How historical are matrilineal marriages?

[JakobWerle]

There are many examples of Houses that should have died out by CK2 standards but didn't, and with very large rulers, a lot of my examples may come from Colonial Europe, but for Example Maria Theresa Von Habsburg, had many Children from her Husband Francis I von Lorraine -- they formed the Habsburg-Lorraine Dynasty -- while you might say it's not exactly a 'matrilineal marriage,' it is very similar. If these kinds of marriages didn't exist -- the Habsburgs would have dissapeared from history, but they didn't. So it may be more accurate that families that had 'a lot of renown' combined with other families to make Cadet Branches of the same house, but this still allowed the Children of Maria Theresa to inherit Austria, and still be high on the succession list for countries/states run by the Hapsburgs, Lothringen, and Habspburg-Lothringen's -- but we don't have this as a game mechanic. Same happened with Elizabeth of Russia -- so I might venture to say matrilineal marriages didn't exist -- but 'joint marriages' existed where two houses merged into one, but this can't exactly be simulated by the current system.

 

[JakobWerle]

I guess you could say it would be akin to if Vival Supermarkets, bought Auchun Supermarkets -- Auchun would die off and become Vival. But with a merger you would have Auchun-Vival. And many times, just a new name might be created.

 

[tywinzo]

Yep. I think Habspburg-Lothringen and similiar merges is an example of exactly why it's a good reason to widen the CK2 "dynasty" concept to something more complex, where a noble can be either house A, B or a mixture of both (or many - maybe at some point a branch diverges and is classed as "cadet"), potentially also mixing claims into the name itself. Just like dynasty shields are first have one symbol, then another is added, then another is added. Your ancestors are still seen but weaker.. yet there is no clear either house A or B.

And just let the marriage be a marriage.

 

[Vormaerin]

Yep. I think Habspburg-Lothringen and similiar merges is an example of exactly why it's a good reason to widen the CK2 "dynasty" concept to something more complex, where a noble can be either house A, B or a mixture of both (or many - maybe at some point a branch diverges and is classed as "cadet"), potentially also mixing claims into the name itself. Just like dynasty shields are first have one symbol, then another is added, then another is added. Your ancestors are still seen but weaker.. yet there is no clear either house A or B.

And just let the marriage be a marriage.

And then how would you lose the game, since dynasty survival is the only victory condition? Just straight 'get wiped out'? Dunno about you, but that's not usually the way I lose games when I do.

 

[tywinzo]

And then how would you lose the game, since dynasty survival is the only victory condition? Just straight 'get wiped out'? Dunno about you, but that's not usually the way I lose games when I do.

I'm not sure There would obviously have to be something else for that.

Maybe something like.. let's say you have a character like the one I mentioned before: dynasty = { 55% d'Este, 20% Welf, 25% Salian } as function of your ancestors' dynasties. I take Salian as my name, even though it's my lowest score by birth, it gives me a more legitimate claim to some titles traditionally held by Salian's... but let's say my primary/chosen dynasty is Salian and it drops below 10%... and then that's the lose condition?

Or something along those lines? I'm just pointing out a general direction: there's no such straight thing as a "dynasty" (or a matrilineal marriage for that matter), things were more complex than that and it should be reflected in-game.


EDIT: As a nice side-effect, your daughters are suddenly useful also for furthering your dynasty (assumed even if we are restricted to just "normal" marriages). And cadet branches are invented automatically.