What are your thoughts on legitimized bastards as heirs?

[Sleight of Hand]

One small thing I've thought about which I'd like and feel would be quite realistic is for legitimized bastards to be calculated as secondary to legitimate heirs. There are examples of this from History, and I think it makes sense for an older, legitimized bastard to be passed over in the succession once a legitimate child has been born. I'm not sure how inheritable claims work with regards to legitimized bastards, but I think they should get weak claims whilst only legitimate children should get strong claims.

In defines.lua there's this line:

BASTARDS_INHERIT_PRESSED_CLAIMS = 1,		-- If set to 1, they will get pressed claims on their parents' titles

Presumably this refers to normal, non-legitimized bastards. I'm not sure this is right, as bastards did not have claims within the feudal hierarchy and this was generally acknowledged. Sometimes the luckier among them were granted titles by a father or brother, but I don't think they should be able to inherit claims, and especially not on kingdoms. Even if they were to take a throne by force, as they can only marry matrilineally they'd soon lose it anyway.

Ideally, this 'weight' in favor of legitimate heirs would also impact how AI vassals vote in elective monarchies; unless they are a friend (+100 relations) or close relative of the bastard heir (such as a full brother) then they should always tend to vote for the legitimate heir in preference -- or, unless for some reason they despise the legitimate heir, and so vote for the other guy out of spite.

In primogeniture terms, it could work a bit like the agnatic-cognatic law, whereby females are ignored until there are no valid males, so you could have the game treat characters with the 'legit_bastard' trait the same way; they're ignored (passed over) until there are no legitimate males left in that line. I certainly think it makes sense for a younger, perfectly legitimate son to inherit before his illegitimate older half-brother. The older guy would still inherit a weak claim from their father, though, so he could in theory attempt to usurp the title. He wouldn't pass on any claims, though, because -- legitimized or not -- he's still a bastard.

What do you guys think about this?

 

[jordarkelf]

This won't work for every culture. The Celtic nations of Britain did not have the concept of bastardy before the English conquest for example, so any acknowledged bastard older than a 'legit' brother would inherit before him. Likewise in certain other cultures.

Something that might work is that legit_bastard children fully inherit like legit children,
acknowledged bastards (bastard trait, but father's dynasty) would work like you describe, thus any legit male children inherit before them, leaving only
non-acknowledged bastards (bastard trait, mother's dynasty) fully unrecognized.

This is not possible with the current mechanics though.

 

[Cymsdale]

Sounds like it would effectively act as a reverse Born in the Purple.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

This won't work for every culture. The Celtic nations of Britain did not have the concept of bastardy before the English conquest for example, so any acknowledged bastard older than a 'legit' brother would inherit before him. Likewise in certain other cultures.

Something that might work is that legit_bastard children fully inherit like legit children,
acknowledged bastards (bastard trait, but father's dynasty) would work like you describe, thus any legit male children inherit before them, leaving only
non-acknowledged bastards (bastard trait, mother's dynasty) fully unrecognized.

This is not possible with the current mechanics though.

Unfortunately I hadn't really considered this. o

A similar issue (which you contributed to) has been discussed recently in the bug forum, but that's more about what happens when a bastard is born within Norse/Saxon society and whether he is legitimized or not, as opposed to how other characters actually treat bastards in relation to legitimate siblings.

But yeah, I guess you're right. I hadn't really taken into account that this issue would differ between cultures. I just think that for most in Christian Europe, a legitimate son born to married parents would have a greater claim.

Sounds like it would effectively act as a reverse Born in the Purple.

Yeah, more or less, but there is the aforementioned issue of it not being applicable across all cultures. That's not a bad way of looking at it, though.

 

[Westernesse]

I think it was much more common for a King to legitimize a bastard at the age of 5-7 if he wanted a legitimate male heir. No point in causing a bunch of issues when your wife could have a male heir or the bastard male could die quite commonly in the first few years. Basically let us legitimize them up to the age of 14 (so you have a few years to betroth non-matrilineally).

Personally, I'd like a system like born in purple, so an honorary title is given to your favored heir. I think they should Then say you only have a male bastard who you legitimize at 10, when he's 11 your wife has a son. I'd make the son the heir unless the legitimized bastard is given the favored heir title. I'd make the favored heir title only givable to children (they could be of a different dynasty) and dynasty members, the title itself would give some prestige and favor, but make the bearer disliked by all other children of yours, if your favored heir becomes the next ruler vassals would get less of a penalty with him for short reign.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Personally, I'd like a system like born in purple, so an honorary title is given to your favored heir. I think they should Then say you only have a male bastard who you legitimize at 10, when he's 11 your wife has a son. I'd make the son the heir unless the legitimized bastard is given the favored heir title. I'd make the favored heir title only givable to children (they could be of a different dynasty) and dynasty members, the title itself would give some prestige and favor, but make the bearer disliked by all other children of yours, if your favored heir becomes the next ruler vassals would get less of a penalty with him for short reign.

The problem here is that you're suggesting an implementation which would override the law of primogeniture, which I am not advocating. I just think that legitimate heirs should override non-legitimate ones automatically, as opposed to granting a 'despot' type of title which would let you pick stronger heirs over weaker ones.

 

[jordarkelf]

The problem here is that you're suggesting an implementation which would override the law of primogeniture, which I am not advocating. I just think that legitimate heirs should override non-legitimate ones automatically, as opposed to granting a 'despot' type of title which would let you pick stronger heirs over weaker ones.

No, legitimized bastards should have equal rights to other children. That's what the legitimized means
Of course it's far too easy now in-game to get these, for Catholics at least there should be a petition to the Pope to acknowledge them, and this should only succeed if there is no legit marriage.
Exception: Celts and Vikings should not care until later.
I am not familiar with the Orthodox views on bastards, so can't say how it would work for them.

What's really needed to represent what you're describing is an inheritance law that works like agnatic-cognatic, but with (non-legit) bastards of the father's dynasty (acknowledged ones) eligible before daughter-sons or uncles.
Non-acknowledged bastards should never be eligible (except of course under elective law).

 

[Ahaz Flagg]

My thoughts are I hate being forced into adultery, so I never legitmize them ever. My spymaster is the guy that helps get rid of them, I want the game to not put them in my family tree.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

My thoughts are I hate being forced into adultery, so I never legitmize them ever. My spymaster is the guy that helps get rid of them, I want the game to not put them in my family tree.

Actually, that's a good point. If you choose the third option (reject outright) then they probably shouldn't appear on your family tree at all; just the mother's.

 

[Sarog]

In primogeniture terms, it could work a bit like the agnatic-cognatic law, whereby females are ignored until there are no valid males, so you could have the game treat characters with the 'legit_bastard' trait the same way; they're ignored (passed over) until there are no legitimate males left in that line. I certainly think it makes sense for a younger, perfectly legitimate son to inherit before his illegitimate older half-brother. The older guy would still inherit a weak claim from their father, though, so he could in theory attempt to usurp the title. He wouldn't pass on any claims, though, because -- legitimized or not -- he's still a bastard.

I'd absolutely like this. Bastardy being a reverse born in the purple trait, offset by the bastard possibly being in a good position to usurp the title from his younger siblings. Would buy.

No idea about how true to history it would be, but it be nice for gameplay if it is plausible.

 

[Morwys]

Something that might work is that legit_bastard children fully inherit like legit children,
acknowledged bastards (bastard trait, but father's dynasty) would work like you describe, thus any legit male children inherit before them, leaving only non-acknowledged bastards (bastard trait, mother's dynasty) fully unrecognized.

This is not possible with the current mechanics though.

This is the ideal method for inheritance in regard to bastards, and the most historically precise. Unfortunetelly, as stated, it's implementation is not possible at the moment.

The problem here is that you're suggesting an implementation which would override the law of primogeniture, which I am not advocating. I just think that legitimate heirs should override non-legitimate ones automatically, as opposed to granting a 'despot' type of title which would let you pick stronger heirs over weaker ones.

I agree, but I do think that where Gavelkind applies, there should be a way for the ruler to choose who inherits what, as it was historically. Primo should never be overruled, because it would lose it's purpose; but gavelkind does not work as it should, and, quite frankly, is ridiculously underpowered as of now. If we could choose what the heirs get, then it could be much more useful.

 

[toluas]

The relationship between king and bastard was often a very special one. Most royal marriages were not for love, but for politics. So a bastard with a mistress (to whom there was sexual attraction or maybe real love) felt special. Even more in case there has not been a son from the royal marriage. And not all bastards were the product of rape - rather the contrary!

Bastards especially loved by the king were more likely to be legitimized; btw often on the king's deathbed! (So I would not say there should be a limited age to legitimization.)

This means that the relationship between father and bastard son should be taken into account as well as the traits of both. (An eccentric king is more likely to put his beloved bastard on the throne; if father and bastard son seem much alike the father might like him even more; a well suited bastard might seem the clever choice compared to a mediocre legit son etc.)

All this said, I don't know if any of this is possible to code...

 

[A_Dane]

Unfortunately I hadn't really considered this. o

A similar issue (which you contributed to) has been discussed recently in the bug forum, but that's more about what happens when a bastard is born within Norse/Saxon society and whether he is legitimized or not, as opposed to how other characters actually treat bastards in relation to legitimate siblings.

But yeah, I guess you're right. I hadn't really taken into account that this issue would differ between cultures. I just think that for most in Christian Europe, a legitimate son born to married parents would have a greater claim.


Yeah, more or less, but there is the aforementioned issue of it not being applicable across all cultures. That's not a bad way of looking at it, though.

If i had seen this yesterday, I would of pointed you to the discussion you started yourself xD

But yeah, I'm not sure anything like what you suggest could be accurately represented in the game?