When do you have to name an heir?

[unmerged(8642)]

Do you name them once the king is dead (sort of like a will)? Or while the king is still alive? If its while he's alive, you'd have to name him as soon as you become king since if the king dies suddenly you need an heir before you die. Which would be kind of odd if you have a young king and he has to name his cousin or something heir, although i guess it would be realistic. I think i confused myself. Could we get some clarification? Ideas how the system should work?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by roachclip76
Do you name them once the king is dead (sort of like a will)? Or while the king is still alive? If its while he's alive, you'd have to name him as soon as you become king since if the king dies suddenly you need an heir before you die. Which would be kind of odd if you have a young king and he has to name his cousin or something heir, although i guess it would be realistic. I think i confused myself. Could we get some clarification? Ideas how the system should work?

You're on the right track. The only thing to add would be that as circumstances change (a noble death or birth) you would be able to change your designation of an heir just like changing your will.

 

[unmerged(1302)]

Re: Re: When do you have to name an heir?

Originally posted by Sonny


You're on the right track. The only thing to add would be that as circumstances change (a noble death or birth) you would be able to change your designation of an heir just like changing your will.

Isn't it supposed to be an eldest son?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Re: Re: Re: When do you have to name an heir?

Originally posted by Crook


Isn't it supposed to be an eldest son?

Generally yes. But if you only have a daughter you may want to name her as heir or a brother. But when a son comes along you would want to name him heir (unless the game makes it automatic which I doubt).

 

[Idiotboy]

Well since I care little for PC a son should be considered automatic heir unless he is a vegetable. Perhaps you could weed them out or something. And a woman rarely retained power if she was the heir after marriage.

 

[unmerged(1302)]

Originally posted by Idiotboy
Well since I care little for PC a son should be considered automatic heir unless he is a vegetable. Perhaps you could weed them out or something. And a woman rarely retained power if she was the heir after marriage.

What would happen if I name a son of my mistress as a heir?

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by Crook


What would happen if I name a son of my mistress as a heir?

Legetimate sons won't be happy.

The rest goes by itself...

Drakken

 

[unmerged(1302)]

Originally posted by Drakken


Legetimate sons won't be happy.

The rest goes by itself...

Drakken

Yeah, but what would it mean in terms of the game?

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by Crook


Yeah, but what would it mean in terms of the game?

The lesed sons, the vassals loyal to them and their supporters might rebel against the bastard to put him off the throne, especially if he doesn't have heirs on his own.

Drakken

 

[Idiotboy]

If any bastards are put before unlikely given the psyche of the era legitimate sons would except causing massive revolts probably appeal to the overlord who would support them in a second.

 

[unmerged(547)]

IIRC, family members can be appointed into Duke of ____ in order to keep them happy. I would have to assume that naming an heir would be of immense importance, but many, many times throughout history the monarch waited until he/she was on the "deathbed" (or too late and did not name an heir before death).

This makes me wonder....is their some sort of stability bonus for having an heir named before your monarch dies?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Crook


Yeah, but what would it mean in terms of the game?

He will grow up to conquer some island kingdom.

 

[unmerged(8698)]

Would it be the same for all countries? Primogeniture certainly hadn't been established in England at this point, but was used in some other systems. Bastards would be unlikely to succeed aheads of legitimate children in many countries, as England was unfortunate enough to experience when Gloucesters bastardy prevented him from succeeding Henry I.

 

[Wulfram]

There should definately be differences, like whether Salic law is followed. Also IIRC, the Eastern Roman empire wasn't so interested who was born first, being born to a ruling emperor was actually more prestigious.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

There should be an option to appoint an heir at any time, but a player shouldn't be forced to. And, if the heir dies before becoming monarch, just appoint another. The benefit of appointing early would be to avoid any succession hassles, but might risk lowering the loyalty of some of the larger noble families (what, we can't be king now?) As well, appointing early, especially if an appoint as heir is FOR LIFE, might mean that an abler candidate won't be able to take the job later. Of course, if you wait too long and die, well, you might end up in a nasty civil war

As for sons and daughters, there's nothing PC aboit a woman ruling. Eleanor of Acquitaine springs to mind as just one example of a long list of women who were powerful in their own right. Of course, the attitudes of the times meant that mean were vastly preferred, and that should be reflected. Don't know if the varying customs can all be put in - that's a lot of coding - but it would sure be nice to see

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by PBI
...................

As for sons and daughters, there's nothing PC aboit a woman ruling. Eleanor of Acquitaine springs to mind as just one example of a long list of women who were powerful in their own right. ..........

So powerful she spent 16 years imprisoned.

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by Wulfram
There should definately be differences, like whether Salic law is followed. Also IIRC, the Eastern Roman empire wasn't so interested who was born first, being born to a ruling emperor was actually more prestigious.

Well the roman empire was kinda an exeption compared to the rest of Europa.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by Sonny


So powerful she spent 16 years imprisoned.

Powerful enough that she had to be imprisoned instead of executed.

My point, though, was that women shouldn't be automatically excluded, just that choosing one should come with a hefty price. In order to make such a decision option work, though, there would have to be a reason to choose a woman, be it ability, maybe she comes with a dowry, etc.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by PBI


Powerful enough that she had to be imprisoned instead of executed.

My point, though, was that women shouldn't be automatically excluded, just that choosing one should come with a hefty price. In order to make such a decision option work, though, there would have to be a reason to choose a woman, be it ability, maybe she comes with a dowry, etc.

Not many Christain wives were executed during the CK period.

Mostly the dowry. Then family ties/relationships/treaties.

 

[unmerged(6668)]

I dont know...that whole woman on the throne thing never worked very well in the Middle Ages. Matilda had the barons' oaths before Henry I died, and look what happened there. And in the Empire? Henry III left Agnes as regent and nobles and bishops alike teamed up to make her life hell, even going so far as to kidnap little Henry IV. And then there's Urraca in Spain...but I guess Constance de Hauteville didnt take any crap.

Anyway, in the Empire at least, it was a smart idea to have your son elected and crowned ASAP so the princes wouldnt pick a new candidate when you died. Especially if you were about to set off to Italy or on Crusade...