Jure uxoris

[Liquid Ghost]

What do you think of adding 'jure uxoris' titles to CKIII?

You marry a rich single duchess? You get to reign your lands and her lands. But maybe it's not that easy, there could be an internal tug-of-war where your wife or her supporters try to restore authority on her.

Are you an old man who has a female heir and you are about to croak? You better change some laws quick to make sure your daughter reigns and not your son-in-law.

Are you playing a woman and you find yourself married to some controlling brute? Maybe it could be represented as having a regent even though you are an adult and him constantly taking decisions for you. Don't fret, it's not game over, but you better start making some promises to your noble vassals so they support you and restore you as queen regnant. Or maybe your Dynast can help out.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Very difficult to model effectively in a game like CK III. I suppose you could handle it by having husbands of landed women having additional diplomatic options, but if you literally made it so that titles were transferred to the man then you'd cause all sorts of problems, as well as essentially making playing landed women impossible (or at least extremely unfun).

Perhaps Paradox have something up their sleeves here, but I can't think what the best way to represent this would be.

 

[Chlodio]

I'd like that, but I reckon the developers want to ignore it altogether. I believe that Paradox wants to appeal to female players (even if that demographic in grand strategy games is insignificant), in CK2 you see a bunch of decisions that have made to suit such needs. Even the "historical gender laws" aren't really historical. Just a few cases:

• male-preference (wrongly called agnatic-cognatic) is the default succession law, result in every third ruler being female
• female rulers leading their armies, while a controversial topic, and with some exceptions, for the very least it wasn't the norm
• female ruler vassal opinion -10 is very cute in comparison to real hardships female rulers struggled with
• exposed female adultery being treated with little consequence
• inclusion of matrilineal marriages (even with a game rule turned off, there is an event that does it)

To be frank, the time period wasn't very empowering to women in the contemporary sense; it isn't to say women didn't wield power during it, they definitely did, but differently from the men of the period. I think a step towards the right direction—before we can even consider jure uxoris—is to make regents (as there were many female regents) matter.

 

[Serenity84]

It would also mean that you could marry a female ruler and immediately gain control of her lands and maybe keep them after her death. That's realistic, but also maybe too powerful for gameplay reasons. Especially considering that marriages are also far easier to arrange than in reality

 

[Drakken]

I would be okey with jus uxoris with, as compromise, it gives part of the prestige, the piety, and the revenues associated with the title, but not the in-game power. At most, the priority for Regency or a free seat on the Council.

It is already done successfully in most majors CK2 mods, without making it too powerful. So why not?

 

[vnth]

Very difficult to model effectively in a game like CK III. I suppose you could handle it by having husbands of landed women having additional diplomatic options, but if you literally made it so that titles were transferred to the man then you'd cause all sorts of problems, as well as essentially making playing landed women impossible (or at least extremely unfun).

Perhaps Paradox have something up their sleeves here, but I can't think what the best way to represent this would be.

if youre gonna make a whole new game and cant even bother to sort out the limitations of the base design then why even bother?

 

[Skales]

Make regencies matter.

That is all I am going to say for now...

 

[Liquid Ghost]

if youre gonna make a whole new game and cant even bother to sort out the limitations of the base design then why even bother?

Yes. That, in fact, was one of the reasons they mentioned for CKIII: their ideas had outgrown CKII's framework.

I also agree that most of this could be modeled with a more active regent role than what we got at CKII.