What would you actually use cadet branches for if they were in the game?

[Foefaller]

I would think cadet branches should be a chance to form upon the character becoming landed, based on a range of factors: Your youngest brother, 4th in line to the throne of France after your kids, isn't going to be forming a cadet branch because you gave him a county in Flanders, but your thrice-removed pagan cousin in Sweden whose just had their claim pushed by a third party will almost certainly do so. Some things might have zero chance (the legitimate children of the dynasty head should never form their own cadet branch while the head's still around) some things might be guaranteed (...unless they earned that title from adventuring) but it probably shouldn't be some cut and dried "X generations and they're on their own" sort of thing.

 

[wingren013]

There are also cases where one brother usurps a title from the sole heir and forms a cadet branch. Like what happened with the von Wettins

 

[Chlodio]

@BaronIronmaggot feel like pointing out of what is wrong is a step to the right direction.

Historically all younger sons were cadets, if they were granted an appanage they could procreate a cadet branch could be born. While these branches would start off as an extension of the senior branch they would eventually grow different and develop their own identifies. They would however retain the title of prince of the blood, which granted them privileges and the right to be included on the line of succession.

Many names of cadet branches tend to be anachronistic, as many didn't survive long enough to differentiate from the senior branch which takes few generations. Founder of the branch would be referred by the name of the house he was born to, while his descendants would be know by combination his house name and title, house name would eventually fade away and be replaced by the title.

I actually made a cadet branch mod for CK2, it worked as following:

Upon death of dynasty head cadet branch will be created for all dynasty members if following is true:

-They are distant kinsmen (more distant than a cousin).
-Their father and grandfather are dead.
-They have at least one son.​

I observed that houses tended to have only 20-living dynasty members on average. Only problem with is that because tanistry and seniority are based on dynasty distant branches would be excluded.

 

[Thure]

@BaronIronmaggot Only problem with is that because tanistry and seniority are based on dynasty distant branches would be excluded.

Rework Tanestry that it would prefer heads of cadet dynasties instead of 'distant branches'.

 

[BaronIronmaggot]

Historically all younger sons were cadets, if they were granted an appanage they could procreate a cadet branch could be born. While these branches would start off as an extension of the senior branch they would eventually grow different and develop their own identifies. They would however retain the title of prince of the blood, which granted them privileges and the right to be included on the line of succession.

As far as I understood it from the wiki article, the concept of non-primary heirs being cadets was a thing for the inheritance laws where the difference of gains between a primary and non-primary heirs was significant like in primogeniture . So, do the cadet branches have different importance in different succession laws?

Many names of cadet branches tend to be anachronistic, as many didn't survive long enough to differentiate from the senior branch which takes few generations. Founder of the branch would be referred by the name of the house he was born to, while his descendants would be know by combination his house name and title, house name would eventually fade away and be replaced by the title.

So, cadet branches (over a period of time) usually adopted the name of their primary landed title (or do you mean their primary fief) as their dynasty name?

I actually made a cadet branch mod for CK2, it worked as following:

Upon death of dynasty head cadet branch will be created for all dynasty members if following is true:

-They are distant kinsmen (more distant than a cousin).
-Their father and grandfather are dead.
-They have at least one son.​

My ill-informed intuition tells me that the head of the new cadet branch should also be landed as a count or above. My reasoning - dynasties in CK 2 game are usually led by landed dudes. So, a distant kinsman who has a plot of land in another kingdom shouldn't really want to obey a supposed dynastic head whom he is separated from since forever as far as he has been alive. So, a distant kinsman should want to become a head of his own "local" part of the dynasty and effectively form a cadet branch. However, non-landed distant kinsman shouldn't form cadet branches in CK 2 since they don't really gain any benefit from that.

I observed that houses tended to have only 20-living dynasty members on average. Only problem with is that because tanistry and seniority are based on dynasty distant branches would be excluded.

Should tanistry and seniority even have cadet branches? What about pure gavelkind? Or the elective gavekind? Also, how do the merchan republic families fit into all of this?

 

[Chlodio]

@BaronIronmaggot I failed to convey the very basic fact about cadet branches, they are transparent. Nobody declares "I'm going to form my own dynasty!". Their differentiation happens gradually and they have no legal status, cadet branch is just their relation to the senior branch used by historians.

They are pretty much the core of tanistry and seniority. In tanistry distant branches were favoured over other branches. CK2's version of seniority is a farce; historical seniority didn't prioritize age but birth order, it worked vertically from brother to brother, back to the oldest brother, such pattern meant that eventually more distant family members of other branches would inherit.

Their name is just a distinction which often delivers from what they are known for, e.g being descendants of great military leader, family that just ruled over an area or collection of exiles that found shelter from foreign court and stayed there.

 

[Kljunas]

I wouldn't use them per se, I'd just like multi-realm dynasties to split over time.

 

[Nussor]

Cadet branches are kind of a matter of logic. You are not from the main line, so you are a cadet branch, simple. It also had to do with claims, which were inherited not just down to the grandchildren; in theory, everyone descendent from a ruler could have a claim. If the main line died out or a ruler was incapable with uncertain sccession (infant heir, no heir etc.), the head of the cadet branch with the most prestige (and military might) would be the strongest contender. Lineages died out much more often in the real world than in CK with its low, but steady, birth rate and equally low infant mortality.

 

[Nyrael]

The concept of the dynasty as we know it today, or just the concept of surnames, was different back in the day as well. For most, there was no such thing as a dynasty: you were usually just the son of the last ruler, or descendant of some important guy at best. And then there were your relatives, distant relatives, and non-relatives. Most dynasties we know were classified as such by later historians, not people from the era.

Cadet Dynasties would help in adding more differentiation between close family and distant family, and even make things like Tanistry actually work better as it would be easier to make the game know who should have preference in elections. Because Cadet Branches as a feature would not just be creation of a new dynasty, but creation of a related dynasty, this opens numerous new possibilities in general.