Dynastic Splits

[Sleight of Hand]

Also, I think the issue with the Courtenays wasn't so much their distant birth but the fact they were impoverished, which may then have become a convenient excuse. They'd lost their territory in France centuries before and their adventures in Anatolia didn't last long or prove very fruitful.

There are still Courtenays in England I think, but I'm not sure about their situation in France.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

I had the impression this was the case before posting. However, I checked wiki and it link them as a cadet branch ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertians ), but I guess Wikipedia is wrong.

The two families are unrelated as far as I know, and I'm not aware of the Frankish family being related to the Luitpoldings, nor the Austrian branch being related to the Robertians.

The Austrian family descend from the youngest son of one of the dukes of Bavaria. I can't recall any marriages between them and the Robertians or later Capetians but of course I could be wrong.

 

[dasvira]

The two families are unrelated as far as I know, and I'm not aware of the Frankish family being related to the Luitpoldings, nor the Austrian branch being related to the Robertians.

The Austrian family descend from the youngest son of one of the dukes of Bavaria. I can't recall any marriages between them and the Robertians or later Capetians but of course I could be wrong.

I think you are right, In the end game screen in CK2 there are two babenberg dinasties, and it is joked that one of them is only remembered because they had the same name of the other.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

I think you are right, In the end game screen in CK2 there are two babenberg dinasties, and it is joked that one of them is only remembered because they had the same name of the other.

The Frankish family were quite important for around a century but later drifted into obscurity and relative poverty - they existed only as rulers of a small area (a barony in game) and no one took their claims seriously. They were tainted by accusations of treason and dishonour after the Babenberger Feud, which is probably the thing they're most known for (read about it) - their blood feud with the Imperial Conradine dynasty.

The Austrian family are more famous because they were around longer and basically founded Austria and supposedly provided the flag it still uses today. They still rule Austria in 1066.

 

[Olden Weiss]

'I have some distant relationship to Julius Ceasar, which means I'm pretty cool right?' and 'Oh, my dynasty originates from some random count somewhere, I suppose I'll let some other distant descendant of his disinherit my heir or something now...' Are two very different things.

True, but it doesn't necessarily make the latter less valid. In fact, it carries more weight. If your distant descendant is disinheriting your heir, it means one of two things:

A, your distant descendant is still a count, meaning you are still a count (lest you'd be the dynasty head), and thus that "random count" in your lineage is the one who originally gave you both a claim to nobility in the first place, or...

B, your distant descendant is a duke or greater (you may or may not be), meaning he now wields more authority than your common ancestor ever did.

Either way, you both owe that count your nobility. "Some random count somewhere" was elevated from a nobody to a somebody, and that's the sole reason both you and your dynasty head are now somebody in the eyes of your peers.

 

[Battlex]

I believe that important characters VERY distantly related (like more than 20 generations) should be able to form their own dynasty (and copy the legacies). On top of my head I can think about a few historical examples in which spiting dynasty would make sense:


1) The Abbasids, Ummayads, Alauytes, Fatmids all descend from the Hashmites. (I would like to know how those muslims families will be handed and whether or not they will share a same dynasty)

2) Capetians: the Babenbergs of Austria should probably be of a different dynasty despite sharing a same agnatic ancestor, because they didn't really have anything to do with each other. The Portuguese royal house started as Capetian branch, but they had hardly anything to do with the kings of France at the end of the game and no one really speaks about the link between the portuguese and french royal houses today. For a comparison they are even more remotely connected than the house of Courtnay, who were themselves denied as a member of the Capetian dinasty (prince of the blood) by the kings of France in the 17th century, because they were too distantly related.

3) The sons of Ragnar: Ivar left descendants in Celtic Britain and Ireland; Bjorn founded the house of Munso who rulled sweden for a while; from Sigurd descent the Yelling dynasty which ruled Denmark for a long time.

4) There are some nobles in Celtic Britain and Ireland that trace their dynasty even before the fall of Rome, and many share an agnatic ancestor. It would be weird if all of them share the same dynasty because of a very remote connection.

5) Gengis Khan: Gengis left a TON of descendants noble house. While there was certainly a connection between them, since they all boasted being descendants of Gengis. I think it is arguable that they split over time and it would be a little weird having a same dynasty head for such a long lived and big dinasty.

Ghengis was the father of many dynasties, but them all being seperate houses would make it easier for them to claim each others inheritance long after their normal claims had fallen out, and might be the best thing we can get, pre steppe nomad rework

 

[Karlington]

'I have some distant relationship to Julius Ceasar, which means I'm pretty cool right?' and 'Oh, my dynasty originates from some random count somewhere, I suppose I'll let some other distant descendant of his disinherit my heir or something now...' Are two very different things.

Yeah, that's quite the obvious statement. I don't think anybody is going to argue differently?

 

[ArVass]

I hope this can make it into a future patch