You shouldn't be able to disinherit newborns

[BaronNoir]

The problem you describe happens in game mechanics, not so much in actual Europe.

A a well defined succession line is one where every position is perfectly legitimate. It's not respecting the order (or even worse, trying to change the order : even Louis XIV got backlash for trying to put his bastards on the succession line, even in a symbolic position after every single legitimate royal prince) that is ''illegal''. An historical example of a sovereign with low legitimacy would have been Anne succeeding Mary instead of James III.

Louis-Armand de Bourbon-Conti, the kind of dude you would have been a 0/0/0 (serious mental health issues not helped by syphilis, accused of gruesome murders of prostitutes, domestic violence, a complete nullity in military affairs, and above all, said mean things about his cousin the Régent) was the ninth in the succesion for Louis XIV. He would have still be 100% legitimate if the eight other guys had died.

Likewise, Henry of Navarre was a very distant cousin of Henry III (and a protestant) . Okay, his subjects did not accepted him, at all. Gameplay mechanics about low legitimacy are certainly an adequate representation of this, as well as the implied methods to rise legitimacy (Henry IV did use ''military power'' points, for instance against Paris, to raise his legitimacy...) This, however, is about acceptance of the ruler, not legitimacy : Henry IV, in the ideology of the time, was maybe impopular, but the legitimate sovereign.

​

 

[Opanashc]

I say, disinheriting should spawn rebels in proportion with the ruler legitimacy and heir's claim. Few would support a weak heir's claim against a strong monarch, but a very legitimate heir would have a much stronger support base.

The problem you describe happens in game mechanics, not so much in actual Europe.

A a well defined succession line is one where every position is perfectly legitimate. It's not respecting the order (or even worse, trying to change the order : even Louis XIV got backlash for trying to put his bastards on the succession line, even in a symbolic position after every single legitimate royal prince) that is ''illegal''. An historical example of a sovereign with low legitimacy would have been Anne succeeding Mary instead of James III.

Louis-Armand de Bourbon-Conti, the kind of dude you would have been a 0/0/0 (serious mental health issues not helped by syphilis, accused of gruesome murders of prostitutes, domestic violence, a complete nullity in military affairs, and above all, said mean things about his cousin the Régent) was the ninth in the succesion for Louis XIV. He would have still be 100% legitimate if the eight other guys had died.

Likewise, Henry of Navarre was a very distant cousin of Henry III (and a protestant) . Okay, his subjects did not accepted him, at all. Gameplay mechanics about low legitimacy are certainly an adequate representation of this, as well as the implied methods to rise legitimacy (Henry IV did use ''military power'' points, for instance against Paris, to raise his legitimacy...) This, however, is about acceptance of the ruler, not legitimacy : Henry IV, in the ideology of the time, was maybe impopular, but the legitimate sovereign.

Don't confuse in-game legitimacy value with the right of succession. Legitimacy is how much support the ruler gets from the state - the lower legitimacy is, the greater the voices of discontent with the ruler are. Right of succession is heir always succeeds, no matter how low the state's opinion of said heir is.

 

[BaronNoir]

In French at least, legitimacy does not means ''acceptance by the state''. To the contrary, legitimists can take an almost perverse (figure of style...) pleasure at pointing out that, yes, maybe all Europe, the army, the nobles, the burghers the church backs that Corsican brigand, but they are the rightful rulers.