Why foreign kings have vote for my new Law

[DorlasAnther]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Do you have any concept of medieval laws and the thought process behind them like this, or are you going to just continue to anachronistically claim it's stupid? These Kingdoms were "ordained by God" (mostly rooted in Roman laws), so it didn't really matter if some petty King wasn't de facto part of your realm, because they are by (divine) law a part of your realm.

Let´s explain it to you. King A holds duchy of Hamster. This duchy, though, is considered to be part of kingdom B by its ruler, king B. King A, of course, doesn´t care. In his mind, Hamster is part of his realm.
What this guy rightfully sees as stupid is that king A is not allowed to appoint bishops in duchy of Hamster, because king B considers Hamster to be part of his realm.

 

[OBRkenobi]

It also works the other way round. Were foreign rulers have to ask for your vote on their law changes if you hold titles within their de jure kingdom.

 

[Zsrai]

Let´s explain it to you. King A holds duchy of Hamster. This duchy, though, is considered to be part of kingdom B by its ruler, king B. King A, of course, doesn´t care. In his mind, Hamster is part of his realm.
What this guy rightfully sees as stupid is that king A is not allowed to appoint bishops in duchy of Hamster, because king B considers Hamster to be part of his realm.

Let me explain it to you: Back in the 1200's, what King A thought didn't really matter because that Duchy was legally recognized as part of King B's crown.

It's stupid NOW but it wasn't stupid THEN. Hence the word "anachronism". That's the point that people seem to just ignore constantly. You can't use today's logic on yesterday's thoughts.

 

[PK_AZ]

Let´s explain it to you. King A holds duchy of Hamster. This duchy, though, is considered to be part of kingdom B by its ruler, king B. King A, of course, doesn´t care. In his mind, Hamster is part of his realm.

Why? Of course it is one of possibilities, but I cannot see any reason why is that supposed to be the only possibility.

 

[TMSaxon]

Don't get me wrong, the de jure system does need a serious rethink - even in 1066 in places it is borderline wrong/inaccurate (for example, Scotland shouldn't include the islands, Croatia arguably shouldn't be part of the ERE, Acquitaine possibly shouldn't exist, etc), and the system should be far more dynamic - for example, you should be able to wage wars in some circumstances to change say the duchy of Lothian to de jure K_England, or that the petty kingdoms of England should be kingdoms, and not glorified dukes etc, but it is based on relatively sound historical understanding of medieval thought. If you don't like it, then be glad that you live in a post Westphalian system of nation states rather than what has come before, but that was the confused, confusing, and arbitrary system that was around in most of Europe, with Byzantium as always being the major Christian exemption.

 

[Gnorrosch]

Let´s explain it to you. King A holds duchy of Hamster. This duchy, though, is considered to be part of kingdom B by its ruler, king B. King A, of course, doesn´t care. In his mind, Hamster is part of his realm. What this guy rightfully sees as stupid is that king A is not allowed to appoint bishops in duchy of Hamster, because king B considers Hamster to be part of his realm.

The problem for king A would be that, of course, not only king B still considered that duchy a part of his kingdom, but the other nobles in Hamster (and elsewhere) as well. Or, for example, the pope. So, even if he simply appointed a new bishop, what was he to do if the pope excommunicated that person as usuprator and his subjects followed suit with that excommunication, accepting the pope's new bishop instead? Waging war against the nobles in Hamster, who would probably be supported by King B who is only waiting for a chance to "free his loyal subjects from A tyranny"? Forcing him to accommodate his other nobles, who worry that he might try to ignore their privileges next? Not to mention that his struggle would bind his ressources, thus giving his enemies an opening?

Basically, it would be something only a strong king would pull off - and something he would have probably to repeat several times before his final say in that matters was finally accepted. That is what CK2 represents as de jure shift: Other's accepting that A is now in full control of Hamster. Not that the king itself accepts it.

Don't get me wrong, the de jure system does need a serious rethink - even in 1066 in places it is borderline wrong/inaccurate.

If I understood it correctly, several of these errors were introduced for technical reasons - everything must be part of a de jure empire, all duchies need to be part of a de jure kingdom and a de jure empire, all counties need to be part of a de jure duchy, a de jure kingdom and a de jure empire. The earliest versions did not require that (they introduced new empires at some points), but several mechanics would break in the recent versions otherwise. At the moment, the de jure system is rather clunky, but probably the best they can come up with given the circumstances.

 

[DorlasAnther]

If I understood it correctly, several of these errors were introduced for technical reasons - everything must be part of a de jure empire, all duchies need to be part of a de jure kingdom and a de jure empire, all counties need to be part of a de jure duchy, a de jure kingdom and a de jure empire. The earliest versions did not require that (they introduced new empires at some points), but several mechanics would break in the recent versions otherwise. At the moment, the de jure system is rather clunky, but probably the best they can come up with given the circumstances.

There are mods which have only few empires (like HIP) and there are titles in CK2 which aren´t part of any empire. I know about 2: Papacy, as soon as it gets Latium to de jure drift, there will be empty spot on de jure empires map. Second one is Duchy of Slovakia, which is even more special, because it isn´t even part of any kingdom. So, if you create custom kingdom out of it and wait long enough for de jure drift, you will see another empty spot.

 

[Heinrich4]

everything must be part of a de jure empire, all duchies need to be part of a de jure kingdom and a de jure empire, all counties need to be part of a de jure duchy, a de jure kingdom and a de jure empire.

Counties only need to have a de jure duchy and a de jure kingdom. De jure empires are not needed.

 

[TMSaxon]

If I understood it correctly, several of these errors were introduced for technical reasons - everything must be part of a de jure empire, all duchies need to be part of a de jure kingdom and a de jure empire, all counties need to be part of a de jure duchy, a de jure kingdom and a de jure empire. The earliest versions did not require that (they introduced new empires at some points), but several mechanics would break in the recent versions otherwise. At the moment, the de jure system is rather clunky, but probably the best they can come up with given the circumstances.

Be that as it may, what they should probably do for some regions, for example Scotland, is have more than one de jure kingdom there - a kingdom of the Isles. Actually, Scotland should probably have three or four different kingdoms in it in 1066 starts - it was only really under Malcolm IV that Scotland as we know it today would be a proper thing, and even then the Isles were still an independent entity that legally was somewhat under the Norwegian crown.
The key problem is that for whatever reason, Paradox do not seem to want to change the de jure set up in different starts. This is incredibly obvious in the new earliest start, where Byzantium for example probably should have under it de jure Africa and possibly even de jure Italia. The fact that Paradox hasn't implemented the things that prevented Byzantium from actually reconquering those regions before de jure drift happened (going by in game logic) is another problem.
Similarly, the Heptarchy isn't really a thing in England, even though it almost certainly should be in those starts.

 

[icedt729]

Be that as it may, what they should probably do for some regions, for example Scotland, is have more than one de jure kingdom there - a kingdom of the Isles. Actually, Scotland should probably have three or four different kingdoms in it in 1066 starts - it was only really under Malcolm IV that Scotland as we know it today would be a proper thing, and even then the Isles were still an independent entity that legally was somewhat under the Norwegian crown.
The key problem is that for whatever reason, Paradox do not seem to want to change the de jure set up in different starts. This is incredibly obvious in the new earliest start, where Byzantium for example probably should have under it de jure Africa and possibly even de jure Italia. The fact that Paradox hasn't implemented the things that prevented Byzantium from actually reconquering those regions before de jure drift happened (going by in game logic) is another problem.
Similarly, the Heptarchy isn't really a thing in England, even though it almost certainly should be in those starts.

I agree on historical principle, but I also think some of these cases are just areas that the game mechanics don't work well. Take the Isles- no real de jure identity until a short-lived era of Norwegian sovereignty, then Scotland bought it off of Norway after a short and inconclusive war. Afterwards it became firmly a part of Scotland. So, in the context of the game, what is the 'right' way to handle the Isles? You could make it a one-duchy kingdom like Brittany pretty easily, but then you still need a way for both the Norwegians and Scots to exert sovereignty over them. If you just give the Scottish and Norwegian kings claims on the Isles, then it becomes part of the royal demesne and not a vassal, as it should be. If you make it a tributary then there's no chance for de jure drift. If you make events or decisions for the Scots-Norwegian conflicts then it's railroading and wouldn't be appreciated by many players.