Shouldn't personal union over heretic automatically change the subject's religion?

[Martin_Mortyry]

I'm not an expert on late medieval/early modern politics and administration, but didn't country's religion depend on their ruler's? If so, it makes no sense that once I gain a personal union over, say, protestant country as a catholic nation, they would still be protestant, they should instantly convert!
Of course, if the country that got under a union was predominantly protestant, they could get a disaster spawning a lot of pretender rebels, similarly to, for example, Sweden during Sigismund Vasa's rule.

 

[gdj]

Why? Did Scotland convert to the Church of England? Did Finnland become orthodox under Russian Rule? Unions depend on the acceptance of the ruler by the local nobility (even game-wise, you lose the union when your prestige turns negative..), i dont think that a union empowers a ruler to instantly force a change of the state religion, much less the religion of the population.

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

Why? Did Scotland convert to the Church of England?

This one I'm not really sure of, but if we were taking my suggestion into account, during James VI's reign, both countries should be reformed in-game, with English provinces being protestant nontheless.

Did Finnland become orthodox under Russian Rule?

Both Finland and Poland were de facto part of Russian Empire during that time. Although the tsar could've called himself grand duke of Finland or king of Poland, these "countries" were nothing more than autonomous regions, and representing them as anything more would be stupid.

much less the religion of the population.

I didn't say anything about population's religion - this one would stay the same, unless they start being converted.

 

[BrokenSky]

This could be applied to Feudal Monarchies only? But the province religions stay the same.

 

[gdj]

Sorry, but i still dont see any convincing argument that speaks for such a change.

The point is simply that PU partners are not subject to the original country of the ruler. There is no such thing as a "lesser union partner", PU parners are not "subject nations" like vassals. The only reason why they are treated as such ingame is the fact that you cant play two tags at the same time in singleplayer.

PU partners are for all intents and purposes independent states with their own laws, structures, even parliaments. While the power balance between two states in a union was not always symmetrical - siphoning off money was something that did occur from time to time - , a PU could hardly be seen as a takeover by another country.

Having a PU over two monarchies often meant, for example, that these 2 states had different succession laws. When Queen Victoria inherited the British Throne, the union over Hannover ended abruptly because Salic Law precluded the succession of a female monarch. It is rather far fetched to assume that a grave change like a change of the state religion would have been easier to implement than a change of succession laws in the early 19th century.

Both Finland and Poland were de facto part of Russian Empire during that time. Although the tsar could've called himself grand duke of Finland or king of Poland, these "countries" were nothing more than autonomous regions, and representing them as anything more would be stupid.

Before calling someone or something stupid (heard of forum rules?) you might consider the logic of you own argumentation. If Finnland was merely an autonomous region or at the most a vassal, Finnlands state religion would have been easier to change than the religion of a union partner. Even Nicholas II had to swear to uphold the special status of Finnland and its laws upon his coronation as late as 1896. While Finnland is by no means the best example it nevertheless reflects the rather tenous situation monarchs faced in a PU.

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

The point is simply that PU partners are not subject to the original country of the ruler. There is no such thing as a "lesser union partner", PU parners are not "subject nations" like vassals.

That's true. Too bad that the game doesn't represent it properly.

Before calling someone or something stupid (heard of forum rules?) you might consider the logic of you own argumentation. [...] Even Nicholas II had to swear to uphold the special status of Finnland and its laws upon his coronation as late as 1896.

I didn't by any means intend to insult you or any country. I just wanted to point out that Russian "personal unions" from XIX century certainly weren't on equal terms with the tsardom, I'd even say they should be portrayed in game as Russian provinces with high autonomy. And notice how it's taken over 80 years from gaining Finland for the tsar to grant Finland the special status(which, by the way, is out of the timeframe).

If Finnland was merely an autonomous region or at the most a vassal, Finnlands state religion would have been easier to change than the religion of a union partner.

Because religious conversion doesn't work like that in real life. You can't just send a missionary to a city and expect it to be converted in a few months.

Though, I have to admit that I could've thought this suggestion out a little bit better - Cuius regio, eius religio didn't oblige everywhere, and, as you said, we would also have to take into account things like succession laws, which is CK's domain - and that's a game where ruler's religion sets the national religion as well.

 

[gdj]

Because religious conversion doesn't work like that in real life. You can't just send a missionary to a city and expect it to be converted in a few months.

That is, of course, true.

I did not refer to the religion of the population, but to the official religion of the state, which was usually defined in either the states constitution (late game) or its succession laws. These things are and were not easy to change.

It may be speculation, but i think that relgious disagreements would rather prevent the formation of a union than cause a change of the partners state religion. The Act of Settlement of 1701 for example explicitly precludes the succession of a catholic monarch in Britain.

 

[AirikrStrife]

Not automatically, but there should be options for ruling country to try to implement it. But look at the union between poland and sweden during king Sigismund and you will see a very good exampe of hw a union between different religion states turned out.

 

[gdj]

Not automatically, but there should be options for ruling country to try to implement it. But look at the union between poland and sweden during king Sigismund and you will see a very good exampe of hw a union between different religion states turned out.

Well, options are already in place with the Common Sense DLC, forcing your religion over a union partner costs +50% liberty desire.

Its an instant change of a PU partners state religion that was proposed here by OP, and which i politely disagree with...

 

[Me_]

Just for the record: the Elector of Saxony Frederick Augustus converted to Catholicism in order to win the elections for Polish throne, but Saxony remained the leader of the Protestant Body in the Imperial Diet. His son, likewise, ruled Protestant Saxony and Catholic Poland.