Posthumous Birth Not of my Dynasty

[VenetianPriest]

In nearly 2000 hours of gameplay, I can only remember a handful of posthumous births of my ruler. But this is the first time that the son was born of another dyasnsty, as If he were a bastard without the trait or events.

Does this mean that my former ruler was not the boy’s father? That male dynast would’ve come in handy to place on the throne of Jerusalem, but alas I had to settle on some obscure female relative that did not marry mateilineally.

 

[Castimirr]

It seems to be a new thing that has been reported in 3.0+. I think it is a bug but I'm not sure if the devs have confirmed if it is a bug or WAD.

 

[Zoomun]

There is no way this is WAD. It makes no sense and can force a game over.

 

[Poliut]

It seems to be a new thing that has been reported in 3.0+. I think it is a bug but I'm not sure if the devs have confirmed if it is a bug or WAD.

If I'm not mistaken, there have been instances where the realm refused to recognize a posthumous heir...

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

It seems to be a new thing that has been reported in 3.0+. I think it is a bug but I'm not sure if the devs have confirmed if it is a bug or WAD.

I read a dev confirming it shortly after release of 3.0.
No i don't know where.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

If I'm not mistaken, there have been instances where the realm refused to recognize a posthumous heir...

Yes, when the ruler dies whilst his wife is pregnant during an Interregnum.

Here we're talking about your little brother/nephew born after his father died, there is no interregnum. Legally, this was very clear, a child's father is the husband of said child's mother unless rejected by said husband. The exception would be if the mother was married to someone else when the child was conceived.

King Arthur is a legendary example of this, Uther got Arthur on Igraine after her husband the Duke of Cornwall was killed in battle. Uther than married Igraine before Arthur was born. Therefore, Arthur was Uther's legitimate heir because his mother was not married when he was conceived and his parents were married when he was born. If Uther had died before Athur's birth, instead of shortly after, the principle would be the same.

 

[ZeRedleg]

Hope it is a bug, it's very annoying.

 

[rbc1989]

Well known bug been reported dozens of times in bug reports. Somehow its the only bug that they never respond to. I have seen people on youtube and reddit comments posting about it too like right next to dev posts and they all seem to ignore those to. At this point I am starting to think its intentional.

 

[DPS]

There is no way this is WAD. It makes no sense and can force a game over.

Even if the bug didn't exist, the situation would be a game over. If you die with no heir of your dynasty, it's game over; there is no provision for a posthumous heir.

 

[Chlodio]

Posthumous children are kind of complicated matter. Ideally, they should form cadet branches, but because we can't have that... I suppose them being of mother's dynasty makes more sense, at least in England:

In the Middle Ages, it was traditional for posthumous children born in England to be given a matronymic surname instead of a patronymic one. This may in part explain why matronyms are more common in England than in other parts of Europe.​

Here we're talking about your little brother/nephew born after his father died, there is no interregnum. Legally, this was very clear, a child's father is the husband of said child's mother unless rejected by said husband. The exception would be if the mother was married to someone else when the child was conceived.

What about Stephen the Posthumous? When King Andrew II of Hungary died, he was succeeded by his son, Béla IV, however, Andrew's widow announced her pregnancy. Béla IV's reaction to this was to accuse his stepmother of adultery and declare his half-brother a bastard.
But sure, let's go with Arthurian fiction instead.

 

[Zoomun]

Even if the bug didn't exist, the situation would be a game over. If you die with no heir of your dynasty, it's game over; there is no provision for a posthumous heir.

After a young death for my ruler the child will be the only sibling for my ruler. If anything happens he will inherit and the game will end. Nothing I can do about it.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Posthumous children are kind of complicated matter. Ideally, they should form cadet branches, but because we can't have that... I suppose them being of mother's dynasty makes more sense, at least in England:

In the Middle Ages, it was traditional for posthumous children born in England to be given a matronymic surname instead of a patronymic one. This may in part explain why matronyms are more common in England than in other parts of Europe.​

What about Stephen the Posthumous? When King Andrew II of Hungary died, he was succeeded by his son, Béla IV, however, Andrew's widow announced her pregnancy. Béla IV's reaction to this was to accuse his stepmother of adultery and declare his half-brother a bastard.
But sure, let's go with Arthurian fiction instead.

"accuse his stepmother of adultery"

In the game, no such accusation is made.

In the terms of Crusader Kings II the children should either be of their father's dynasty or declared bastards - they should not be legitimate heirs of their mothers. In most regions in the medieval period women could not and did not pass on their Dynasty, with a few notable exceptions. Yet, in CKII any Count can arrange a matrilineal marriage with the son of an Emperor.

 

[DPS]

After a young death for my ruler the child will be the only sibling for my ruler. If anything happens he will inherit and the game will end. Nothing I can do about it.

I didn't say otherwise. I just pointed out that the game mechanics, a posthumous heir, if there is no other existing heir of the dynasty, would cause a game-over even without the bug.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

I didn't say otherwise. I just pointed out that the game mechanics, a posthumous heir, if there is no other existing heir of the dynasty, would cause a game-over even without the bug.

The issue is them being born not of your dynasty but being your heir. In the case where they were effectively born a bastard the title would go to your Uncle etc. instead, no problem.

 

[Castimirr]

The issue is them being born not of your dynasty but being your heir. In the case where they were effectively born a bastard the title would go to your Uncle etc. instead, no problem.

I think their point is more that since inheritance happens when you die and there is no interregnum, the child can't inherit because they don't exist yet. If they are the last of your line, your game ends immediately, even if they would be born the next day. In that situation, the bug doesn't come into play. If there is another relative to pass the game to, you would switch to them.

If the character you switch to inherits your old titles then the bug matters if the newborn is high in the line of succession for the new character. It would be a potential issue for whoever got your old title, but depending on which character you took control of it might not be your problem anymore. (But yes, the bug still needs to be fixed.)

Though at that point, they aren't your child anymore (probably) and you can plot a happy accident for them.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

I think their point is more that since inheritance happens when you die and there is no interregnum, the child can't inherit because they don't exist yet. If they are the last of your line, your game ends immediately, even if they would be born the next day. In that situation, the bug doesn't come into play. If there is another relative to pass the game to, you would switch to them.

If the character you switch to inherits your old titles then the bug matters if the newborn is high in the line of succession for the new character. It would be a potential issue for whoever got your old title, but depending on which character you took control of it might not be your problem anymore. (But yes, the bug still needs to be fixed.)

Though at that point, they aren't your child anymore (probably) and you can plot a happy accident for them.

This was never about having no heir though - it's about having an heir, usually a brother, who is not of your dynasty.

All this talk of dying whilst your heir is still gestating is entirely besides the point, because that isn't what the bug is about.

 

[Castimirr]

True, that was the point I was (badly) trying to make as well.

 

[User29]

There are multiple historical posthumous kings though, and they were very much considered a part of their fathers dynasties, Ladislaus the posthumous was even a Hapsburg, and certainly not considered something distinct and new.

no, this is definitely a bug, and in my Byzantine run, I was bummed to see my last son go on to become a great ruler in his own right but he could never ascend due to this

 

[Qwertyu858]

Well known bug been reported dozens of times in bug reports. Somehow its the only bug that they never respond to. I have seen people on youtube and reddit comments posting about it too like right next to dev posts and they all seem to ignore those to. At this point I am starting to think its intentional.

Thats a shame. I got a game over for this in my last try at a iron man run. Died leaving a child as a heir and a pregnant wife. Child dies of cancer or something like that, but his only heir was his bastard, of her mother´s dinasty, brother :/

Without this bug, it would have been a legitime, of his father´s (and his) dinasty and I would have been able to continue playing