Patrimonium of St. Peter vs. Papal State

[Rorgloin]

I was just wondering if there is a reason why these titles are treated as separate? Why not just merge them, giving the Papal State de jure lands? It hardly makes sense for the Pope to cause part of the Patrimonium of St. Peter to de jure drift into the Papal States.

 

[JonStryker]

They probably don't want the pope to start de jure claiming in 867.
Still, the de jure drifting always felt odd to me, you are right.

 

[IoannesBarbarus]

Bugs me too. If anybody in the West has de jure claims on anything, the Pope has a de jure claim on Rome. Hard to see how the Patrimonium being all de jure Papacy even in 867, or Latium at minimum, wouldn’t be preferable to what we now have. Aren’t there other game mechanics available that result in characters never or infrequently pressing their claims? Hell, if the count of Ancona loves the Pope, why shouldn’t he swear fealty? And anyway, even if there’s a reason it’s unsuitable in 867 is no reason to lock down later start dates.

 

[Lord orcus]

dos the pope start de jure wars or any war for that matter because mine nerves do

 

[Rorgloin]

Bugs me too. If anybody in the West has de jure claims on anything, the Pope has a de jure claim on Rome. Hard to see how the Patrimonium being all de jure Papacy even in 867, or Latium at minimum, wouldn’t be preferable to what we now have. Aren’t there other game mechanics available that result in characters never or infrequently pressing their claims? Hell, if the count of Ancona loves the Pope, why shouldn’t he swear fealty? And anyway, even if there’s a reason it’s unsuitable in 867 is no reason to lock down later start dates.

And even with regards to the unsuitable in 867 argument, there are other de jure kingdoms which exist in 867 which didn't yet exist with those de jure lands. England comes to mind (it was made up of a "Heptarchy" of many smaller kingdoms). I think that the de jure mechanic serves a dual function, showing the "recognized" borders of a kingdom which allow claims, but also to steer a polity towards its later historical borders. I think that the pope having "de jure" claims on the patrimonium in 867 could fulfill the second function at the very least.

 

[theKing1988]

I would not be against giving them the de-jure Kingdom and creating a special "Status Pontificus" localisation for it. I will take it up with the others.

 

[Rorgloin]

I would not be against giving them the de-jure Kingdom and creating a special "Status Pontificus" localisation for it. I will take it up with the others.

I'm not even sure the localisation would be necessary (assuming I understand what you mean) seeing as the "Patrimonium of St. Peter" referred to the pope's Italian possessions (hence "St Peter"). But I'd love the idea of giving the pope the kingdom title with the corresponding claims on its de jure lands.

 

[IoannesBarbarus]

Do there need to be two kingdom titles? Once created, anyone can hold the Patrimonium title. It hardly makes sense for someone who’s not the Pope to have de jure claims on the “Patrimony of Saint Peter.”

 

[Cardinal Sin]

This has already bugged me too. Why not name this kingdom Ravenna, after the exarchate and the Gothic kingdom?

 

[theKing1988]

Do there need to be two kingdom titles? Once created, anyone can hold the Patrimonium title. It hardly makes sense for someone who’s not the Pope to have de jure claims on the “Patrimony of Saint Peter.”

The Titular Papal States title is from Vanilla

This has already bugged me too. Why not name this kingdom Ravenna, after the exarchate and the Gothic kingdom?

It wouldn't exactly be a period appropriate name. The Gothic Kingdom has been dead for around 90 years in 867 and the Exarchate have been dead for even longer. If you look at the creation requirements, it's only the Eastern Emperor and Theocracies who can create/usurp the title, so seeing as it has been seen as the Patrimonium of Saint Peter for this long i think that is the preferable name. I do plan to add Ravenna as a dynamic name for the Greeks though.

 

[IoannesBarbarus]

The Titular Papal States title is from Vanilla

Why not eliminate the Patrimony title entirely and make its duchies Papal de jure? Is there ever a situation where having a King of the Patrimony who is not the Pope makes sense?

 

[theKing1988]

Why not eliminate the Patrimony title entirely and make its duchies Papal de jure? Is there ever a situation where having a King of the Patrimony who is not the Pope makes sense?

That was sort of why i suggested using Status Pontificus as a dynamic name. That way he would be the Pope of the Papal State and not the Pope of the Patrimonium of Saint Peter. Status Pontificus means the Papal State in Latin

 

[Rorgloin]

That was sort of why i suggested using Status Pontificus as a dynamic name. That way he would be the Pope of the Papal State and not the Pope of the Patrimonium of Saint Peter. Status Pontificus means the Papal State in Latin

Well, he actually is the Pope of the Patrimonium of Saint Peter. . . the Patrimonium of St. Peter was the term used historically to refer to the pope's holdings in Italy, usually in the Early Middle Ages. I agree that the "Pope of Patrimonium of St. Peter" sounds rather awkward. Status Pontificus is right, also. It just shouldn't be Patrimonium of St. Peter when held by anyone other than the pope.

 

[zijistark]

That was sort of why i suggested using Status Pontificus as a dynamic name. That way he would be the Pope of the Papal State and not the Pope of the Patrimonium of Saint Peter. Status Pontificus means the Papal State in Latin

The Pope will never change his primary title away from the Status Pontificus. It's a primary=yes title. No matter what titles he acquires, he'll always use that as his primary title.

Well, he actually is the Pope of the Patrimonium of Saint Peter. . . the Patrimonium of St. Peter was the term used historically to refer to the pope's holdings in Italy, usually in the Early Middle Ages. I agree that the "Pope of Patrimonium of St. Peter" sounds rather awkward. Status Pontificus is right, also. It just shouldn't be Patrimonium of St. Peter when held by anyone other than the pope.

The creation conditions for the Patrimonium of St. Peter require being a theocracy and having mad piety. Nobody other than the Pope (or a Fraticelli pope if an SoA heresy takeover of fraticelli is successful) is ever going to hold it.

 

[theKing1988]

The Pope will never change his primary title away from the Status Pontificus. It's a primary=yes title. No matter what titles he acquires, he'll always use that as his primary title.



The creation conditions for the Patrimonium of St. Peter require being a theocracy and having mad piety. Nobody other than the Pope (or a Fraticelli pope if an SoA heresy takeover of fraticelli is successful) is ever going to hold it.

Oh, so no matter if you give him the de-jure title "Patrimonium Sancti Petri" or not he will still keep the Papal States title as the primary?

See i didn't actually know that

The Creation requirement also allows for the e_byzantium to create the title

 

[zijistark]

Oh, so no matter if you give him the de-jure title "Patrimonium Sancti Petri" or not he will still keep the Papal States title as the primary?

See i didn't actually know that

The Creation requirement also allows for the e_byzantium to create the title

Yep. That's what primary=yes implies in a title definition. Same is used for Isis, mercenaries, holy orders, the il-Khanate, Golden Horde, and all the religious head titles. [Most of those are also landless=yes, except for some of the religious head titles like caliphates and the some of the reformed pagan heads of religion.]

 

[IoannesBarbarus]

The creation conditions for the Patrimonium of St. Peter require being a theocracy and having mad piety. Nobody other than the Pope (or a Fraticelli pope if an SoA heresy takeover of fraticelli is successful) is ever going to hold it.

This makes sense, and I see the sort of increasing papal power scenario it lends itself to. But what about after the creation? Is it possible to faction for different succession in the Patrimony, for instance? Some way to get it out of the Pope’s hands, or install one of his bastards as claimant, or usurp it, etc.?

 

[SignedName]

Why not eliminate the Patrimony title entirely and make its duchies Papal de jure? Is there ever a situation where having a King of the Patrimony who is not the Pope makes sense?

Because it gives the Pope free CBs against people in the Patrimonium then. You'll have the Pope regularly controlling half of Italy.

 

[Rorgloin]

Because it gives the Pope free CBs against people in the Patrimonium then. You'll have the Pope regularly controlling half of Italy.

Of course, for the majority of the time period Crusader Kings covers, the pope DID control the area of the de jure Patrimonium of St. Peter kingdom (or at least most of it, and all of it after 1300), so I don't see how it is a problem.

 

[zijistark]

Because it gives the Pope free CBs against people in the Patrimonium then. You'll have the Pope regularly controlling half of Italy.

And because, yes, there are situations in which the King of Patrimonium Sancti Petri would not be the Catholic Pope. E.g., he could be the Fraticelli Pope.