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]

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.)


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.)

That's given me a idea. If The 2nd Wife knew that if she died before her child, whose gender she doesn't yet know, was old enough to inherit that William would be a better administrator then Henry could she have appointed William as guardian kowing that this would increase Williams chances of becoming The administrator of her lands

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's given me a idea. If The 2nd Wife knew that if she died before her child, whose gender she doesn't yet know, was old enough to inherit that William would be a better administrator then Henry could she have appointed William as guardian kowing that this would increase Williams chances of becoming The administrator of her lands

Keep in mind the court incentives, both in the Baroness' court and in their liege's court (the King or Queen to whom the Baroness is vassal.) One of the common types of succession crisis in history--something that affected both Europe and Japan--was when a noble tried to prepare their lands for a specific heir, but the army or nobility supported a different heir...and very often things didn't turn out the way that noble intended. If the Baroness is savvy, she'll work with powerful nobles or appoint loyal soldiers who will obey her chosen regent even after her death.

More or less, the real "game of thrones" is being clever enough so that, no matter what the situation is, obeying you and your heirs(/regents) is always at least a slightly better deal than betraying you and your heirs(/regents)--or, at the very least, that betraying you will make things worse for anyone who might betray you. Sincere loyalty is better than cynical loyalty if it is durable, but cynical loyalty is more likely to be durable.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Keep in mind the court incentives, both in the Baroness' court and in their liege's court (the King or Queen to whom the Baroness is vassal.) One of the common types of succession crisis in history--something that affected both Europe and Japan--was when a noble tried to prepare their lands for a specific heir, but the army or nobility supported a different heir...and very often things didn't turn out the way that noble intended. If the Baroness is savvy, she'll work with powerful nobles or appoint loyal soldiers who will obey her chosen regent even after her death.

More or less, the real "game of thrones" is being clever enough so that, no matter what the situation is, obeying you and your heirs(/regents) is always at least a slightly better deal than betraying you and your heirs(/regents)--or, at the very least, that betraying you will make things worse for anyone who might betray you. Sincere loyalty is better than cynical loyalty if it is durable, but cynical loyalty is more likely to be durable.

Yeah, I can think of a lot of these in English history just of the top of my head: Stephen (should have been Matilda), Henry VII (should have been Richard III), Mary I (should have been Jane Grey), Elizabeth I (should have been Mary Stewart).

Really, it's who can gain the support of the nobility is what matters. Laws can be bent or changed to suit.