitor (caught while killing my close relative who was under my control)

"Which" modifiers can be discussed and debated, but I think it would make for quite a small little addition to the game to be able to disinherit legitimate children under conditions where they have committed some serious atrocities.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Two things:

• They should get claims to the titles they are disinherited from the succession of
• It should probably generate a small amount of tyranny, or otherwise make it so that disinherited children are more likely to gain support to regain their lost inheritance.

 

[Jaevelklein]

Two things:

• It should probably generate a small amount of tyranny, or otherwise make it so that disinherited children are more likely to gain support to regain their lost inheritance.

Factions often support a claimant to a throne. Could make it so that if they are dissatisfied with their current ruler, they are much more prone on supporting his disinherited heir than some other random claimant. In other words a disinherited member gets a claimant weight bonus in factions. Other vassals are more likely to back him than someone else.

Anther modifier could be one upon succession. The king's vassals aren't necessarily convinced that it's legitimate when the 2nd son takes the throne. So they get a temporary -25 modifier towards the 2nd son (crowned king) and +25 opinion in favor of the disinherited son (1st son). Maybe for a period of 5 years, giving time for the 1st brother to rally support for his claim and for the 2nd son to calm the situation down by proving his worth.

The 2nd son could also have a "legitimized bastard" kind of modifier. I don't know what to call it, but it will always give a -1 diplomacy status and a -5 Vassal opinion. Despite being legitimized as a king, it was never really his destiny. A stain that he will forever be stuck with.

In addition to this, the 1st son (disinherited) should be able to join and create factions even if he's unlanded. Kind of like holy orders. And maybe give him a random amount of bonus event troops? Like 25% of the current ruler's personal demesne? So if the second son has 10,000 personal demesne troops, the first son gets 2,500 event troops to faction with.

If a faction doesn't start, he gets an option to leave the realm to become an adventure claimant elsewhere, returning as a host leading a bigger stack later. If ambitious, he will do this if a faction doesn't fire in a random period between 5-10 years. If neither ambitious, or content, he will only faction for his claim. Meaning even if no faction fire, he won't become an adventurer, unlike if lets say he's the ambitious type. And if content, he will neither start or join a faction. But do notice that he might still be the claimant for other vassals factioning.

 

[Metanetwork]

Isn't that unrealistic? Once a ruler is dead, they can't tell their vassals what to do. Especially in the late feudal era, the order of succession was binding unless the heir presumtive joined the church (and sometimes even then) or renounced their claim by writing.

In the early feudal era, the order of succession was not as codified and a ruler had more flexibility to appoint his successor, but in the christian world, the usual way to disinherit someone was still to make them a monk or priest. Charlemagne ordered his nephews to take the vows and most of his sons were bastards; so the recommended ways to manage gavelkind in-game make sense.

 

[Almaron]

Well, there was at least one in-game case of something like this happening; William the Conqueror's eldest son Robert revolted against him, lost, and ended up wandering Europe and getting into all sorts of mischief while ignoring his father's demands to come home. William wanted to disinherit him, but was talked out of it on his deathbed and instead made him Duke of Normandy while his younger son William Rufus inherited instead. Robert and some nobles rose up to take the throne a few times, but it never succeeded and he ended up dying in captivity...

...there was another suggestion thread talking about this a while back; something like this where you can disinherit a son for rebelling against you would allow you to sort of represent what happened here, and it'd be an interesting extra mechanic.

 

[Almaron]

Actually, on a similar note, I'm reminded of an odd glitch I had a few games back with my ruler's heir to the throne, and it occurs to me it was kind of similar to what happened with Robert post-rebellion; going off and wandering Europe (siring bastards and trying to court Matilda of Tuscany for her vast realm) and refusing to come home and be heir...so perhaps with a 'disinherit' element it could become an actual event!

To elaborate, in this game my King of Jerusalem had two children; a daughter and a son. Succession was Agnatic-Cognatic, so the son was set to inherit...but something went wrong and somewhere along the line he ended up at the court of the Knights Templar. He hadn't joined the order or anything and was still set to inherit, but he enjoyed the order so much that he refused to be invited back to court and even refused marriage! It got to the point where I not only changed the succession law to True Cognatic so that his sister could inherit instead of him, but started trying to kill him (in the end my King died, and said annoying son inherited some random duchy, but his sister ended up assassinating him).

...anyway, perhaps that could be something that's worked in as an event; if for some reason your heir to the throne is in another court, an event could fire going "Hmm, they've not come to see me in a while, and they'll be expected to rule one day..." and gives you the option to forcibly 'Invite to Court', or threaten them with disinheritance. In theory it'd help avoid the issue I ran into while also allowing for some interesting RP mechanics...

 

[DukeLeto42]

Isn't that unrealistic? Once a ruler is dead, they can't tell their vassals what to do. Especially in the late feudal era, the order of succession was binding unless the heir presumtive joined the church (and sometimes even then) or renounced their claim by writing.

In the early feudal era, the order of succession was not as codified and a ruler had more flexibility to appoint his successor, but in the christian world, the usual way to disinherit someone was still to make them a monk or priest. Charlemagne ordered his nephews to take the vows and most of his sons were bastards; so the recommended ways to manage gavelkind in-game make sense.

Monastic life is a great way to handle excess heirs and bastards, but there's a reason revolts to install other rulers exist in the first place - because succession isn't fixed. The Anarchy, a period in English history where Stephen and Matilda fought over the crown, basically erupted over whether people wanted to see the direct line continue, but under the control of a woman while her son was a child, or to switch to a side branch of the family. The Hundred Years war (i.e. very much Late Middle Ages) began because the French king had no son, making the legitimate heir to the French crown the English king. The French nobility invented an entire law stating that the royal line couldn't pass through women, thus making a distance cadet branch of the dynasty (the Valois) the rightful kings.

Succession was ultimately up to the loyalty of vassals, who could, if they were highly motivated to break tradition, find all sorts of reasons to push for a different heir. A clever ruler could easily invent a rationale their firstborn was incapable or unfit to rule (for example, they're an imbecile), and convince his vassals of its legitimacy enough to disqualify them.

 

[GoukaRyuu]

Well, there was at least one in-game case of something like this happening; William the Conqueror's eldest son Robert revolted against him, lost, and ended up wandering Europe and getting into all sorts of mischief while ignoring his father's demands to come home. William wanted to disinherit him, but was talked out of it on his deathbed and instead made him Duke of Normandy while his younger son William Rufus inherited instead. Robert and some nobles rose up to take the throne a few times, but it never succeeded and he ended up dying in captivity...

...there was another suggestion thread talking about this a while back; something like this where you can disinherit a son for rebelling against you would allow you to sort of represent what happened here, and it'd be an interesting extra mechanic.

I have argued that either gavel-kind should work that way or there should be a form of gavel-kind unlocked at a certain level of Legalism that allows you to "write a will" and divide your titles and physical assets up among your sons. In this way you could have you first born getting the duchy, the second the kingdom title, and the third a large amount of gold (Which in true CK2 fashion he can use to assassinate and take the King title and then go over and take the duchy).

 

[Metanetwork]

The Hundred Years war (i.e. very much Late Middle Ages) began because the French king had no son, making the legitimate heir to the French crown the English king. The French nobility invented an entire law stating that the royal line couldn't pass through women, thus making a distance cadet branch of the dynasty (the Valois) the rightful kings.

First of, the agnatic principle was instituted ten years before, because the throne would have passed to Joan II. Since she resigned in exchange for the kingdom of Navarre, the throne of France would have passed to Joan of Burgundy and then Mary of France (cousins of Edward III). Edward III had a weak claim, which he pressed when Philip VI attempted to revoke the duchy of Aquitaine. (The game doesn't allow kings to have vassal kings, but AFAIK a vassal faction can push a weak claimant.)

Technically, the peers of the realm had a right to decide on the succession of France, and they designated Philip VI against Edward III. Then again, the game doesn't let a title have both primogeniture and elective feudal.

 

[Jaevelklein]

First of, the agnatic principle was instituted ten years before, because the throne would have passed to Joan II. Since she resigned in exchange for the kingdom of Navarre, the throne of France would have passed to Joan of Burgundy and then Mary of France (cousins of Edward III). Edward III had a weak claim, which he pressed when Philip VI attempted to revoke the duchy of Aquitaine. (The game doesn't allow kings to have vassal kings, but AFAIK a vassal faction can push a weak claimant.)

Technically, the peers of the realm had a right to decide on the succession of France, and they designated Philip VI against Edward III. Then again, the game doesn't let a title have both primogeniture and elective feudal.

What's your thoughts on succession turning to temporary-elective once and if the ruling dynasty has no heir? I.e as long as it's the same dynasty ruling, the succession remains the same. But the change of ruling dynasty makes the realm very unstable and it's not certain who have the most legitimacy to become the next king. Meaning that the feudal lords then elect their new ruler and after it, it defaults back to primogeniture again which was the default succession type. So for instance while I have no heir, the game turns my succession to temporary-elective. But as soon as I get a legitimate heir it's back to the original succession type, be it gavelkind or primogeniture. Then my heir dies and I get temporary-elective succession again until I get a new legitimate heir. During this period the Vassals will already have a candidate in mind, so that there will always be a king ready to avoid situations where a huge realm has dozens of vassals but no ruling king, because the succession takes place afterwards.

 

[DukeLeto42]

First of, the agnatic principle was instituted ten years before, because the throne would have passed to Joan II. Since she resigned in exchange for the kingdom of Navarre, the throne of France would have passed to Joan of Burgundy and then Mary of France (cousins of Edward III). Edward III had a weak claim, which he pressed when Philip VI attempted to revoke the duchy of Aquitaine. (The game doesn't allow kings to have vassal kings, but AFAIK a vassal faction can push a weak claimant.)

Technically, the peers of the realm had a right to decide on the succession of France, and they designated Philip VI against Edward III. Then again, the game doesn't let a title have both primogeniture and elective feudal.

Except that's not what happened. There are two forms of agnatic restrictions: first, preventing the throne from passing to a woman (the case of Joan II), and second, disallowing succession to pass via a woman to a male heir (in this case, Edward III). The Capetians had been reliably producing male heirs for generations and this problem hadn't come up, but the first restriction was well understood. However, based on the expected succession, Edward III would become king, as there was no legal restriction to inheritance through a female line. Of course, this would put England and France under the same crown, and the French nobility weren't having that.

To prevent it, they invented a law, forging a document purporting to be a Merovingian one (i.e. a portion of the "Salic Law") that prevented inheritance from passing via a female line. This disqualified Edward III from the succession, but due to being a recent forgery the justification was pretty flimsy. This is why Edward III was willing to push his claim (but only 10 years later, because he was a child when the last Capetian died).

What's your thoughts on succession turning to temporary-elective once and if the ruling dynasty has no heir? I.e as long as it's the same dynasty ruling, the succession remains the same. But the change of ruling dynasty makes the realm very unstable and it's not certain who have the most legitimacy to become the next king. Meaning that the feudal lords then elect their new ruler and after it, it defaults back to primogeniture again which was the default succession type. So for instance while I have no heir, the game turns my succession to temporary-elective. But as soon as I get a legitimate heir it's back to the original succession type, be it gavelkind or primogeniture. Than my heir dies and I get temporary-elective succession again until I get a new legitimate heir. During this period the Vassals will already have a candidate in mind, so that there will always be a king ready to avoid situations where a huge realm has dozens of vassals but no ruling king, because the succession takes place afterwards.

For independent realms, this makes sense. It calls to mind the election of Harold Godwinson in 1066 after Edward the Confessor died with no heir. Rather than elect foreigners with real claims to the throne, they elected a powerful fellow vassal who had already gained support and most importantly was part of their realm. For non-independent realms, this is a bit more complicated, because a fiefdom should revert to a king when there are no legitimate heirs. That being said, if a king doesn't have a lot of authority, he may not be able to return those lands to the crown and decide from there how to use them.

 

[Metanetwork]

Except that's not what happened. There are two forms of agnatic restrictions: first, preventing the throne from passing to a woman (the case of Joan II), and second, disallowing succession to pass via a woman to a male heir (in this case, Edward III). The Capetians had been reliably producing male heirs for generations and this problem hadn't come up, but the first restriction was well understood. However, based on the expected succession, Edward III would become king, as there was no legal restriction to inheritance through a female line. Of course, this would put England and France under the same crown, and the French nobility weren't having that.

Then again, the peers of the realm had the right to elect the king, which just hadn't come up until that moment. The French were more inclined to accept male-preference than agnatic-cognatic, which is why they made Joan II sign her resignation in the first place. But even assuming that inheritance could pass "through" a woman (ie. agnatic-cognatic), Edward III would have ranked lower in the line of succession than his cousin Philip of Burgundy (grandson of Philip V), born in 1323.

Furthermore, waiting ten years to press his claim would itself have disqualified Edward III under the French laws of inheritance is passed to the successor at the instant of death ("le mort saisit le vif", an accepted custom documented since 1259). Edward III's claim was flimsy, without needing to quote salic law (the authentic law or the purportedly "forged" version).