Line of succession question

[Orcus The Vile]

What happens if a princess is proposed and married to another prince in another kingdom, but then all her family, father and brothers die? Does she become queen since she is the next in the line of succession or does she stay with her husband since her duties as consort comes first?

[SilverLeaf167]

There's a lot of variation between succession laws, but yes, generally speaking she would become Queen of Country A who happens to be married to Prince of Country B, and she would indeed outrank her husband in most contexts (whether they make a big deal out of it is up to them). She'd likely travel back and forth a lot, have a more long-distance relationship and/or make a regent of some sort handle much of the ruling.

If the prince later became the ruler of his own kingdom and the two had a child, that child would in most succession systems be heir to both realms. Most likely they'd be ruled as separate countries under the same monarch in what is called a personal union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_union), but future unification isn't entirely off the table. That's basically how modern Spain was formed, for instance.

[LibraryOgre]

Agree, it is highly variable. She might become the reigning Queen. In particularly partriarchal societies, her husband might become the reigning king of both nations. Or the local parliament, witan, or whatever declares someone else king. Or they fall to bloody warfare.

[Mr Blobby]

The answer you'll hate: it all depends on the laws of succession which governs the Princess' realm.

- If her realm is governed by Salic law [male line only], no she wouldn't be - it would pass to her nearest [blood-wise] cousin, uncle or whatnot. Males more important when they were expected to lead personally armies. [RL Example: France]

- There may be rules that they can't have a female monarch, but the claim can carry through her. So in this case the eldest male son [if he exists] will be claimed king.

- She may have signed documents on her marriage renouncing all claims [and her progeny] to her father's realm. Highly important, when the dynastic marriage between two enemies was a common way of sealing peace. [RL Example: Anne of Austria, mother of Louis XIV of France].

- It may be an elected monarchy; either between senior nobles or within the 'Royal Family'. So she may be in the running [unless other reasons are in effect], but it won't be automatic unless she is literally the only candidate. [RL Example: Holy Roman Empire].

- The laws on seniority may be in effect; in which the eldest with royal blood is the heir apparent - meaning in your case, it won't be the Princess but say her crusty great-Uncle or perhaps a cousin - unless she was the eldest remaining standing. [RL Example: Saudi Arabia]

- She might be the product of a morganatic marriage; her mother had been 'too common' to get full Royal status on marriage to her father. Better than a mere bastard, but not as good as a 'full' heir. In this case, she'd only be considered if all the 'better' choices were either dead or utterly incapable [insane, senile etc]. [RL Example: Imperial Russia]

- There may be laws in effect in her husband's realm which forbid the holding/inheritance of foreign titles. Which means if she accepted the offer from her 'home' country, she'd lose all rank and title in her husband's. [Only RL example I can think of is the USA's ban on taking foreign titles/awards without express permission, but I'm sure at least one country had this at some point].

- Her claim may have become invalid for other reasons. Most common is religious: if the Princess converted to her husband's religion on marriage, but her father's realm demands their ruler to be 'of the true faith' she'd not be considered. Other legal methods might be on the books; such as 'must have been born within the country as of X date' [which excludes her if she'd been born in a part of the country annexed later] and the like. [RL Example: UK]

- Sometimes, the order of succession was decided on simply who got to the capital / special city to get crowned, swipe the royal treasury etc. So it would be a race with violence; for every ambitious [mainly male] royal would scrape up an army and head to the capital to see if they can get their claim in first. Often, this happened when the rules of succession weren't formalised, the former King hadn't had time to cement in his chosen heir [such as building up their power-base] or the dynasty itself was dubious in legitimacy [such as being a recent foundation from usurpation or conquest]. [RL Example: Norman England].


The main question which depends on 'what happens next' is what is the rank of her husband? Is he a ruler in his own right [as in he is a de facto king with the title of 'Prince']. If not, how far away is he from succession? Traditionally, RL families would never marry two royals together if both had significant chances of inheriting.


Let's say in this case, the Princess is offered the throne. Chances are, it would be with the proviso before being crowned her husband has to sign an edict renouncing all claims to his father's lands, titles and for his descendants too - to stop the two countries falling into the lap of one person. Though there are times where a canny would-be ruler slips in stuff in the small print which means they do in fact keep the claims [RL Example: Louis XIV's marriage to Maria Theresa - he made her renouncing claims on the Spanish Empire on condition of a whacking dowry. France knew Spain was bankrupt and couldn't pay the dowry, but was also too proud to admit they were.]

If both are rulers in their own right, and each grants 'royal power' to the spouse - it's called a 'Co-regency' [Not 'Personal Union'. That is when one person rules two or more countries, such as Spain, UK etc]. In this case, either one/ both monarchs would commute between the two countries, they'd set up home in the larger country and rule the smaller through a Governor / Prime Minister or they'd both go to their respective countries and rule. [RL Example: William III of the Netherlands and Mary II of England]

But this is the old 'disputed succession' undead trope which caused many, many wars in RL. Even if the Princess legally could inherit, if she had say an ambitious and able male cousin, she was far away etc a civil war could erupt [and usually would]. I cite the life of 'Empress Matilda' as an excellent example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda

[EccentricCircle]

Sometimes a king would appoint their chosen heir as co-regent, so that they were both king, and the younger would become sole king when the elder died. This was done by the ancient Egyptians a lot, but I don't think was done as much in medieval times. So that would be another way that the line of succession could be changed, so that the king's preferred candidate succeeds rather than his daughter.

[Mr Blobby]

I put that under 'cementing in the chosen heir by building up their power-base'. Often, Medieval European Kings would grant their chosen heirs castles / lands / titles / armies etc so they'd have a spring-board to get the throne on their death. And on a counter-move, may grant 'unfavoured' candidates similar [though smaller] on fringes of the kingdom so when the race began they'd [hopefully] be geographically hindered.

From Orcus' original question, it sounds like they're asking about the 'unexpected inheritance' trope; for save mass assassinations / plague / disasters no royal house would lose several males all at once - which means the King, his 'chosen' heir and then their spare fell either at the same time or within days.

[dps]

The answer you'll hate: it all depends on the laws of succession which governs the Princess' realm.
<snip>



And that doesn't even exhaust all the possibilities.

Basically, in a DnD context, how the succession works and what happens next is up to the DM. A good DM would have how the succession laws work planned out ahead, but wouldn't necessarily bother to tell the players unless it was something he felt was common knowledge in the setting or if the PCs actually put some effort into finding out.

[Vogie]

To add further complications, there have been societies where powerful families who would adopt other adult men to add them to the line of succession, as a way to stop that sort of thing from happening. For example, Gaius Octavius was the Great-Nephew of Julius Caesar, who was then adopted by Julius Caeser, becoming Octavian and later known as Caesar Augustus, inheriting the role of Caesar even though good ol' JC had a legitimate Daughter, Julia, and a bastard son, Caesarion, with Cleopatra.

I've heard that some Eastern family-run corporations will still do this - If the kids aren't particularly business savvy, but they want to keep it a family business, the person who has been chosen take over the reigns into the family will be adopted into the family prior to the founder/CEO's passing.


And, of course, since Game of Thrones is a thing people talk about, there could also be a contest of the Princess' ability to assume the throne if she is delegitimized in some way. In GOT, that is seen to have happened by

Forsaking their rights (for example, by entering the Kingsguard or Queensguard, or joining the Night's Watch)
Being deemed not actually an offspring of the monarch (Such as what happened to the Baratheon-Lannister children)
Actively leaving their birthrights (such as what happened to Bran Stark and Jorah Mormont)
Being actively dismissed from a family from someone higher in the line (such as what happens to Tyrion Lannister and his wife)

When someone in the line of succession is delegitimized, Succession would normally then go down the larger line, including the original patriarch's siblings (the Princess' uncles & aunts), followed by cousins.

[Mr Blobby]

Why does the DM need to plan it out? In RL Medieval days often the succession line *wasn't* clearly planned out; particularly if the top dozen or so of most likely candidates had died in quick succession - leaving a bunch of nonentity second cousins / women / bastards who few had bothered to notice for until everyone closer perished. Then there's always the chance that the King outlived his 'obvious' successors [brothers etc], sired a football team or two of bastards but never a legitimate child and never named a successor - leaving the throne wide open on his death.

EDIT: All the Thrones examples hail from RL. And from what I can tell, the formalised succession rules [as the ones we'd understand] only came about in around the 17th Century.

[FreddyNoNose]

What happens if a princess is proposed and married to another prince in another kingdom, but then all her family, father and brothers die? Does she become queen since she is the next in the line of succession or does she stay with her husband since her duties as consort comes first?

Whatever the rules are for that kingdom.

[Knaight]

There's a good chance that the specifics of the succession laws don't matter here. Medieval monarchies were extremely prone to very messy successions where wars and assassinations determined the successor. Dynastic changes where a strong noble family swept in and took over when they sensed weakness among the royalty were also far from uncommon.

Here we have a case where all but one member of the royal family is dead, and that one last member is someone unlikely to be conventionally accepted as a ruler. It's a textbook power vacuum, waiting to be filled somehow.

With that said, the question in the opening post seems to suggest that the princess in question is going to have to either be the queen of her country of origin or a princess in the new country, and that's not a safe assumption. People ending up with collections of seemingly unrelated noble titles was pretty much standard, up to and including cases where someone had a high ranking noble title that came with authority over a bunch of lower ranking noble titles, some of which were also currently possessed by them.

[Mr Blobby]

There is *never* a situation where all of the royal blood are dead - though there can be cases where the 'blood claim' is pretty thin indeed: Henry VII's claim to the English throne [1480's] was being a great-great-great grandson of Edward III. Via the maternal line, and through a bastard. His 'other' claim was being a half-nephew of Henry VI - the half they shared being the part which didn't contain the English Crown.

In situations like this, there's usually a fair few nobles [and foreigners] who could claim a throne on being 3/4+ steps away from a King.

[daniel_ream]

Treason never succeeds, and what is the reason?
If it succeeds, none dare call it treason

Game of Thrones is based on the English War of the Roses, and if anything is simpler and less bloody than the actual history. Someone's already mentioned the Anarchy; if you really want to see succession shenanigans, check out a good history of the War of the Roses.

I think many people have pointed out that the answer here is "it's whatever you want, because there's no consistency to succession laws, and even where there is, an army trumps the courts".

Just a modern example of how weird this can get: when Princess Catherine was pregnant with Prince George and before the sex of the baby was known, there was a huge problem in Canada over the succession. The Queen of Canada and the Queen of England are legally two separate people who happen to reside in one body, currently Elizabeth II. But where England can fairly easily change their laws on succession (to remove male primogeniture), in Canada it arguably requires amending the Constitution, which was designed to be almost impossible. So if Prince George had instead been a girl, there would have been the awkward situation that the succession for the Crown of England would have been different from the succession for the Crown of Canada.

This was resolved by a law which amended the succession in 2013, but the constitutionality of that law is still being contested. In 2013 that really doesn't matter, but in a fictional fantasy universe having two siblings each in control of half an empire due to odd legal quirks in the succession is an awesome plot generator.

[Mr Blobby]

That example is an excellent one of the issue of hereditary Personal Unions [which Canada is technically in with the UK]. Many historical countries - the UK, France, Spain etc were slowly built over centuries by all these titles being collected into one person [technically called a 'composite monarchy']. But - what happens if the inheritance is split due to differing succession rights? [Such as the UK - Hanover Union in 1837]

It's a possible scenario in an RPG game: Good old Emperor X died, along with his immediate family due to [deus ex machina]. The mighty Empire, assembled over generations cracks up for each town / city / field has it's own rules of succession and ends up being parcelled out to dozens of different candidates. Naturally, then everything falls apart; the borders make no sense [for it never mattered before whether X was in County Y or Princedom Z until now], odd historical leftovers occur [such as Ruler #1 inheriting a Navy but no port cities, or Ruler #2 learning that while their 'inheritance' was a good one, it seems to exclude all the major castles within their lands]. For added fun, make one of the PC's the heir to one of these, and see if they can [with their comrades] re-build the Empire from their fragment.

That's the kind of thing I could see doing if I was a DM with a party of Epic-level PC's in D&D; to help move them from the tactical to strategic map.

[Jay R]

What happens if a princess is proposed and married to another prince in another kingdom, but then all her family, father and brothers die? Does she become queen since she is the next in the line of succession or does she stay with her husband since her duties as consort comes first?

In a role-playing game, whatever would generate the best adventure happens.

[daniel_ream]

In a role-playing game, whatever would generate the best adventure happens.

Civil War it is!

[dps]

Why does the DM need to plan it out? In RL Medieval days often the succession line *wasn't* clearly planned out; particularly if the top dozen or so of most likely candidates had died in quick succession - leaving a bunch of nonentity second cousins / women / bastards who few had bothered to notice for until everyone closer perished. Then there's always the chance that the King outlived his 'obvious' successors [brothers etc], sired a football team or two of bastards but never a legitimate child and never named a successor - leaving the throne wide open on his death.

EDIT: All the Thrones examples hail from RL. And from what I can tell, the formalised succession rules [as the ones we'd understand] only came about in around the 17th Century.

You don't have to have all the details planned out as far as exactly who will win the throne if there's a struggle for it, but you should plan out whether or not there's going to be an orderly succession or a succession crisis, and if there is a crisis, which NPCs are contenders (there are cases where people who could have claimed the throne didn't actually advance their own claim--in some cases, they threw their support to another contender; in some cases, they just set it out). And of course if it is an orderly succession, you should know how it's going to go.

There are obvious plot hooks for your characters if there's a succession crisis, but there are some less obvious ones for an orderly succession as well.

[Vogie]

Why does the DM need to plan it out?

Well, if the entire line of succession are NPCs, it saves them from trying to figure it out on the fly.

However, if the entire party is somewhere in line of succession...

[Knaight]

Well, if the entire line of succession are NPCs, it saves them from trying to figure it out on the fly.

Assuming that the PCs don't screw with it somehow. I'm not particularly willing to make that sort of assumption.

[Mr Blobby]

In the composite monarchy example [I'll admit I'm warming to it], it wouldn't be that hard to cook up rather odd 'conditions of succession' rules for a part of the Empire which one of the PC's fill, if only weakly; must be a lineal descendent of great King/Queen X [they are, but through two bastards] / must be a recognised mage / must have proven decent from species Y / must speak fluent Elven / must follow God Z / etc. But as it's only a *claim*, it's up to the party to make it stick [hey, it deals with the question of 'what to do with that hill of loot?' with Epic PC's]. Or, it might be that area's given up on 'official' candidates and what passes as the government has simply offered the crown to one of the PC's for 'being a capable badass'.

Might use that one day. Emissary approaches party in a tavern, tells them that they're offering the crown. Wait until puffed-up PC accepts [there's always one] only for the emissary to say no, not you - *them* - and points to the Tiefling / Half-Drow / Rogue / other unlikely suspect...

[Martin Greywolf]

Monarchs as a rule weren't complete idiots - well, usually - least of all in politics. A high-profile marriage like this would have a treaty accompanying it, a treaty that regulates a whole lot of stuff, among others what exactly the succession is. This will likely follow the customs of the countries (when can a woman inherit) and combine it with a hefty dose of realpolitik - there are many, many examples of treaties like these, pick your area of Europe and time period and go forth and research.

How much good it will do you depends entirely on how prepared and able you are to enforce such a treaty. The nobles are at the very least likely to play both sides for concessions and land in exchange for their support, and central royal authority will suffer for a time, forcing whoever wins to deal with the uppity nobles.

[kraftcheese]

Guillotine the lot of em!

Jokes aside, some downtrodden peasants, disenfranchised middle-class merchants or some minor lordlings could see the instability and uncertain claim as a chance for a bloody good old revolution; do they want a parliament (possibly only for landowners, depending on who's revolting)? The end to serfdom? Maybe they just want lower taxes, or the right to own property.

A good old revolution's always a curveball in a Mediaeval campaign.

[Jay R]

In a role-playing game, whatever would generate the best adventure happens.
Civil War it is!

Not necessarily. Perhaps the princess needs to travel through wilderness to claim her throne. Besides the usual hazards, whoever has the second claim has a vested interest in her death. The PCs are her escorts, and besides the usual travel hazards, they have to protect a non-fighter, who is the villains' actual target.

[Mr Blobby]

If it's D&D, you can also have racial revolts too; in RL multi-ethnic empires often had these - but how about those other Races; from the downtrodden ones sick of being dominated, others attempting to simply be left alone etc.

[a_flemish_guy]

The answer you'll hate: it all depends on the laws of succession which governs the Princess' realm.

- If her realm is governed by Salic law [male line only], no she wouldn't be - it would pass to her nearest [blood-wise] cousin, uncle or whatnot. Males more important when they were expected to lead personally armies. [RL Example: France]

- There may be rules that they can't have a female monarch, but the claim can carry through her. So in this case the eldest male son [if he exists] will be claimed king.

- She may have signed documents on her marriage renouncing all claims [and her progeny] to her father's realm. Highly important, when the dynastic marriage between two enemies was a common way of sealing peace. [RL Example: Anne of Austria, mother of Louis XIV of France].

- It may be an elected monarchy; either between senior nobles or within the 'Royal Family'. So she may be in the running [unless other reasons are in effect], but it won't be automatic unless she is literally the only candidate. [RL Example: Holy Roman Empire].

- The laws on seniority may be in effect; in which the eldest with royal blood is the heir apparent - meaning in your case, it won't be the Princess but say her crusty great-Uncle or perhaps a cousin - unless she was the eldest remaining standing. [RL Example: Saudi Arabia]

- She might be the product of a morganatic marriage; her mother had been 'too common' to get full Royal status on marriage to her father. Better than a mere bastard, but not as good as a 'full' heir. In this case, she'd only be considered if all the 'better' choices were either dead or utterly incapable [insane, senile etc]. [RL Example: Imperial Russia]

- There may be laws in effect in her husband's realm which forbid the holding/inheritance of foreign titles. Which means if she accepted the offer from her 'home' country, she'd lose all rank and title in her husband's. [Only RL example I can think of is the USA's ban on taking foreign titles/awards without express permission, but I'm sure at least one country had this at some point].

- Her claim may have become invalid for other reasons. Most common is religious: if the Princess converted to her husband's religion on marriage, but her father's realm demands their ruler to be 'of the true faith' she'd not be considered. Other legal methods might be on the books; such as 'must have been born within the country as of X date' [which excludes her if she'd been born in a part of the country annexed later] and the like. [RL Example: UK]

- Sometimes, the order of succession was decided on simply who got to the capital / special city to get crowned, swipe the royal treasury etc. So it would be a race with violence; for every ambitious [mainly male] royal would scrape up an army and head to the capital to see if they can get their claim in first. Often, this happened when the rules of succession weren't formalised, the former King hadn't had time to cement in his chosen heir [such as building up their power-base] or the dynasty itself was dubious in legitimacy [such as being a recent foundation from usurpation or conquest]. [RL Example: Norman England].


The main question which depends on 'what happens next' is what is the rank of her husband? Is he a ruler in his own right [as in he is a de facto king with the title of 'Prince']. If not, how far away is he from succession? Traditionally, RL families would never marry two royals together if both had significant chances of inheriting.


Let's say in this case, the Princess is offered the throne. Chances are, it would be with the proviso before being crowned her husband has to sign an edict renouncing all claims to his father's lands, titles and for his descendants too - to stop the two countries falling into the lap of one person. Though there are times where a canny would-be ruler slips in stuff in the small print which means they do in fact keep the claims [RL Example: Louis XIV's marriage to Maria Theresa - he made her renouncing claims on the Spanish Empire on condition of a whacking dowry. France knew Spain was bankrupt and couldn't pay the dowry, but was also too proud to admit they were.]

If both are rulers in their own right, and each grants 'royal power' to the spouse - it's called a 'Co-regency' [Not 'Personal Union'. That is when one person rules two or more countries, such as Spain, UK etc]. In this case, either one/ both monarchs would commute between the two countries, they'd set up home in the larger country and rule the smaller through a Governor / Prime Minister or they'd both go to their respective countries and rule. [RL Example: William III of the Netherlands and Mary II of England]

But this is the old 'disputed succession' undead trope which caused many, many wars in RL. Even if the Princess legally could inherit, if she had say an ambitious and able male cousin, she was far away etc a civil war could erupt [and usually would]. I cite the life of 'Empress Matilda' as an excellent example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda

there was also the french case were according to the costums at the time (putting royal succesion into law wasn't done yet) when the last capet king died the king of england would have inherited through his mother but the french nobles didn't feel like that and put the closest relative through the male line on the throne and thus the 100 years war began

england itself also has at least 3 different ways of dealing with husbands of queens (not counting mathilda since she was never really queen although her husband took over normandy in her name)
- co-king with his wife (mary II and william III) (full powers, authority and title)
- king-consort (mary I and philip of spain) (full powers but authority and title is derived from the queen)
- prince-consort (victoria I and albert, elisabeth II and philip) (all power, authority and title lie with the queen)

also in medieval (and later) times all children were given the surname of the father even in the case of the prince-consort (however this is up to the DM to see if it applies in his world too)

[Mr Blobby]

Easy rule of thumb: unless the rule of succession is *utterly* embedded within the country and the successor clear, able and capable of immediately taking over the machinery of govt - the succession will be disputed. Least worst option would be the possibles having a race to the capital under the legal fiction they're coming to the ex-king's funeral / to swear allegiance and the others give up when they've been beaten. Worst case is that each side produces 'evidence' [real, suspect or fake] that all the others can't be crowned and call out their troops.

To go back to the original point; there's a good chance said Princess if she did wish to claim [if she wasn't explicitly excluded*] would in effect need to fight her way to the throne. On the minus, she's not in-country at the start of the 'game' but on the plus she may be able to draw resources from her husband's family in her bid [cash, diplomatic support, troops etc]. The PC's may be part of this intervention - invasion - claim of birthright.

*Even if she was excluded, she might be claiming on behalf of an infant son.

EDIT: Just because her husband is a 'Prince', it doesn't mean he'll inherit. Might be way down on the succession list / being knocked down it by births. His own 'Kingdom' might be tiny in comparison. In this case, he might be the driving force behind the intervention - to the extent the Princess is in effect being cajoled into pressing her claims.

[TheYell]

What do you want to happen?

[VoxRationis]

It's a possible scenario in an RPG game: Good old Emperor X died, along with his immediate family due to [deus ex machina]. The mighty Empire, assembled over generations cracks up for each town / city / field has it's own rules of succession and ends up being parcelled out to dozens of different candidates. Naturally, then everything falls apart; the borders make no sense [for it never mattered before whether X was in County Y or Princedom Z until now], odd historical leftovers occur [such as Ruler #1 inheriting a Navy but no port cities, or Ruler #2 learning that while their 'inheritance' was a good one, it seems to exclude all the major castles within their lands]. For added fun, make one of the PC's the heir to one of these, and see if they can [with their comrades] re-build the Empire from their fragment.

I love this.

[Tobtor]

Margaret I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_I_of_Denmark) of Denmark would be a similar to your case.

She married a foreign King (king of Norway). The her brother dies. When her father died, she secured the throne for her (very young) son (in front of the son of her older sister). The her husband died and the son was crowned King of Norway (with Margaret as the regent of both kingdoms). She was so effective a ruler that the Swedish nobles wanted her to take over Sweden (even though she really didnt have any good claims on the throne, but they just recognised how awesome she was). When her son dies she was in a bit of a pinch, but though political skill she was named "Sovereign Lady and Ruler" (wikipedias title - however it is actually rather "ruler and husbond"). In theory she should name an heir (she named a grand-nephew king of Norway in 1389, ruling in his name, and ruling Denmark and Sweden in her own name until 1396 when the Kalmar union was made a reality with her nephew being king of all three countries, her ruling in his name).

She is most likely the greatest political talent Scandinavia have ever had though. The point is: sometimes sons or husbands rule in their queens names, sometimes queens do get to rule (sometimes in the name of others though). In the medieval period it is very likely to be affected by talent and allies rather than a very rigid line of succession.

Also Eleanor of Aquitaine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine). While only "duchess" in her own right (and queen-consort of first France then England), it was of a very good Duchy! It was almost as good as a Kingdom (or in fact better than some contemporary Kingdoms!)

[Tobtor]

also in medieval (and later) times all children were given the surname of the father even in the case of the prince-consort (however this is up to the DM to see if it applies in his world too)

Depends on time and place. In Denmark there was noble families with names (mainly late medieval), but the royal family as such didn't have one. Not during the medieval period. Even today our Queen (and her imidiate ancestors) doesn't have a family name as such (well "of Denmark" of course). Most family names in hisotrical texts (such as Karlings and Capet for french families) was less regulated during the actual medieval period than many seem to think. Otherwise most nobles where called "of X" or similar referring to their most important title (or origin in case of pretenders to the same title). It was a practical thing, it is first rather late during the medieval period that family names became very regulated with advanced rules of how to inherit the names.

We do have "dynasties", but there isnt a fixed rule of how to be in one of them (sometimes going through females was totally accepted in the medieval period, sometimes not, when we get into 16th century things change alot and a lot of assumptions about dynasties is then "forced" on earlier history).

[dspeyer]

Possession of an army is nine tenths of the law.
Wars of Succession were really common (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_succession#High_Medieval_Europe)

Note that this principle also applies to the betrothal contract. A foreign prince who wanted to marry a woman with powerful relatives might think differently about a woman whose powerful relatives are dead. He might be inclined to keep his promise anyway, but he very well might not. What's anybody going to do about it?

But that's in reality. What changes in DND?

For a start, "armies" become a bit subtler. If there are a handful of high level casters around, their opinions may be decisive.

It's also possible promises will mean more. They might be magically enforced, or important to Heironeous.

And if any of the species involved are really long lived, they might be less accustomed to dealing with succession issues.

Just some things to play with.

[RazorChain]

The answer you'll hate: it all depends on the laws of succession which governs the Princess' realm.

- If her realm is governed by Salic law [male line only], no she wouldn't be - it would pass to her nearest [blood-wise] cousin, uncle or whatnot. Males more important when they were expected to lead personally armies. [RL Example: France]

- There may be rules that they can't have a female monarch, but the claim can carry through her. So in this case the eldest male son [if he exists] will be claimed king.

- She may have signed documents on her marriage renouncing all claims [and her progeny] to her father's realm. Highly important, when the dynastic marriage between two enemies was a common way of sealing peace. [RL Example: Anne of Austria, mother of Louis XIV of France].

- It may be an elected monarchy; either between senior nobles or within the 'Royal Family'. So she may be in the running [unless other reasons are in effect], but it won't be automatic unless she is literally the only candidate. [RL Example: Holy Roman Empire].

- The laws on seniority may be in effect; in which the eldest with royal blood is the heir apparent - meaning in your case, it won't be the Princess but say her crusty great-Uncle or perhaps a cousin - unless she was the eldest remaining standing. [RL Example: Saudi Arabia]

- She might be the product of a morganatic marriage; her mother had been 'too common' to get full Royal status on marriage to her father. Better than a mere bastard, but not as good as a 'full' heir. In this case, she'd only be considered if all the 'better' choices were either dead or utterly incapable [insane, senile etc]. [RL Example: Imperial Russia]

- There may be laws in effect in her husband's realm which forbid the holding/inheritance of foreign titles. Which means if she accepted the offer from her 'home' country, she'd lose all rank and title in her husband's. [Only RL example I can think of is the USA's ban on taking foreign titles/awards without express permission, but I'm sure at least one country had this at some point].

- Her claim may have become invalid for other reasons. Most common is religious: if the Princess converted to her husband's religion on marriage, but her father's realm demands their ruler to be 'of the true faith' she'd not be considered. Other legal methods might be on the books; such as 'must have been born within the country as of X date' [which excludes her if she'd been born in a part of the country annexed later] and the like. [RL Example: UK]

- Sometimes, the order of succession was decided on simply who got to the capital / special city to get crowned, swipe the royal treasury etc. So it would be a race with violence; for every ambitious [mainly male] royal would scrape up an army and head to the capital to see if they can get their claim in first. Often, this happened when the rules of succession weren't formalised, the former King hadn't had time to cement in his chosen heir [such as building up their power-base] or the dynasty itself was dubious in legitimacy [such as being a recent foundation from usurpation or conquest]. [RL Example: Norman England].


The main question which depends on 'what happens next' is what is the rank of her husband? Is he a ruler in his own right [as in he is a de facto king with the title of 'Prince']. If not, how far away is he from succession? Traditionally, RL families would never marry two royals together if both had significant chances of inheriting.


Let's say in this case, the Princess is offered the throne. Chances are, it would be with the proviso before being crowned her husband has to sign an edict renouncing all claims to his father's lands, titles and for his descendants too - to stop the two countries falling into the lap of one person. Though there are times where a canny would-be ruler slips in stuff in the small print which means they do in fact keep the claims [RL Example: Louis XIV's marriage to Maria Theresa - he made her renouncing claims on the Spanish Empire on condition of a whacking dowry. France knew Spain was bankrupt and couldn't pay the dowry, but was also too proud to admit they were.]

If both are rulers in their own right, and each grants 'royal power' to the spouse - it's called a 'Co-regency' [Not 'Personal Union'. That is when one person rules two or more countries, such as Spain, UK etc]. In this case, either one/ both monarchs would commute between the two countries, they'd set up home in the larger country and rule the smaller through a Governor / Prime Minister or they'd both go to their respective countries and rule. [RL Example: William III of the Netherlands and Mary II of England]

But this is the old 'disputed succession' undead trope which caused many, many wars in RL. Even if the Princess legally could inherit, if she had say an ambitious and able male cousin, she was far away etc a civil war could erupt [and usually would]. I cite the life of 'Empress Matilda' as an excellent example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda

Excellent answer.

Only one thing I'd like to add is that if the princess is the rightful heir she may choose to make her children (if she has more than one) rule each kingdom after her, like Charlemagne split up his empire for his sons.

Also when William II. the king of Sicily died without heirs his queen Joan of England wasnt allowed to rule. Instead Constance, Williams II sister was the rightful heir.

Constance was married to Heinrich the XI, the soon to be Holy Roman Emperor and the sicilian nobility was opposed being part of the HRE. This allowed Tancred of Lecce, a bastard and a distant relative to seize power.

So succession can be complicated :)

[daniel_ream]

Only one thing I'd like to add is that if the princess is the rightful heir she may choose to make her children (if she has more than one) rule each kingdom after her, like Charlemagne split up his empire for his sons.

For what it's worth, that practice is what destroyed the Frankish empire with interminable wars of succession each time a king died. Just be aware that's what you're setting up if you choose to go that route.

[KarlMarx]

It will probably also matter how long the dynasty's been in place, and under what circumstances.

Generally, but definitely not always, longer-established dynasties have customs if not formal laws governing succession (specifics up to DM), and shorter-established ones lack such traditions, or at least do not respect them.

Note that 'established' should be measured in generations, not years--Elven dynasties should take much longer to gain historical legitimacy than Human ones.

Of course, exceptions were common--in England, for example, the long-established Plantagenets descended into the Wars of the Roses when inheritance disputes between the Dukes of Lancaster and York flared up, while the Tudor King Henry VIII, remembering this chaos, established a strict set of rules to determine the succession which I believe Parliament approved, and which his successor was unable to undo.

How these impact your campaign is, of course, up to you, but I find it worthwhile to consider whether the dynasty is long-established or recently established, and whether it is the exception or the norm according to the aforementioned principle.

[Mr Blobby]

{{scrubbed}}

[Beneath]

Agree, most likely a war will ensue. Even if she nominally renounced any claim she might have in the marriage treaty (which she might not have for all sorts of reasons; if she had three brothers and an uncle who everyone expected to be ahead of her in the line of succession it might not have even been a thing), she could convince enough people she's justified in saying "we obviously didn't expect my entire immediate family to be wiped out when I said that, deal's off" to start a war over it.

If she draws substantial backing from her husband's father's kingdom it's questionable whether it can be called a "civil war" though or an invasion of her late father's kingdom by her father-in-law with an aim of putting her on the throne.

If you add fantastic elements, high-level D&D3-style casters and magically-binding oaths being mentioned before, the land itself might have an opinion on who the true monarch is (and then, well, all bets are off).

Basically, if nothing's established, do whatever, but there'll probably be people contesting it with armed force. If you're trying to engineer a situation where she's queen regnant of one land and a princess of another by courtesy, this works as long as she's able to hold the crown by force.

[Khedrac]

{{scrubbed}}

[veti]

Whatever the rules are for that kingdom.

Thing is, there's a good chance the "rules" are not completely defined. They only become defined over a period of centuries, as more and more unlikely contingencies that nobody ever thought of before - actually happen. Even the famous Salic Law took centuries to be formulated, and never stopped being disputed (and, often, effectively ignored).

Then it's a matter of how popular the principals involved are with their respective constituencies (mostly, the nobility of both countries, although middle classes may also have a say). Recent history of both countries will also be relevant. For instance, if the princess's father only became king after a long-running civil war against a well respected rival, there's every likelihood that the rival's house will take the opportunity to press their claim again, and may have more success in the changed circumstances.

And finally - in any highly developed monarchical system (say, approximately 14th century or later in European terms) - it's likely that the two families would have agreed and published a formal treaty specifying exactly what status each party would have in the other's country, and what would happen under various contingencies.

And of course, such a treaty's actual value depends on whether anyone stands to gain from disputing it, and if so, whether it can realistically be enforced against them. Realpolitik always (always) matters more than mere law. Usually, it's what makes "law".

[Mr Blobby]

{{scrubbed}}

[comicshorse]

{{scrubbed}}

[Mr Blobby]

{{scrubbed}}

[Vinyadan]

Did anyone mention the Schleswig-Holstein Question yet? :smallbiggrin:

[Anonymouswizard]

{{scrubbed}}

Back to the topic, it depends, especially on where the prince is for the line of succession in his country, as well as the princess.

Let's assume that, for whatever reason the princess is first in line for the throne, then her husband would likely have to give up his claim to the throne of his own country, assuming it wouldn't cause a succession crisis. However if the prince is first in line then it's likely the princess would give up her claim to her parent's throne. If both are we have a headache. Alternatively, if the kingdoms want to unite for some reason it's entirely possible that the marriage contract puts one of them in the line of succession for both thrones, and I smell a civil war when they try to claim.

[Mr Blobby]

{{scrubbed}}

[Anonymouswizard]

{{scrubbed}}

[Max_Killjoy]

You're right; which is why I had in my hypothetical Minister conversation the civil servant stating that as they couldn't confirm all the Royals above Anne [at the moment, 11] were dead, they couldn't proclaim her Queen. And that the only Privy Councillor [who exists to sort these things out] left standing [as of that moment] was the Minister themselves. Oh, and for added fun they couldn't proclaim Anne Regent [to break the circular reasoning] 'cos that requires an Act of Parliament and that is impossible in the situation.

Yes, in case of death of sitting PM, the party picks a new leader. But I suspect in the kind of scenario I painted earlier they don't have the *ability* to organise an election of any form. So, at best it might be decided by an ad-hoc group of civil servants, remaining Ministers and senior military officers deciding between themselves.

Which is what could happen in the situation which started this thread; the Royals have been killed, along with the civil servant[s] who know what to do in this situation. Eventually they unearth 'da rules' on this - turns out the 'Royal High Judge' decides who's the next monarch. Oh dear, they died too along with the Royals. Need to appoint a new one. Damn - only the King is allowed to appoint them...

Like many things, da rules [from banking to succession] have been generally put in as/when holes are discovered...


Oh sure, it gets really complicated. The question is how much of a crisis do we get into, considering the government is updating I suspect there are a few digital copies of the [I]official list scattered about the country just in case, along with an official note about what to do if you run out of list. I suspect if we do get such a crisis then nobody will know where any copies of the list are, and it'll turn up two months after they've made the decision and it's too late to change it now blah blah.

In such a situation, it's probably most important that someone competent and level-headed step in and start making decisions and so on. Technicalities can be sorted later when things aren't in full on dumpster-fire mode, and hopefully the person who stepped in is looking to restore the rule of law rather than maintain their newfound power.

[TheYell]

Did anyone mention the Schleswig-Holstein Question yet? :smallbiggrin:


That was covered in the required reading : Royal Flash

[Tobtor]

{{scrubbed}}

[DeRerumNatura]

- It may be an elected monarchy; either between senior nobles or within the 'Royal Family'. So she may be in the running [unless other reasons are in effect], but it won't be automatic unless she is literally the only candidate. [RL Example: Holy Roman Empire].



Sometimes a king would appoint their chosen heir as co-regent, so that they were both king, and the younger would become sole king when the elder died. This was done by the ancient Egyptians a lot, but I don't think was done as much in medieval times. So that would be another way that the line of succession could be changed, so that the king's preferred candidate succeeds rather than his daughter.



France was also a elective monarchy.
Both, the monarchs of france and germany, tried to deal with it in the same way, by having their heir elected while still alive, in france as the co-king, in germany as the King of the Roman (the actual tile used in most of the medieval period from after being elected by the nobility till being crowned by the pope).
It kinda worked out for france, and the title turned hereditary.
In germany it didn't.
Interesting is the case of Friederich II., the stupor mundi, and grandson of Barbarossa and his son Heinrich,
Heinrich was elected king of the roman half a year after the election of Friederich and kinda acted as the regent for Friederich while he concentrated on Sicily and Jerusalem.
Policies persued by Heinrich ran into Friederichs plans and lead to him revolting against his father.

[Mr Blobby]

In such a situation, it's probably most important that someone competent and level-headed step in and start making decisions and so on. Technicalities can be sorted later when things aren't in full on dumpster-fire mode, and hopefully the person who stepped in is looking to restore the rule of law rather than maintain their newfound power.

Knowing human nature and history, it's often such times where you have the stupid / greedy / insane attempting to take control. It's bad enough to have one of these in the top job now, but imagine times when countries didn't have an effective, fairly competent civil service to blunt the Chief's poor decisions.

[dspeyer]

{{scrubbed}}

[Tobtor]

{{scrubbed}}

[Mr Blobby]

{{scrubbed}}

[Anonymouswizard]

{{scrubbed}}

[Mr Blobby]

{{scrubbed}}

[Anonymouswizard]

{{scrubbed}}

[Deliverance]

Heh.

Sounds like half the people in this thread have played Crusader Kings 2 and the other half needs to. :smallbiggrin:

[Max_Killjoy]

Heh.

Sounds like half the people in this thread have played Crusader Kings 2 and the other half needs to. :smallbiggrin:


Played a ton. Was into mods. Was on the PI forums.

Then they went Steam-exclusive, and I gave up on them as a company.

[Knaight]

Heh.

Sounds like half the people in this thread have played Crusader Kings 2 and the other half needs to. :smallbiggrin:

As one of the people who's been on the messy inheritance and succession war side of this the whole time, I'll just point out that there are plenty of other ways of learning that information.

[Deliverance]

As one of the people who's been on the messy inheritance and succession war side of this the whole time, I'll just point out that there are plenty of other ways of learning that information.
There certainly are, most obviously any deeper study of history will provide ample examples, but given that we are in a discussion forum for roleplaying games in a forum for a webcomic about a roleplaying game system, it seemed a safe guess that CK2 would be a source of information for a number of the participants. :smallsmile:

[Knaight]

There certainly are, most obviously any deeper study of history will provide ample examples, but given that we are in a discussion forum for roleplaying games in a forum for a webcomic about a roleplaying game system, it seemed a safe guess that CK2 would be a source of information for a number of the participants. :smallsmile:

It wouldn't surprise me - I'm just saying that it's not all of us; I personally got it elsewhere.

[daniel_ream]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Anonymouswizard]

{{scrubbed}}

[Mr Blobby]

{{scrubbed}}

[a_flemish_guy]

{{scrubbed}}

[a_flemish_guy]

Heh.

Sounds like half the people in this thread have played Crusader Kings 2 and the other half needs to. :smallbiggrin:

CK2 has one major flaw (which oddly enough is represented in EU4), there's no measure for legitimacy

once you're on the throne you're on the throne and a 2nd cousin twice removed has as much difficulty holding on to the throne as a firstborn son

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: If we want to start this discussion over, without all the references to modern politics, I think we can do so. Please, remember that politics are not allowed on these forums. As a general rule of thumb, if someone will be voting on it or killing about it in the next year or so, it's politics, not history.