Divorce in CKII

[Drakken]

By the same token, Henry VIII received annulments from the Church of England (still very conservative in terms of theology) for his wives Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn, but no one to my knowledge ever considered his daughters Mary and Elizabeth to be bastards, and both ultimately succeeded to the throne. But maybe someone better versed in medieval canon law should take up the question.

Oh yes, both Mary and Elizabeth were considered bastards in the eyes of the law and were thus excluded from the succession when Henry's marriages with their respective mothers were annuled. Remember that Mary didn't succeed Edward, since both were deemed bastards Edward VI's will gave the rights to his crown to Lady Frances Grey and her heirs, which she renounced in favour of her daughter Lady Jane Grey. The fact that Mary was Catholic, and Elizabeth was the daughter of a woman widely despised as a "whore", however, did play in the balance, and I am sure that had Mary been a Protestant she would have been too strong a contender to ignore.

Mary Tudor took her crown by a "coup de Majesté", and Elizabeth was only relegitimated when Mary Tudor was agonizing on her death bed and no other acceptable heir could be found.

 

[RedRooster81]

Oh yes, both Mary and Elizabeth were considered bastards in the eyes of the law and were thus excluded from the succession when Henry's marriages with their respective mothers were annuled. Remember that Mary didn't succeed Edward, since both were deemed bastards Edward VI's will gave the rights to his crown to Lady Frances Grey and her heirs, which she renounced in favour of her daughter Lady Jane Grey. The fact that Mary was Catholic, and Elizabeth was the daughter of a woman widely despised as a "whore", however, did play in the balance, and I am sure that had Mary been a Protestant she would have been too strong a contender to ignore.

Mary Tudor took her crown by a "coup de Majesté", and Elizabeth was only relegitimated when Mary Tudor was agonizing on her death bed and no other acceptable heir could be found.

Thanks for the clarification. I understand that English bastardy laws were more rigid than on the continent, but I suppose the same idea prevailed: invalid marriage, illegitimate children.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Since you obviously need church support for any marriage annulment this could be interesting. Gives the Pope something to do.

 

[Don_giorgio]

I would suggest that if player seeks annulment on grounds of consanguinity then the marriage is declared null and void and his children gain the trait "bastard"... Now if he seeks annulment on grounds of infidelity etc. he has far less chances to succeed in his plea than consanguinity but his children have the chance to retain their status...

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Nope. Annulment, however it is done indicates that the marriage never existed. Therefore the children from that marriage are bastards, no matter the reason for the annulment.

If the wife is unfaithful the options basically come down to ignoring it, killing her, or imprisoning her. If she is left alive you cannot remarry. If she is killed, you could gain "Kinslayer". If it is ignored, there is a chance of more children who aren't yours being born.

On the upside though, at least you are getting heirs made available if she is unfaithful and fertile. After all, unless there is a really good reason, no one is going to admit that the child of their wife is not theirs. Therefore, only unmarried women should be producing bastards, although if it is known that an affair is going on, the man responsible could claim the child to be their bastard, even if the mother is married to someone else. This should produce fallings out between the husband and the father, and probably result in reputation/status drops for both of them - the husband could gain the "Cuckold" trait, the father the "Unfaithful" or "Adulterer" trait, with the mother similarly stained. It does however mean that the father at least can try to claim the child as an heir, albeit a bastard.


If a man has the "Infertile" trait, and has gained it in such a way that it would be known - war wound, profligate lifestyle leading to disease, publically castrated - and his wife then has a child after that, then that child should automatically be considered a bastard, or a miracle. This would have the trait effects above.

 

[RedRooster81]

Nope. Annulment, however it is done indicates that the marriage never existed. Therefore the children from that marriage are bastards, no matter the reason for the annulment.

If the wife is unfaithful the options basically come down to ignoring it, killing her, or imprisoning her. If she is left alive you cannot remarry. If she is killed, you could gain "Kinslayer". If it is ignored, there is a chance of more children who aren't yours being born.

On the upside though, at least you are getting heirs made available if she is unfaithful and fertile. After all, unless there is a really good reason, no one is going to admit that the child of their wife is not theirs. Therefore, only unmarried women should be producing bastards, although if it is known that an affair is going on, the man responsible could claim the child to be their bastard, even if the mother is married to someone else. This should produce fallings out between the husband and the father, and probably result in reputation/status drops for both of them - the husband could gain the "Cuckold" trait, the father the "Unfaithful" or "Adulterer" trait, with the mother similarly stained. It does however mean that the father at least can try to claim the child as an heir, albeit a bastard.


If a man has the "Infertile" trait, and has gained it in such a way that it would be known - war wound, profligate lifestyle leading to disease, publically castrated - and his wife then has a child after that, then that child should automatically be considered a bastard, or a miracle. This would have the trait effects above.

I think that you are dead on with this one. It is all about appearances, and the law of primogeniture denotes that the patrimony shall pass to the eldest son of the current holder's wife. Guaranteeing the succession was the key object, and by canon law btw the only way a wife could really get an annulment (adultery on her husband's part was in practice out of the question as a justification) was by claiming impotence, for which a committee of physicians "tested" the husband (which was rather uncomfortable for everyone involved).

 

[Don_giorgio]

I think that you are dead on with this one. It is all about appearances, and the law of primogeniture denotes that the patrimony shall pass to the eldest son of the current holder's wife. Guaranteeing the succession was the key object, and by canon law btw the only way a wife could really get an annulment (adultery on her husband's part was in practice out of the question as a justification) was by claiming impotence, for which a committee of physicians "tested" the husband (which was rather uncomfortable for everyone involved).

Well that could make a nice event... You marry your secretly homosexual son to a princess and then she starts giving birth to children... Someone notices the fact that your son is homosexual (spymaster maybe?) and starts causing troubles in court... so the man in question could be examined and found that he is impotent/not interested in women etc. and an annulment is granted while children are declared bastards...

 

[RedRooster81]

Well that could make a nice event... You marry your secretly homosexual son to a princess and then she starts giving birth to children... Someone notices the fact that your son is homosexual (spymaster maybe?) and starts causing troubles in court... so the man in question could be examined and found that he is impotent/not interested in women etc. and an annulment is granted while children are declared bastards...

Well, every family has secrets, and your spymaster's job is to keep your secrets and find out everyone else's, but a disgruntled spymaster could tell the Inquisition all kinds of things about just what is going on. "I must unburden myself. The king is a pagan, his son is a sodomite, and the princess... oh the secrets that plague my soul."

 

[unmerged(174860)]

Je suis un catholique romaine: divorce = non!

 

[unmerged(226921)]

What if, and this is a major hypothetical if, your character was gay and didn't need divorce? How would the game handle this? Does the throne pass to a brother?


The Great

 

[RedRooster81]

What if, and this is a major hypothetical if, your character was gay and didn't need divorce? How would the game handle this? Does the throne pass to a brother?


The Great

It would pass to the next heir, according to the succession laws in your kingdom (or duchy or county)... with primogeniture, it would go to the next older brother (or sister in some circumstances), and failing that an uncle or cousin. This is what happened to William II, known as Rufus, who succeeded William the Conquerer. He was pretty openly gay and the throne went to his brother Henry I.

If he had an arranged marriage or married for political reasons, same result, unless the queen or her family demanded a divorce on learning of his "orientation" (in today's lingo) or for impotence (really the only excuse a woman could practically use) or had a child by another man and claimed it was the king's. Technically, the eldest son of the wife of a nobleman (barring public accusations of illegitimacy) would inherit. No paternity tests in those days, after all.

 

[unmerged(226921)]

Then I can't wait to see the dreaded flamboyant Lion Heart get whats what when that dreaded French bolt penetrates his not so silky skin. I always enjoyed such things in the original CK in the capacity as Lord of Ireland.


The Great

 

[Don_giorgio]

Perhaps a Pope hostile to u or your Dynasty might try to dissolve your marriage (and potential alliances) on ground of (real or fabricated) consanguinity... This could be a nice event when your enemy's spymaster is pressing the Pope to dissolve your marriage throwing your realm in crisis...

 

[RedRooster81]

Perhaps a Pope hostile to u or your Dynasty might try to dissolve your marriage (and potential alliances) on ground of (real or fabricated) consanguinity... This could be a nice event when your enemy's spymaster is pressing the Pope to dissolve your marriage throwing your realm in crisis...

Yeah, I guess that's possible. It depends on personal relations, so be sure to send your younger son to be fostered at the papal court Most of the nobility were inbred in actuality, so this was always an escape hatch, but an irate father-in-law (or one concerned that his son-in-law is impotent or a heretic) might seek such a dissolution.

 

[Don_giorgio]

Well to add a little twist if u have 5 sons for example u can send your youngest in papal court to become a clergyman and a cardinal perhaps so with a son acting as a mediator between u and Pope directly opponents would have less chances to convince the Pope...

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

For crying out loud!
I've coped with it for a while, but Don_giorgio, can you please learn to use at least a basic level of punctuation. Not using it makes sentences somewhat hard to read, and in some case can make it ambiguous as to what it actually means. (In addition, the ellipsis (...) is only really meant for broken sentences and where what you are saying trails off or is interrupted, not as a general terminator for sentences.)

Right. Grammar rant over.

I will admit, having a relative at the papal court would probably help get an annulment if you have good reasons (by canon law). However, what if the relative was/would be your heir if the annulment was refused? Oh the conflict! Oh the possibilities to gain traits and make family members fall out!

 

[Drakken]

What if, and this is a major hypothetical if, your character was gay and didn't need divorce? How would the game handle this? Does the throne pass to a brother?

The Great

Irrelevant, there was no such thing as a "gay" person in the Middle Ages, but buggery. You were still expected to father an heir, and so you got married and swallowed the pill. Even if it meant, like Edward II allegedly did, bringing your male lover to the bed to stimulate you before accomplishing your duty (no wonder Isabella loathed her husband).

William Rufus was suspected to be flamboyantly gay (and openly irreligious at that), and he was loathed for it, especially by the Church some kind of proto-Antichrist. Richard the Lionheart was smarter than that, he got married but remained in Western Europe about only a few months, not long enough to father an heir. And his "passion" with Philippe II Augustus remains a rumor, there is no concrete proof of buggery.

 

[RedRooster81]

Irrelevant, there was no such thing as a "gay" person in the Middle Ages, but buggery. You were still expected to father an heir, and so you got married and swallowed the pill. Even if it meant, like Edward II allegedly did, bringing your male lover to the bed to stimulate you before accomplishing your duty (no wonder Isabella loathed her husband).

William Rufus was suspected to be flamboyantly gay (and openly irreligious at that), and he was loathed for it, especially by the Church some kind of proto-Antichrist. Richard the Lionheart was smarter than that, he got married but remained in Western Europe about only a few months, not long enough to father an heir. And his "passion" with Philippe II Augustus remains a rumor, there is no concrete proof of buggery.

I concur. Homosexuality as a defined identity really comes out of the late XIX, early XX century. Before that, people were more defined by actions, and in the ancient and medieval worlds sexuality took a wide range of forms in the same individual. This was a big issue when I studied history of sociology, so I am putting it out there.

Not to say that there were not preferences, but generally speaking arranged marriages were meant to create someone to whom to pass titles, lands, and wealth. Love was a different matter, and a nobleman's closest relationships (in terms of emotional attachment) was with his comrades in arms. But hopefully both partners ended up liking each other over time. I do love when in CK1 the spousal rivalry event fires within a week of the marriage proposal being accepted.

 

[Orinsul]

The game needs divorce and it has nothing to do with history or bias or any of the arguments being presented here.
In CK the player is put to in a position whereby to be able to continue playing the game he must kill his current monarchs wife.
It is insufferable to have a game that rewards the player for this, the game must have divorce or annulment or whatever you want to call it, so that it is not in the advantage of the player to have old or barren wives murdered.
Annulments were common in the period and the word has less politics attachted to it and so id reckon itd be the word to use. Also it requires permission from a bishop so theres an event chain potential rather than a simple button, and theyre always fun.

 

[RedRooster81]

The game needs divorce and it has nothing to do with history or bias or any of the arguments being presented here.
In CK the player is put to in a position whereby to be able to continue playing the game he must kill his current monarchs wife.
It is insufferable to have a game that rewards the player for this, the game must have divorce or annulment or whatever you want to call it, so that it is not in the advantage of the player to have old or barren wives murdered.
Annulments were common in the period and the word has less politics attachted to it and so id reckon itd be the word to use. Also it requires permission from a bishop so theres an event chain potential rather than a simple button, and theyre always fun.

You make a good case for annulments, direct and to the point. The proper coding would have to be present (something like <break_marriage>) so that you can end marriages without editing save files or killing one spouse, but I think that you present a good case.