Three sons, three kingdoms

[fatedkoga]

The first son, Marshal of Norway and heir to the throne.

The second son, Grand Duke of Ireland and heir to the Scottish territories.

The third son, Duke of Brittany and heir to the kingdoms of Brittany and Ireland.

The forth son, eaten by father (I'm serious).

Can somebody please explain to me how this math works?

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

......Gavelkind?

I also didn't know CK2 had a cannibal event.

 

[fatedkoga]

......Gavelkind?

I also didn't know CK2 had a cannibal event.

Elective gavelkind, and the cannibal event was from the carousing focus but might have had something to due with my character thinking he's a werewolf.

 

[Quaade]

They usually get titles to where they hold counties, so it´s actually a good idea at times to land them a few titles... Last time I did it, I had two duchies and would end up splitting these two randomly among sons... However landing the other sons with counties in the other duchy would make my heir apparent inherit the whole capital duchy alone

 

[Lord_P]

Is this the beginning of a Shakespeare play?

 

[fatedkoga]

They usually get titles to where they hold counties, so it´s actually a good idea at times to land them a few titles... Last time I did it, I had two duchies and would end up splitting these two randomly among sons... However landing the other sons with counties in the other duchy would make my heir apparent inherit the whole capital duchy alone

How does that explain why the duke of Brittany gets both Brittany AND Ireland when his brother owns all of Ireland?

 

[Quaade]

How does that explain why the duke of Brittany gets both Brittany AND Ireland when his brother owns all of Ireland?

Sometimes it´s just odd ;-) They all need a title, so they are given equally a title... Have seen it happen a few times, there´s some logic to it though... While we may not always agree or understand it

 

[Thorkel the Tall]

This is one of the weirder cases I agree - almost bordering a bug. The split system do need some tuning where 'adjacency' should play a role in the splits.

I think the problem here is that the system tries to create sons of as equal in power as possible (? could this be?), and the Britanny son is far below in power compared to the Irish son. What is weird is as I see it that the Irish son does not gain a kingdom title: will he go independent? I cannot figure out when dukes do so, as most of the time they remain within the realm (if Kingdom tier). That way it would be a simple matter to usurp the title after the split, as Brittany son does not own any parts of Ireland.

But perhaps the Irish son will be vasal of the Brittany son?

Perhaps adding some more titles to the Brittany son and do a save-and-oad will help.

 

[Naufragus]

How does that explain why the duke of Brittany gets both Brittany AND Ireland when his brother owns all of Ireland?

I have spent the last decade trying to make sense of the gravelkind , I honestly can find no ryhme or reason to it most of the time.

When you are dealing with multiple holdings the crown laws arent always the same so that can also throw a wrench into things

You just have to play with #2 and #3 sons. Sometimes landing #3 makes everything work out. I have had other instances where I take #2 out of the sucession and #1 gets what I need them to have.

Really for me, if I want X son to inherit Y, its easier just to give it to them

 

[Pringles VII]

Elective gavelkind, and the cannibal event was from the carousing focus but might have had something to due with my character thinking he's a werewolf.

It's those damned otherkin again!

 

[Magnificent Genius]

If you want your firstborn to inherit multiple duchy titles, say if you have two duchy titles, all you have to do is give him the a county in your second duchy. I haven't tested this, but the way Gavelkind works is that your firstborn inherits your primary title(first duchy), and then it divides your remaining titles equally amongst your other children. BUT, if you hold a Duchy title you can't be a count level vassal under another duke(I think), so your firstborn would inherit the second duchy as well(possibly).

Haven't tested the concept yet, but if it works, I'll never have to worry about working overly hard at switching from Gavelkind again.

 

[KylesWorld]

If you want your firstborn to inherit multiple duchy titles, say if you have two duchy titles, all you have to do is give him the a county in your second duchy. I haven't tested this, but the way Gavelkind works is that your firstborn inherits your primary title(first duchy), and then it divides your remaining titles equally amongst your other children. BUT, if you hold a Duchy title you can't be a count level vassal under another duke(I think), so your firstborn would inherit the second duchy as well(possibly).

Haven't tested the concept yet, but if it works, I'll never have to worry about working overly hard at switching from Gavelkind again.

Latest patches won't allow you to grant your heir any titles that he is not in line for. So if second son (or 3rd, 4th etc..) is set to inherit "X", you cannot grant X to your direct heir. Your Heir can only be granted 1 count title that he is in line to inherit at that moment in time.

Prior to the latest patches, you were able to do the above though that loophole now has been closed. You can grant your 2nd, 3rd etc sons however many titles you want, however your primary heir only the 1. This was to prevent the player from unloading all their titles onto the primary heir just before kicking the bucket and circumventing gavelkind succession.

 

[Jeremy971]

He ate his son ?????

 

[iquabakaner]

I believe you can grant your second son Kingdom of Ireland and he won't inherit other titles?

 

[Shadesmar13]

its easy: the second son and the third like each other, so the second decided to stay in the realm of the third as vassal instead of splitting the realm further. They can do that. Gavelkind succession allows them to decide if they want to create a new with available titles or stay vassal.... the math behind the father eating his fourth son: low but considerable chance if something s wrong with the fathers head?

 

[Jeremy971]

lol I didnt know that in middle ages king could eat their kids. So I asked to Google and found this :

British royalty dined on human flesh (but don't worry it was 300 years ago)

They have long been famed for their love of lavish banquets and rich recipes. But what is less well known is that the British royals also had a taste for human flesh.

A new book on medicinal cannibalism has revealed that possibly as recently as the end of the 18th century British royalty swallowed parts of the human body.

The author adds that this was not a practice reserved for monarchs but was widespread among the well-to-do in Europe.

Even as they denounced the barbaric cannibals of the New World, they applied, drank, or wore powdered Egyptian mummy, human fat, flesh, bone, blood, brains and skin.

Moss taken from the skulls of dead soldiers was even used as a cure for nosebleeds, according to Dr Richard Sugg at Durham University.

Dr Sugg said: 'The human body has been widely used as a therapeutic agent with the most popular treatments involving flesh, bone or blood.

Cannibalism was found not only in the New World, as often believed, but also in Europe.
'One thing we are rarely taught at school yet is evidenced in literary and historic texts of the time is this: James I refused corpse medicine; Charles II made his own corpse medicine; and Charles I was made into corpse medicine.

'Along with Charles II, eminent users or prescribers included Francis I, Elizabeth I's surgeon John Banister, Elizabeth Grey, Countess of Kent, Robert Boyle, Thomas Willis, William III, and Queen Mary.'

The history of medicinal cannibalism, Dr Sugg argues, raised a number of important social questions.

He said: 'Medicinal cannibalism used the formidable weight of European science, publishing, trade networks and educated theory.

'Whilst corpse medicine has sometimes been presented as a medieval therapy, it was at its height during the social and scientific revolutions of early-modern Britain.

'It survived well into the 18th century, and amongst the poor it lingered stubbornly on into the time of Queen Victoria.

'Quite apart from the question of cannibalism, the sourcing of body parts now looks highly unethical to us.

'In the heyday of medicinal cannibalism bodies or bones were routinely taken from Egyptian tombs and European graveyards. Not only that, but some way into the eighteenth century one of the biggest imports from Ireland into Britain was human skulls.

'Whether or not all this was worse than the modern black market in human organs is difficult to say.'

The book gives numerous vivid, often disturbing examples of the practice, ranging from the execution scaffolds of Germany and Scandinavia, through the courts and laboratories of Italy, France and Britain, to the battlefields of Holland and Ireland and on to the tribal man-eating of the Americas.

A painting showing the 1649 execution of Charles I showed people mopping up the king's blood with handkerchiefs.

Dr Sugg said: 'This was used to treat the "king's evil" - a complaint more usually cured by the touch of living monarchs.

'Over in continental Europe, where the axe fell routinely on the necks of criminals, blood was the medicine of choice for many epileptics.

'In Denmark the young Hans Christian Andersen saw parents getting their sick child to drink blood at the scaffold. So popular was this treatment that hangmen routinely had their assistants catch the blood in cups as it spurted from the necks of dying felons.

'Occasionally a patient might shortcut this system. At one early sixteenth-century execution in Germany, 'a vagrant grabbed the beheaded body "before it had fallen, and drank the blood from him..".'

The last recorded instance of this practice in Germany fell in 1865
Whilst James I had refused to take human skull, his grandson Charles II liked the idea so much that he bought the recipe. Having paid perhaps £6,000 for this, he often distilled human skull himself in his private laboratory.

Dr Sugg said: 'Accordingly known before long as "the King's Drops", this fluid remedy was used against epilepsy, convulsions, diseases of the head, and often as an emergency treatment for the dying.

'It was the very first thing which Charles reached for on February 2 1685, at the start of his last illness, and was administered not only on his deathbed, but on that of Queen Mary in 1698.'

Dr Sugg's research will be featured in a forthcoming Channel 4 documentary with Tony Robinson in which they reconstruct versions of older cannibalistic medicines with the help of pigs' brains, blood and skull.

The book, called Mummies, Cannibals and Vampires, will be published on June 29 by Routledge and charts the largely forgotten history of European corpse medicine from the Renaissance to the Victorians.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-dont-worry-300-years-ago.html#ixzz4E7kvcD6O
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So disgusting...