D&D General If A King whose wife died younger later remarries could 1 of his 2 children from his 1st marriage inherit some of his 2nd wives lands

[JMISBEST]

Based on A DND I had but never used during the last Dnd Campaign I ever GM'd back in 2,010 if A King married A Viscountess whilst only 19, his wife dies giving birth to twin boys, years later he again marries A Viscount, this time she gives him 1 son and she dies before he does

So what I want to know is if If A King who married whilst very young and whose wife died whilst young later remarries could 1 of his 2 children from his 1st marriage inherit some of his 2nd wives lands

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As usual, this depends on the specific laws of the country in question, but generally speaking, most historical European countries would NOT allow an inheritance of this type.

If the second wife has titles that her heirs can inherit, they must go to her heirs, not to anyone else. She may be a wonderful mother to her step-children, but for most inheritance laws she would have no relation to them and thus they would have no claim. If she died without having her own children, the title would pass to someone else related to her by blood, not solely by marriage.

 

[JMISBEST]

As usual, this depends on the specific laws of the country in question, but generally speaking, most historical European countries would NOT allow an inheritance of this type.

If the second wife has titles that her heirs can inherit, they must go to her heirs, not to anyone else. She may be a wonderful mother to her step-children, but for most inheritance laws she would have no relation to them and thus they would have no claim. If she died without having her own children, the title would pass to someone else related to her by blood, not solely by marriage.

In the unlikely event that her heir dies and she has no living relations could she give them to her 2 step-sons? and if need be she could justify it by saying that she'd rather her lands go to someone she knows will treat them well, in this case the younger of her 2 step sons, then risk them going to someone that may treat them badly

 

[Maxperson]

Kings owned all of the land in the first place. The titles and control of the lands the lower lords enjoy are granted by the king and can be removed by the king. Of course, abusing that power could and would cause the lords who raised the armies to become mad at the king and he'd end up dead or exiled. So would he inherit her lands? He did, even if the title and control goes to the second wife's son.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

In the unlikely event that her heir dies and she has no living relations could she give them to her 2 step-sons? and if need be she could justify it by saying that she'd rather her lands go to someone she knows will treat them well, in this case the younger of her 2 step sons, then risk them going to someone that may treat them badly

Even in places where willing the lands to a non-natural heir is possible, noble titles are overwhelmingly not the holder's to pass on to whom they like. At the very least adopting the step children as her children would seem necessary (usually not allowed in a medieval European context, but extremely common in Ancient Rome so a concept they universally recognized).

If she dies without a living heir her title reverts to the crown. Given her proximity to the crown it is reasonably likely her title would be regranted according to her wishes after her death. Furthermore if she were able to transfer some of the property traditionally associated with the title to her preferred next holder of it, that would also help force the crown's hand in granting them the title.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In the unlikely event that her heir dies and she has no living relations could she give them to her 2 step-sons? and if need be she could justify it by saying that she'd rather her lands go to someone she knows will treat them well, in this case the younger of her 2 step sons, then risk them going to someone that may treat them badly

You'd almost certainly have to deal with some fake claims on the title ("she was the great-granddaughter of my mother's father's sister" etc.—family lines completely dying out is an uncommon thing, especially when we allow fully cognatic inheritance, that is, when male and female lines are equally valid for inheritance.

The problem is, these succession laws were really, really important to the aristocracy in general back when vassalage* was a big deal. It was a HUGE problem to break the laws of succession, literally enough to trigger whole civil wars if the break was big enough. That doesn't mean no one did it, plenty of people did, but the idea was that these laws were one of the few protections for the nobility against royals being crappy to them, which was a real concern for a lot of people.

That said: if it were in fact actually, provably the case that no living person remained who was descended from the original holder of the title, then @Maxperson is the closest to correct here. Properly speaking, the royal crown did not own that much land (most of it was seen as belonging to God and thus merely administered, not truly owned, by the Church), but the Crown reserves the right to create titles, and any created title that falls into this situation would be considered defunct, or sometimes "in abeyance." A defunct title can then be created anew, given to someone else. This was relatively uncommon IRL, but not so uncommon that it would be considered a shocking swerve. For example, as part of some research I have done for a story concept, I went looking for information on the Baron Strange, which is a real, actual title in English nobility! Turns that it had repeatedly broken down over the like 900 years that this title has existed. IIRC, it had twice gone into abeyance, which usually means "our inheritance law doesn't allow any currently living descendants to inherit, but since descendants exist one of their children might inherit" (e.g. all living descendants are female but only males can inherit, so once the ambiguity is resolved someone can claim the title.) The other two cases, it had in fact fallen totally defunct, meaning legit actually no one could inherit because all legitimate descendants of the original title holder died without heirs. These issues once actually led to an accident where a second "Baron Strange" title was created while the other was in a very long abeyance!

So, the ultimate answer to your question is that yes, it could be done, but it would in general be done either by direct royal decree (which would upset the aristocracy/nobility, but maybe not enough to start a civil war over it), or be done by waiting until the title actually goes defunct and then creating the King's second son the entirely new 1st Baron Placington, even if the stepmother had been the 19th Baroness Placington or whatever. The first method is clean and neat but suffers the chance of sparking conflict within the nobility; the latter is much more messy from an actual administration standpoint but fully legal in basically all legal systems of vassalage (assuming, as you said, there truly isn't anyone who can legally inherit.)

Side note on that: Don't forget that inheritance (especially full cognatic inheritance) usually spreads out a lot over time. If there have been 5 Barons/Baronesses of this title over the years, and each served more or less their full adult life as Baron/ess, then you'd be looking at (for a family merely at replacement) 2⁵=32 descendants that could possibly inherit, and that's only if everyone has exactly 2 kids each. If they have more, quite common in the medieval period when you weren't sure how many of your kids would survive, then that number could easily balloon to multiple dozens, even to hundreds. If the title has been around longer, it could be even more: with only 2.5 average children per generation and 8 generations, you're looking at (roughly) 1500 descendants that could potentially inherit. Even with only two average kids per generation, if the Baroness is my made-up example of the 19th holder of the title, then there would be ~2¹⁹≈500,000 people who could theoretically inherit. Again, not saying it can't happen, just that it would be weird if it did.

* "Vassalage" the specific system of distributed administration used in the medieval period which is often glossed over with the inaccurate term "feudalism," which blends vassalage with manorialism in vague and unclear ways.

 

[JMISBEST]

Another thought

If the age difference between the kings twins from his 1st wife and the kings 1 kid from his 2nd wife was great enough and his 2nd wife died, likely also in childbirth but it may have been something else, could the younger of the kings twins from his 1st wife rule his half brothers lands until his half brother is old enough to take the title?

On the subject of the age difference being great enough we're talking at least 20 years but since the king married when he was 18 and his wife died in childbirth when the king was 20 and he remarried 15 years later when he was 35 and his 2nd wife was 22 its definitely possible

 

[Minion X]

Family and bloodlines are very important in feudal societies and are used to amass holdings and wealth. So the only thing really stopping the royal family from seizing the lands in question is if its worth the risk of going to war with the wife's family/house.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Another thought

If the age difference between the kings twins from his 1st wife and the kings 1 kid from his 2nd wife was great enough and his 2nd wife died, likely also in childbirth but it may have been something else, could the younger of the kings twins from his 1st wife rule his half brothers lands until his half brother is old enough to take the title?

Trying to keep it brief:

That would be weird, but not impossible. Let's call the King George, the twins Henry (older) and William (younger), and the second wife's child Anne. By right, Anne would inherit her mother's titles the instant her mother dies--even if the Baroness died in childbirth. However, the King (whether it be George or Henry) would have a reasonable right to say he could appoint a regent to administer the lands Anne properly rules, until she's old enough to rule them herself. (Henry's case would be bolstered if he had been declared Anne's guardian before becoming King, but that isn't strictly necessary.) If the King appoints William as regent for Anne, then yes, William could administer (but not "rule") Anne's fief(s) until Anne becomes an adult, at which point she would assume full rulership.

(Note the difference between administering and ruling. A ruler includes all powers of administration, but also possesses the title itself: they are administrator by right, rather than by decree. A regent who administrates on behalf of another does not, technically, possess the title and thus could theoretically be ousted without that being a violation of the liege-vassal relationship, so long as the title is not taken away from the person who actually does possess it. By comparison, stripping the actual ruler of their titles was a HUGE legal no-no in medieval Europe unless you had good cause e.g. proven treachery or the like, and doing it too much was something likely to make your vassals rebel against you.)

On the subject of the age difference being great enough we're talking at least 20 years but since the king married when he was 18 and his wife died in childbirth when the king was 20 and he remarried 15 years later when he was 35 and his 2nd wife was 22 its definitely possible

Certainly such things can happen. The infamous Henry VIII had three legitimate children survive to adulthood: Mary in 1516, Elizabeth in 1533 (17 years later), and Edward in 1537 (4 years after Elizabeth, so 21 years after Mary.) Ultimately, all three of them inherited the crown: first Edward VI (7 years), then Mary I (5 years), and finally Elizabeth I (45 years.)

 

[GSHamster]

Marriages at that level are very often "negotiated" rather than simple law. It's closer to a merger of two corporations, rather than just a wedding.

The second wife's family will have negotiated exactly what will happen with the bride's lands. It's possible that some lands will get added to the main holdings, while others will be held in trust for the children of second marriage.

Any titles, on the other hand, will be governed by the rules of that title, set up when it was first awarded in the letters patent. It's very unlikely that a title that comes from the mother will pass to children of the marriage. Titles almost always require a legitimate blood relationship.

However, if there are no other claimants to the title, it usually reverts back to the Crown, and the Crown can award it to someone else.