D&D General If A Baroness married A King and at least 2 children would the 2nd child be allowed to inherit their mothers title of Senior Baroness and her Barony?

[JMISBEST]

I've thought of something that isn't a follow up to a earlier thread but is inspired by it

If A Baroness married A King and had at least 2 children would the 2nd child be allowed to inherit his or her mothers title of Senior Baroness and rulership of her Very Large Barony?

Personally if this happened in a campaign I was GM'ing my decision would be that it would depend on the laws of the country it happens in

 

[Immeril]

I've thought of something that isn't a follow up to a earlier thread but is inspired by it

If A Baroness married A King and had at least 2 children would the 2nd child be allowed to inherit his or her mothers title of Senior Baroness and rulership of her Very Large Barony?

Personally if this happened in a campaign I was GM'ing my decision would be that it would depend on the laws of the country it happens in

I think you answered your own question. The GM creates the laws of the countries in their campaign world.

 

[aco175]

I would think the first child would get to be the king one day and the 'spare' would get something. Either king would grant something and if the wife 'suggested' her title, he would likely get it. Not sure if the wife would need to die before the title passed on or if she could pass it before she died. Maybe the child would be the baron in waiting.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd probably follow the rules in CK 3 unless I wanted to come up with something different.

1st born inherits the title of King and the land directly associated with it, the 2nd born would inherit the barony of his mother.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It depends on the succession laws of the country in question.

Spoiler: Long-winded Interminable Exposition

As a rule, in historical medieval society (as noted by @cbwjm), there must be some specific core territory which is the monarch's fundamental title. In Europe, this was usually a county title. In theory, it could be any county (or set of counties, up to some loosely-defined limit set by social expectations) held by the King (or Queen, but usually King), but as a rule it would be where the King held court, often in the largest or most economically powerful city.

Different succession laws could affect things. During the early middle ages, many places used some form of "partible inheritance." This means that titles would be partitioned between the monarch's heirs upon their death. So, for example, if you play as an Irish king in the usual starting period for Crusader Kings III, you will start out as a "petty king" (the equivalent of a duke), one of five, ruling the five duchies that are traditional parts of the Kingdom of Ireland--and all the other petty kings are your relatives (brothers and cousins, IIRC.) If your starting character dies without gaining any new titles, then the counties that make up your duchy will be divided amongst your sons, which may cause a split! If you do acquire those other duchies, you can eventually become High King (king proper, not petty) of Ireland, at which point your main heir will retain that title, even if they don't retain all of the duchy titles beneath it.

As a general rule, this is how things work until you get access to new succession laws: you have to race to capture all of the duchies of a kingdom you want to control, assume or create the title for that full kingdom, and then distribute some or all of the duchies within that kingdom to your vassals so you don't have to worry about them personally. Later on, when you control multiple kingdoms and can become a true Emperor/Empress, you may even start giving out kingdom titles to your vassals.

So: Yes, absolutely, if the King has married a Baroness, then their second child could be highly eligible for receiving the Baron of <X> title, whether by ordinary partition inheritance, or by being created Baron of <place> directly. Alternatively, if the laws are such that the primary heir inherits everything, then the second child is at the mercy of their elder sibling. They could get absolutely nothing, if their new king wishes so, though being crappy to one's siblings may be unwise if they can lead a rebellion against one's rule.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would think the first child would get to be the king one day and the 'spare' would get something. Either king would grant something and if the wife 'suggested' her title, he would likely get it. Not sure if the wife would need to die before the title passed on or if she could pass it before she died. Maybe the child would be the baron in waiting.

As usual, depends on the context. I'm pretty sure there are places and times in European history where the barony would immediately become one of her husband's titles upon marriage, or that the instant she had a son said son would receive the title. At other times in history, she would hold the title until she died or relinquished it, etc.

 

[aco175]

I suppose there could be some sort of hold on the barony depending on how powerful her family is and if the king is from that country or another country and she is marrying into that kingdom.

 

[Minion X]

It would make more sense to merge the substantial holdings of the baroness with the royal holdings. Kings really depend on the holdings of them and their families to support them. The logical thing to do would be to marry off the second child in a politically advantageous match, like a foreign monarch. If this is not feasible for some reason, the next best thing is to have them enter the clergy and take up an important religious position, like an archbishop.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

We should note that the ability to will a noble estate to a particular child of one's choosing was pretty rare, but since there is a king involved all things politically possible are legally possible. Generally noble titles and estates are not something the possesor can bestow on another (at that point they are effectively saleable) but sometimes one can abdicate them in favor of an heir or renounce inheritance in favor of another heir, and Kings can bestow their lesser titles on whom they choose, so by means of some combination of such methods such an inheritance scheme could be implemented by one means or another... if everyone played along. We should also note that some of the highest profile incidents of dividing the inheritances of two parents between two children involved major national or international political considerations, treaties, etc. and are not really indicative of what was typical.

While my sense is that its reasonably common for a second child to eventually get the lower status parent's noble estate while their elder sibling ascends to the throne, within a primogeniture system (which seems to be what we are assuming here, or else it's really up in the air) it would actually be fairly unusual to take any action to make them direct heir before the elder child's other inheritance has vested.

Which is to say, that after the king dies and the elder child is king, if the mother is still alive her willing her estate to her other child (usually not possible) or more likely getting the king child to renounce the inheritance in favor of his sibling, would not be unheard of. It would also be very normal for the elder child, upon inheriting this lesser estate to bestow it on a sibling. But what if the mother predeceases the father?

Medieval values would not approve of the younger child becoming a baron (much less as "senior baron", whatever that is) while their elder sibling, destined for the dignity of the very crown, is without lands. At the very least most medieval people would probably feel that a large landed estate in possession of the crown should be settled upon the elder child before this is allowed to pass, or very quickly after. Which is not to say that this would always happen and I think younger sibling being favored with mother's estate while elder sibling is stuck landless for decades while father, the king, refuses to die or settle any lands upon his heir is a pretty good origin story for a medieval royal rivalry. But it would probably be more typical to just let the elder child be in line to inherit the mother's estate with the understanding that it would be bestowed upon their sibling when they ascend to the throne or if they already have. An elder child refusing to honor mother's legally non-binding wishes on that front is also a pretty good basis for a royal rivalry.

 

[JMISBEST]

We should note that the ability to will a noble estate to a particular child of one's choosing was pretty rare, but since there is a king involved all things politically possible are legally possible. Generally noble titles and estates are not something the possesor can bestow on another (at that point they are effectively saleable) but sometimes one can abdicate them in favor of an heir or renounce inheritance in favor of another heir, and Kings can bestow their lesser titles on whom they choose, so by means of some combination of such methods such an inheritance scheme could be implemented by one means or another... if everyone played along. We should also note that some of the highest profile incidents of dividing the inheritances of two parents between two children involved major national or international political considerations, treaties, etc. and are not really indicative of what was typical.

While my sense is that its reasonably common for a second child to eventually get the lower status parent's noble estate while their elder sibling ascends to the throne, within a primogeniture system (which seems to be what we are assuming here, or else it's really up in the air) it would actually be fairly unusual to take any action to make them direct heir before the elder child's other inheritance has vested.

Which is to say, that after the king dies and the elder child is king, if the mother is still alive her willing her estate to her other child (usually not possible) or more likely getting the king child to renounce the inheritance in favor of his sibling, would not be unheard of. It would also be very normal for the elder child, upon inheriting this lesser estate to bestow it on a sibling. But what if the mother predeceases the father?

Medieval values would not approve of the younger child becoming a baron (much less as "senior baron", whatever that is) while their elder sibling, destined for the dignity of the very crown, is without lands. At the very least most medieval people would probably feel that a large landed estate in possession of the crown should be settled upon the elder child before this is allowed to pass, or very quickly after. Which is not to say that this would always happen and I think younger sibling being favored with mother's estate while elder sibling is stuck landless for decades while father, the king, refuses to die or settle any lands upon his heir is a pretty good origin story for a medieval royal rivalry. But it would probably be more typical to just let the elder child be in line to inherit the mother's estate with the understanding that it would be bestowed upon their sibling when they ascend to the throne or if they already have. An elder child refusing to honor mother's legally non-binding wishes on that front is also a pretty good basis for a royal rivalry.

To cut a very long story very short if the mother dies first the older child get his or her mothers domain and when the father later dies the older child gets the throne and pass's the mothers child down to his or her brother or sister, sort of like a hand me down for royals