History buffs, have any advice?

[ZhanStrider]

Greetings!
I'm wondering if anyone who's knowledgeable in history or government type stuff would know what authority a Prince would have to make decisions about laws/punishment of criminals/military action provided the King/Queen/Actual Ruler is not present.

Could a scion of a royal family act as a Regent in emergencies?

[ZhanStrider]

{scrubbed}

[Tvtyrant]

Greetings!
I'm wondering if anyone who's knowledgeable in history or government type stuff would know what authority a Prince would have to make decisions about laws/punishment of criminals/military action provided the King/Queen/Actual Ruler is not present.

Could a scion of a royal family act as a Regent in emergencies?

This is highly dependent on time and place. There is not some general rule to draw from, which is why so many wars of succession happened between groups who both believed they should inherit the same place.

[ZhanStrider]

This is highly dependent on time and place. There is not some general rule to draw from, which is why so many wars of succession happened between groups who both believed they should inherit the same place.

Fair enough

[Aedilred]

Greetings!
I'm wondering if anyone who's knowledgeable in history or government type stuff would know what authority a Prince would have to make decisions about laws/punishment of criminals/military action provided the King/Queen/Actual Ruler is not present.

Could a scion of a royal family act as a Regent in emergencies?

As with almost everything in history, the answer is going to be "it depends".

In a system where the monarch is the sole fount of authority, if the monarch is going to be away for an extended period, a regent (or quasi-regent) is usually appointed, and that individual will usually be the most senior remaining member of the royal family, or failing that, a senior noble. On occasion the queen might be made regent (for instance, when Henry VIII controversially left Catherine of Aragon as regent in his absence, and she defeated and killed the King of Scotland while he was away).

The most senior remaining member of the royal family is usually - though not always - the heir. This can often be important, such as when the heir is a minor (and would thus need a regent regardless) or where the succession is disputed and the regent can thus be in a position to choose the successor (as when Richard II left his uncle Edmund Duke of York in charge, and came back to find that he'd handed over the keys to the kingdom to his cousin the Duke of Hereford, while Richard had preferred the Earl of March as heir). Of course, the heir may also be a minor, in which case a regent would be needed anyway, even if they were fully a king.

In a number of places it was fairly common for the king (or other ruler) to invest their sons or heir presumptives with an office holding actual authority while they were still alive, so that no special provisions needed to be made in case the king wasn't available. Roman Emperors often had junior co-emperors (a caesar to their augustus). In France and Germany during the Middle Ages the king often had his heir elected or crowned as a junior king during his lifetime. There's a "missing" king of England, too, who ruled with his father (Henry II) but predeceased him, and so isn't accounted numerically, but was legally a king and exercised royal authority. In some monarchies the title of crown prince (or equivalent) comes with a preset list of duties and authorities, and it was fairly common for it to come with associated grants of titles and land (the crown prince of England, for instance, is also Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, while the crown prince of France is Count (or, rather, Dauphin) of Viennois; the crown prince of Spain the Prince of Asturias, etc. These may be entirely titular but are often not.

Failing that it would also be common to appoint members of the family to high office and stations through which they could exercise power regardless of their royal status, such as High Steward or Lord Chancellor, which would make them effectively the king's right-hand-man and thus wouldn't need any particular provisions for the king's absence - although usually a competent king would make such provisions regardless.

Even if the prince in question doesn't hold any actual legal authority, they might still be able to throw their weight around if they are politically savvy and have retainers and the like. The chances are that they are powerful men, possibly rich on their own account and with large estates, and even if they don't technically have the right to hear court sessions, appoint people to offices, or make military decisions, they can probably lean heavily on the people who do have that right to make sure the "right" thing happens.

So really you can do whatever you like; there's probably a precedent for it.

[ZhanStrider]

As with almost everything in history, the answer is going to be "it depends".

In a system where the monarch is the sole fount of authority, if the monarch is going to be away for an extended period, a regent (or quasi-regent) is usually appointed, and that individual will usually be the most senior remaining member of the royal family, or failing that, a senior noble. On occasion the queen might be made regent (for instance, when Henry VIII controversially left Catherine of Aragon as regent in his absence, and she defeated and killed the King of Scotland while he was away).

The most senior remaining member of the royal family is usually - though not always - the heir. This can often be important, such as when the heir is a minor (and would thus need a regent regardless) or where the succession is disputed and the regent can thus be in a position to choose the successor (as when Richard II left his uncle Edmund Duke of York in charge, and came back to find that he'd handed over the keys to the kingdom to his cousin the Duke of Hereford, while Richard had preferred the Earl of March as heir). Of course, the heir may also be a minor, in which case a regent would be needed anyway, even if they were fully a king.

In a number of places it was fairly common for the king (or other ruler) to invest their sons or heir presumptives with an office holding actual authority while they were still alive, so that no special provisions needed to be made in case the king wasn't available. Roman Emperors often had junior co-emperors (a caesar to their augustus). In France and Germany during the Middle Ages the king often had his heir elected or crowned as a junior king during his lifetime. There's a "missing" king of England, too, who ruled with his father (Henry II) but predeceased him, and so isn't accounted numerically, but was legally a king and exercised royal authority. In some monarchies the title of crown prince (or equivalent) comes with a preset list of duties and authorities, and it was fairly common for it to come with associated grants of titles and land (the crown prince of England, for instance, is also Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, while the crown prince of France is Count (or, rather, Dauphin) of Viennois; the crown prince of Spain the Prince of Asturias, etc. These may be entirely titular but are often not.

Failing that it would also be common to appoint members of the family to high office and stations through which they could exercise power regardless of their royal status, such as High Steward or Lord Chancellor, which would make them effectively the king's right-hand-man and thus wouldn't need any particular provisions for the king's absence - although usually a competent king would make such provisions regardless.

Even if the prince in question doesn't hold any actual legal authority, they might still be able to throw their weight around if they are politically savvy and have retainers and the like. The chances are that they are powerful men, possibly rich on their own account and with large estates, and even if they don't technically have the right to hear court sessions, appoint people to offices, or make military decisions, they can probably lean heavily on the people who do have that right to make sure the "right" thing happens.

So really you can do whatever you like; there's probably a precedent for it.

A+ 10/10 very helpful thank you

[tomandtish]

Aedilred summed it up nicely. For a good historical example of power, changing of heirs, abuse of authority, etc. skip Robin Hood and research the actual relationship between Richard Lionheart and John the First. (Let's not get into more exploration here because of forum rules).

[sktarq]

Also mixed into this is the role of Chamberlain. Classically they ran the palace staff and would be most equivalent to a presidential chief of staff in the US or head of the civil service in the UK. However if the ruler was away (esp in war or diplomacy) the chamberlain would run the nation's day to day business. In part it was the idea that the chamberlain had no claim to the throne that protected the monarch's ability to come back unchallenged. Similar roles existed in China and the middle east (vizier) monarchies as well.
And chamberlains that were related to the royal family (esp by marriage or illegitimate children) were common in booth history and legend.

[MrConsideration]

As said earlier, this depends hugely on the political culture and personal authority of a regent. By Prince I assume you mean son of a monarch, not just aristocrat.

Some monarchies had legalistic underpinnings, but others were based much on personal charisma. When King Cnut the Great left England, he delegated authority to Thurkyll the Tall indefinitely - and said in his letter that he had given him power over the King's law ie Thurkyll was able to have people executed. Less legalistic societies generally followed that if you had the capacity to enforce laws, you did - so earlier monarchies generally follow that pattern.

Some regents had enormous personal power and authority - John of Gaunt was regent for Richard II and had previously been brother to the last king. He was by far the mightiest land-owner in England and was of suitably elevated position that he married a Princess and made an effort at making himself King of Castle y Leon at one point. His personal authority lasted into Richard II's adulthood and he continued as de facto ruler beyond the common age of majority.

Some Princes successfully rebelled against their own parents (Young Henry, for example) and others were given co- or joint kingship as has been said. In your story a Prince can have as much power as it believable in your setting.

[Dacia Brabant]

Then there are the regents who continue to hold the real power of the kingdom not only after the king reaches maturity, but through most if not all of his reign. Erling Skakke succeeded in putting his son, Magnus, on the throne of Norway, but continued to be the de facto ruler until his death at the hands of the Birkebeiners led by the soon-to-be King Sverre. Magnus continued on for another five years, but the tide decidedly turned against him when he lost his regent father.

I'm sure there's a lesson against helicopter parenting in there somewhere. :smalltongue:

[Aedilred]

Then there are the regents who continue to hold the real power of the kingdom not only after the king reaches maturity, but through most if not all of his reign. Erling Skakke succeeded in putting his son, Magnus, on the throne of Norway, but continued to be the de facto ruler until his death at the hands of the Birkebeiners led by the soon-to-be King Sverre. Magnus continued on for another five years, but the tide decidedly turned against him when he lost his regent father.

I'm sure there's a lesson against helicopter parenting in there somewhere. :smalltongue:

That's not limited to royals, of course. One of the most infamous examples (certainly in English history) would be Godwin, who rose to power under Cnut and gradually came to dominate the entire government under his successors, particularly Edward the Confessor, ultimately creating a sort of shadow dynasty which supplanted the two houses with legitimate claim (Wessex and Estridsen) in 1066. Of course it didn't last much longer than that.

Other noteworthy examples tend to arise when the king loses his mind, even if he periodically regains lucidity. Charles VI of France was largely under the thumb of his brother and cousin (it ended badly for both of them), and Henry VI of England was dominated by his uncles and cousins well into adulthood due to his alleged mental infirmity. (Again, the result was the Wars of the Roses).

[Dacia Brabant]

True, and it's an interesting aside that Erling was descended from Godwin on his mother's side, though that conferred no royal lineage upon him in Norway. Still, it does show that ability and ambition ran in that family, although the ability part apparently ran out by the time it reached Magnus.

Probably the best-known example from Norway (thanks to Ibsen) of the reverse, of a king who overcame his regent rather than becoming a pawn of him has to be Haakon Haakonson when he whacked his father-in-law, Skule Bardsson, who it seems never could quite deal with being passed over for the throne when his brother Inge died. That had to be rough though for Haakon to look his wife in the face after that.

[ZhanStrider]

True, and it's an interesting aside that Erling was descended from Godwin on his mother's side, though that conferred no royal lineage upon him in Norway. Still, it does show that ability and ambition ran in that family, although the ability part apparently ran out by the time it reached Magnus.

Probably the best-known example from Norway (thanks to Ibsen) of the reverse, of a king who overcame his regent rather than becoming a pawn of him has to be Haakon Haakonson when he whacked his father-in-law, Skule Bardsson, who it seems never could quite deal with being passed over for the throne when his brother Inge died. That had to be rough though for Haakon to look his wife in the face after that.

Nordic names are the best.