Who's the ruler during a Regency?

[MonkeySage]

Suppose the Duchess is 12 years old, too young to rule her duchy... Is her regent the ruler, or is she, for the purpose of Kingdom building rules?

[Palanan]

Unless the rules specify otherwise, I would say the regent is the ruler by definition.

You've also clarified that the young heir isn't ruling in her own right, and the regent most likely has a solid power base, so it seems almost certain that the regent is the one making the decisions.

[Florian]

As a matter of fact: Both are true.

The Duchess is the de-jure ruler, holder of the title and her will counts. The Regent is the de-facto ruler as he holds the seat of power in escrow for the Duchess (unless she is deemed mature enough to fully step in).

When using the Kingdom rules, the positions would be Ruler and Co-Ruler for both of them (so you always use the highest stat/feat bonus of the two).

[Red Fel]

As a matter of fact: Both are true.

The Duchess is the de-jure ruler, holder of the title and her will counts. The Regent is the de-facto ruler as he holds the seat of power in escrow for the Duchess (unless she is deemed mature enough to fully step in).

When using the Kingdom rules, the positions would be Ruler and Co-Ruler for both of them (so you always use the highest stat/feat bonus of the two).

Actually, reading the rules, the Regent's function looks more like the Consort's. Consider this block of text:


The Consort represents the Ruler when the Ruler is occupied or otherwise unable to act. With the Ruler’s permission, the Consort may perform any of the Ruler’s duties, allowing the Ruler to effectively act in two places at once. If the Ruler dies, the Consort may act as Ruler until the Heir comes of age and can take over as Ruler.

Benefit(s): Add half your Charisma modifier to Loyalty. If the ruler is unavailable during a turn, you may act as the Ruler for that turn, negating the vacancy penalty for having no Ruler, though you do not gain the Ruler benefit. If you act as the Ruler for the turn, you must succeed at a Loyalty check during the kingdom’s Upkeep Phase or Unrest increases by 1.

This makes sense. The Regent represents the Duchess during her inability to act, due to her age. The Regent has her permission to perform her duties. And the Consort text specifically refers to acting as Ruler "until the Heir comes of age and can take over as Ruler."

Additionally, the benefits check out. The Regent may act as Ruler if the Ruler is unavailable, but must succeed at a Loyalty check to avoid Unrest - which again makes sense, because maybe the people don't trust the Regent.

The Duchess, by contrast, is the Heir. Amusingly, this functions the same as the Consort.

Point is that, under the Kingdom Building rules, you can either say that there's no Ruler - which appears to be the case - but that either of the two can sub in, or that the Regent is Ruler, with Duchess as Heir, or that the Duchess is Ruler, considered absent, with Regent as Consort.

Lotta choices, is the point.

[HouseRules]

Usually, reasonable questions:

What is the relationship between the Regent and the previous Duke or Duchess?
What is the relationship between the Regent and the current Duchess?


Most often, the Regent is the right hand man of the previous Duke (usually, but not always a Duke).
However, loyalties does not follow bloodlines, so if the Regent is the right hand man of the previous Duke, the Military Sector would be more loyal to him.
The Civilian Sector may not be loyal to the Regent, but follow bloodlines.

Note the two key points

Civilian are loyal to bloodlines
Military are loyal to hierarchy


While Florian is correct, a single leader is necessary under certain circumstances. If war occurs, then the Regent may take power entirely, since we cannot have delayed commands.

[MonkeySage]

On a related note, can you have more than one Viceroy? the sheet only has one slot...

[Florian]

While Florian is correct, a single leader is necessary under certain circumstances. If war occurs, then the Regent may take power entirely, since we cannot have delayed commands.

The Kingdom rules we talk about here have around 12 rulership positions centered on different tasks. It´s less medieval internal politics, more team-based play like combat.

@Red Fel:

Right, I meant Consort, not Co-Regent and yes, both positions are partially interchangeable and explicitly designed to be so.

[Red Fel]

@Red Fel:

Right, I meant Consort, not Co-Regent and yes, both positions are partially interchangeable and explicitly designed to be so.

Exactly. But ultimately, you have three choices - either one is considered Ruler and the other has the sub-job, or vice-versa, or neither is actually Ruler and both are sub-jobs - which allows either to take actions as Ruler, but not to actually benefit from the role. Note that while either can take Ruler actions, and the kingdom isn't treated as being without a Ruler if either is doing so, the typical Ruler benefits are missing - so both in terms of mechanics and in terms of fluff, the kingdom really needs someone to take the throne.

It actually creates a really neat gameplay dynamic, where each one is effectively trying to unseat the other. The Regent (Consort) wants to do a great job while simultaneously reducing confidence in the Duchess' family, with the ultimate goal of eliminating her as Heir and installing himself as Ruler proper; the Duchess (Heir) wants to stay in the game long enough to inherit the Ruler role, which means undermining the Regent enough to make him look bad, but not enough to harm the kingdom.

[HouseRules]

In the Ancient Era, girls marry at 13.

In the Medieval Era, girls marry at 16.

It's still common for the upper class to marry at 15 before 1920s.

So that Duchess only needs to wait 1-4 years for the regency to go away?

Regent is Ruler
Duchess is Consort
If Regent is sexual predatory, he may try to marry the Duchess to secure his power forever. (This is very common in history).

Regent is Consort
Duchess is Heir
Ruler is missing

Regent is Ruler
Duchess is Heir
Is this the definition of Regency?

Regent is Consort
Duchess is Ruler
Or is this the definition of Regency?

[weckar]

In the Ancient Era, girls marry at 13.

In the Medieval Era, girls marry at 16.

This is largely based on myth. The historic record shows that the median age for marriage of women has never dropped below 17.8 years in all of the time that marriages have been recorded. For most of history it has hovered around 20.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Red Fel
…the Duchess (Heir) wants to stay in the game long enough to inherit the Ruler role, which means undermining the Regent enough to make him look bad, but not enough to harm the kingdom.

I’m not sure if the young duchess in this situation would be able to have any effect on the regent or the kingdom. It’s one thing for her to give commands, and to receive assurances that her commands are being carried out; but any regent worth his salt will make sure they never are. Her actual power isn’t likely to extend past the room she’s in.


Originally Posted by weckar
The historic record shows that the median age for marriage of women has never dropped below 17.8 years in all of the time that marriages have been recorded. For most of history it has hovered around 20.

No idea where you’re getting this from, and it’s a ludicrous overstatement in any case.

Just pulled a title off my desk, Chojnacki’s Women and Men in Renaissance Venice. Here’s an illuminating quote:


For many parents, the operative principle regarding daughters’ marriage ages was haste…. Piero Morosini, more precise, instructed in 1335 that his executors arrange for his daughter to marry between thirteen and fifteen, “not permitting her to exceed [transire] age fifteen without wedding. In 1464, Petronella Falier Morosini’s worry that her husband might delay their daughter’s marriage beyond age fourteen led her to order that if he did so he should be removed from the administration of her estate….

This was typical for noble families of the time, and hardly limited to Renaissance Venice.

[Florian]

@Palanan:

That'll depend a bit on how the whole legitimacy / mandate to rule thing for the specific country we´re talking about is structured and made up. For example, in a more feudal liege/vassal structure, the land and power are granted from on high and the title would be tied to the bloodline of the Duchess. Talking about fantasy, it cold even be more crass by being either tied to divine mandate or proven prophecy.

[Red Fel]

I’m not sure if the young duchess in this situation would be able to have any effect on the regent or the kingdom. It’s one thing for her to give commands, and to receive assurances that her commands are being carried out; but any regent worth his salt will make sure they never are. Her actual power isn’t likely to extend past the room she’s in.

Well, yes and no. She may not wield actual political power (except, again, according to the Kingdom Building rules), but she has influence. She's the Heir, the future ruler. Political animals want to curry favor with her. The people, if they were loyal to her parents, want to see her ascension. She may not be able to enact laws, but she can get things done and get people to do them for her.

More importantly, she can socially undermine the Regent. She can make him look bad in Court. She can go out in public and lament her limited station, causing the people to become dissatisfied. She can do plenty to undermine the Regent, even without any real political authority.

[Lapak]

Exactly. But ultimately, you have three choices - either one is considered Ruler and the other has the sub-job, or vice-versa, or neither is actually Ruler and both are sub-jobs - which allows either to take actions as Ruler, but not to actually benefit from the role. Note that while either can take Ruler actions, and the kingdom isn't treated as being without a Ruler if either is doing so, the typical Ruler benefits are missing - so both in terms of mechanics and in terms of fluff, the kingdom really needs someone to take the throne.

It actually creates a really neat gameplay dynamic, where each one is effectively trying to unseat the other. The Regent (Consort) wants to do a great job while simultaneously reducing confidence in the Duchess' family, with the ultimate goal of eliminating her as Heir and installing himself as Ruler proper; the Duchess (Heir) wants to stay in the game long enough to inherit the Ruler role, which means undermining the Regent enough to make him look bad, but not enough to harm the kingdom.
I'd use this to introduce a gameplay element: which of the mechanical possibilities comes into play depends on whether the Regent and Heir are working together.

If the Regent has the Heir's open and public support, the Regent is treated as the full Ruler and the Heir functions as the sub-job; able to take actions in the Regent's absence but without Ruler benefits.

If the Heir is too young to express their position or publically neutral, both (theoretically) function as the sub-job.

If the Heir and the Regent are publically at odds, both can take ruler actions but get no benefits AND the no-ruler penalty applies.

Gives both parties a reason to at least TRY to get along to avoid internal strife, which seems both desirable and accurate. The regent wants the heir's backing for full power (and either a coup or a marriage would want to be handled delicately until they can be accomplished) the heir wants to maintain the kingdom as a going concern until they get to take over.

[Segev]

I can't speak to the rules of whatever subsystem we're discussing, but in practice, the whole point of a Regent is that the holder of the title is incapable of ruling, or unfit to rule. Typically, this is seen as a temporary condition, usually due to the holder of the ruling title being too young for their decisions to be trusted not to be the silly whims of a child.

In an ideal situation (from the perspective of the dynasty), the Regent was a loyal retainer and friend of the current child-ruler's predecessor, and is acting in the best interests of the dynasty and, therefore, the child's, but his word outweighs the child-ruler's. The child-ruler has no authority over the nation while the Regent reigns. Ideally, again, the Regent would be including the child in all matters the child is capable of understanding, and training the child in the needs of the nation and explaining why the Regent is making the decisions he is. The child, as he grows older, would be asked for his opinion and reasoning, and may even be allowed to make some calls, but the Regent would be the final word and would overrule the child if the child ever tried to make a proclamation the Regent determined was detrimental to the Dynasty.

When the Regent feels the child is ready to rule, he will either step down and coronate the child to be the official ruler, or he'll (if something about the situation prevents him from doing the former) take the child's advice all the time and enforce the child's will as law until such time as the child does take the throne.

That's the idealized notion of it.

In practice, we get so many stories about Regents ruling as wicked monsters so that we can have heroic True Kings reclaim their throne, with intrigue from the Regent to try to delay or eternally prevent the True King from ever becoming the actual ruler. This creates automatic drama and allows a Good King to be the final disposition when the Wicked Regent is overthrown. It both provides a prince or princess to rescue and a means of overturning the corrupt overlord without leaving the kingdom rulerless, as can sometimes be the case in other Evil Overlord Overthrown stories.

[Bavarian itP]

If Regent is sexual predatory, he may try to marry the Duchess to secure his power forever. (This is very common in history).


Trying to marry a heir for power is a common trope. But what has sexual predatorship to do with it? The two may coincide, yes, but neither one is contingent on the other.

[HouseRules]

Trying to marry a heir for power is a common trope. But what has sexual predatorship to do with it? The two may coincide, yes, but neither one is contingent on the other.

Was being a bit extreme at that point. It's true that marry heir for power is very common, especially female heirs.

[Segev]

Trying to marry a heir for power is a common trope. But what has sexual predatorship to do with it? The two may coincide, yes, but neither one is contingent on the other.

Squicky, but...marriages often, in the time periods and cultures we're discussing, were not considered fully legitimized until they were consumated in the marriage-bed. So at least once, it'd have to happen. And a regent creepy and evil enough to force an unwanted marriage for personal power almost certainly wouldn't stop short of the rape necessary to legitimize the marriage. Not unless the heir were so repulsive that it would be an unpleasant chore for the evil regent. (In which case faking it and lying is probably going to happen.)



I have no idea, historically, how common that was. I'm sure there were lots of regents who were good surrogate parent figures to underaged heirs and were happy to see them grow into their role as ruler when they came of age. Regents were typically chosen for their closeness to the family, after all. They're basically royal godparents.

How much deadly decadance there is in the court will impact the likelihood of them being evil, manipulative regents who want power only for themselves and will screw the heir (literally or not) out of the throne to maintain it. In fiction, it's very common just because it creates a natural plot to write about.

[Red Fel]

I have no idea, historically, how common that was. I'm sure there were lots of regents who were good surrogate parent figures to underaged heirs and were happy to see them grow into their role as ruler when they came of age. Regents were typically chosen for their closeness to the family, after all. They're basically royal godparents.

I mean, to a degree it's basically a Hikaru Genji Plan (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WifeHusbandry). (Warning, TVTropes link.)

The name is a reference to the protagonist of The Tale of Genji, generally accepted to be the first written novel. At one point in the story, Genji takes on (well, kidnaps) a ward, and raises her to be the perfect wife. He does such a good job that he ends up taking her as his own.

For all that it's creepy, it could start entirely innocent. The Regent trying to raise the Duchess properly, and watching her grow into a proper lady and noble. The Duchess seeing the Regent at first as a protective and paternal figure, but later as a peer and confidante. Yeah, marrying a kid is squicky, but marrying her once she has become an adult and entered into the fullness of her noble title and power? (Still squicky, in my opinion, but at least they're adults.)

[Segev]

I mean, to a degree it's basically a Hikaru Genji Plan (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WifeHusbandry). (Warning, TVTropes link.)

The name is a reference to the protagonist of The Tale of Genji, generally accepted to be the first written novel. At one point in the story, Genji takes on (well, kidnaps) a ward, and raises her to be the perfect wife. He does such a good job that he ends up taking her as his own.

For all that it's creepy, it could start entirely innocent. The Regent trying to raise the Duchess properly, and watching her grow into a proper lady and noble. The Duchess seeing the Regent at first as a protective and paternal figure, but later as a peer and confidante. Yeah, marrying a kid is squicky, but marrying her once she has become an adult and entered into the fullness of her noble title and power? (Still squicky, in my opinion, but at least they're adults.)

Squickiness will vary based on story, characters, and age gap. Heck, one interesting subversion would be for the PCs to hear of a "wicked regent" planning just such a "forced marriage" to "steal the throne" from the young princess for whom he's the regent.

But it turns out that he's only 2-5 years older than she is, but that was enough that he's "of age" by the kingdom's standards when she was not...yet. But the King had, prior to his demise, already arranged their marriage, because this young man had been the knight in shining armor who rescued the princess and won her heart in an earlier villainous plot (perhaps a dragon was involved). So the reality is that he's the regent for convenience and with her whole-hearted support, and the "marriage plan" is something she and he are both on board for, because she was going to marry him anyway when she came of age, and it was always the plan that he'd be King when his father-in-law-to-be retired/died. Tragedy simply took the King from them before the King's daughter could actually marry.

So the PCs show up, ready to stop a vile regent from forcing himself on an innocent princess, only to discover that it's a third party who wanted to throw the kingdom into chaos by using the party to assassinate the well-loved regent-and-incipient-king.

[MonkeySage]

To clarify, I decided to give the Regency to her mother, who's also sister to the duchess's liege, the King.

In this case it's not the Regent who's evil- its the Councilor, who's set himself up as a local crime lord to undermine his niece's rule. He's unhappy, partly because the duke named his daughter as his heir, and the council confirmed that choice. He was the duke's younger brother, and if not for his niece, he'd be sitting on the azure throne.

I believe I could use ideas presented here though. The players know that there's a crime lord, ruling the duchy's underworld. They are currently on the path to destroying the crime lord and the leader of a new thieves guild, sponsored by said crime lord. They don't know who that crime lord is.

[HouseRules]

To clarify, I decided to give the Regency to her mother, who's also sister to the duchess's liege, the King.

In this case it's not the Regent who's evil- its the Councilor, who's set himself up as a local crime lord to undermine his niece's rule. He's unhappy, partly because the duke named his daughter as his heir, and the council confirmed that choice. He was the duke's younger brother, and if not for his niece, he'd be sitting on the azure throne.

I believe I could use ideas presented here though. The players know that there's a crime lord, ruling the duchy's underworld. They are currently on the path to destroying the crime lord and the leader of a new thieves guild, sponsored by said crime lord. They don't know who that crime lord is.

Oh, you just twist it towards the Uncle who wants to steal vs. the Widowed Duchess Dowager and her Duchess Daughter (the heir). Some inheritance and wars in Europe happens to be just that. Sometimes a Daughter inherits the position, and a male (usually more distant) relative tries to snatch the throne.

Hikaru Genji Plan is a horrible story. Here's a summary:
Hikaru Genji is a prince, but in his early teens, his mother dies. His father marries his mother's niece (his first cousin). He commits adultery with his step-mother (and first cousin), which gives birth to the Crown Prince. Later, he finds a girl who resembles his mother (and step-mother), and raised her. He has a daughter with her, and this daughter marries the son he has with his step-mother (who is also his first cousin). So he becomes the father of the Emperor and the father-in-law of the Emperor, and first-cousin once removed of the Emperor.

[Segev]

Ah! Then, assuming the evil Councilor hasn't turned the little Duchess against the Regent Dowager Duchess, the mother speaks for her daughter until her daughter is of age and there's really no conflict (at least in terms of who's in charge). If he has, then the mother still is the one making decisions until her daughter is of age, but there's a possible perception that she might be ruling in a manner that is out of line with how the "rightful ruler" wants things to go. Of course, if it's known that the little Duchess would be making foolish decisions, the actual instability would be fear that she'll keep doing so when she takes the throne, and people will be hoping she grows out of it or that maybe her mother stays in charge for longer.

A lot depends on what the evil Councilor is doing to undermine. But in the end, most of the time, the whole point of a Regency is that the proper title holder is considered incompetent to rule, so the Regent perforce makes all the binding decisions until that changes.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Red Fel
She may not wield actual political power…but she has influence. She's the Heir, the future ruler. Political animals want to curry favor with her.

Well, that depends on the specifics. Political animals will want to curry favor with who’s currently holding real power, which is the regent. Whether there’s any room on the throne for the young duchess depends on the regent and how he’s woven his web.


Originally Posted by Red Fel
She can go out in public and lament her limited station, causing the people to become dissatisfied.

Using this for an example, she can only go out in public if the regent allows it. Most likely he’s surrounded her with agents and operatives who answer to him, and it’s all too easy to keep her shut away “for her own protection,” or any number of similar excuses.

Fact is, unless she has some innate power of her own, or a strong faction of true loyalists, she’s utterly dependent on the regent. And if the regent has a shred of political talent, he’ll be chipping away at the loyalists all the while.

Again, this all depends on the particulars of the situation; but a regent holding political power has a tremendous advantage over a kid who can be locked in her room.

[HouseRules]

There's usually multiple Minsters that take care of things. Of course, the Ruler usually coordinates, but does not deal with the minor details of things. That's why there is a hierarchy in the first place.

Ruler - Rules the Territory and "Formal Decision Maker"
Consort - Not Mandatory
Heir - Not Mandatory
Councilor - Makes sure Ruler "Makes" the Decision, sometimes the "True Decision Maker"
General - Military
Grand Diplomat - Diplomacy
High Priest - Religion
Magister - Education & Magic.
Marshal - Mixed Police and Military
Royal Enforcer - Central Police
Spymaster - Information
Treasurer - Economics
Viceroy - Local Ruler
Warden - Local Police

It is common for the Consort to be a literal Consort (spouse of the ruler).
A Widowed Consort becoming a Regent is also common.

Remember that Real Feudalism is different from "Kingdom Building" in Pathfinder.

We all still wonder why an incompetent King could lead to the downfall of his Kingdom if the members of His Court are Competent. Usually, an Incompetent King will have ass kissers in his Court.

[Florian]

@Palanan:

That's why I asked fo the specific background of how the legitimization of your policy works.

To give you a concert example for the importance of the question: In our history, we had countries and even whole empires whose seats of power and titles were purely tied to bloodlines. A Vizir, the core of the army and such could easily eclipse that power whenever they wished, therefore they were castrated, made into eunuchs, so that temporary power could never out shadow and eclipse the power bestowed to a bloodline.

To use the feudal relationship of liege/vassal as an example: Everything was owned by the king/emperor, no exceptions. He/She granted ownership of land and the ability to raise taxes for fealty and service in times of war, including training troops. That can basically understood as a very complicated form of contract, but in this case, the Dutches, as Heiress, in the contractee and the Councilor or whatever we may call the person is actually pretty much a zero.

[MonkeySage]

I've got a Priestess as the Marshal, and a Guard Captain as Enforcer. :) The Priestess worships the setting's Goddess of Justice.