Primogeniture help

[Dannyalcatraz]

You have a royal who abdicates in favor of a child, and said child dies hairless, but there is another, post-abdication sibling or half sibling. (Essentially, you’re also seeking the answer to the unasked question: what happens if there are no heirs at all.)

As has been mentioned, there is no ONE answer. I will say that I agree with the historical analysis by @Benjamin Olson...but I wouldn’t follow it. Not 100%, at least.

For a fictional setting, and in order to ensure PLENTY of potential plotlines, I’d have the abdicator treated as having predeceased the child he or she abdicated in favor of, just like was mentioned. HOWEVER, I would say that post-abdication children would have no automatic claim to the titles either. Those rights die with the abdication.

Instead, the next ruler would be chosen by some kind of contest. What kind & who can participate could depend on the nature of the culture in question, depending on what kingly attributes they value most. It might even be variable, especially if religions, oracles or prophecies were involved.

 

[pemerton]

You have a royal who abdicates in favor of a child, and said child dies hairless

That's pure, bald-faced speculation!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

DAMN YOU, AUTOCORRECT!

 

[pemerton]

DAMN YOU, AUTOCORRECT!

I had thought I might get a laugh, but will take the like on the basis that beggars can't be choosers!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ehh...I’m just misfiring on all cylinder, tonight. I meant to award a laugh, and failed...now corrected!

 

[pemerton]

I don't want to rub it in, but misfiring on all cylinders?

 

[Eltab]

There is a d20 Modern item here: Auto-Incorrect. This cursed language translation program inserts errors into written messages. In most cases the errors are of spelling or syntax; if the writer rolls a 1 on his Use Magic Item check, the program produces material that appears to be Spam or conveys a message other than the writer's intent.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

In the real world "Politics Trumps Law" particularly with Royal succession. Who ever brings the most swords to the court wins the argument.
I would in addition to the War of the Roses referenced above add the succession crisis of Henry the First of England

Empress Matilda - Wikipedia
Where, despite Henry I having had his court swear allegiance to Matilda as his successor, she failed to gain the throne.
Contrast this with the succession of Henry the VIII, where first Mary was accepted. Until she got too bloody for comfort and then Elizabeth was made Queen.
In the latter case the English aristocracy was not willing to have another go round of the War of the Roses, particularly with Spain as an active participant and so were willing to put up with a woman on the throne.

 

[Blue]

Honestly, don't worry about what your lawyer player thinks. There are plenty of cases where uncles, cousins and bastards would steal authority or start wars or something to have power. Go with whatever plotline you want, and if the player objects over legal grounds, just roll with it. Sure there's the law, but there's always someone who thinks might makes right, and they write the history when they win. And Rule of Drama takes priority over the fictional laws of your setting.

I answered this in the original post.

I'm not looking for "whatever makes the story right" or "I'd do X" - I'm looking for either a legalistic (even if completely made up) explanation of Yes or No, or an actual historical precedent so I could then go look up why it went that way. As a side note, one of my players is an actual lawyer - consider this world building.

The story works right no matter which way it is because I control the rest of the context as well. In some way this is world building, and just like I get satisfaction from having believable but unique cultures, this is something else I'd like to do right. Especially since it's not one I've delved into before, and with a real lawyer I was asking for help. Good folks on here provided a lot of great points.

To give more detail, the characters are embroiled in a big plot that's all very legal but not what they want, and deciding to rebel against the law or try to solve this from within is a big moral choice. We've got characters running the gamut, up to assassinating the regent. This side piece should have solid legal basis. If they support law or not will have ramifications on the main plot, especially if they end up acting hypocritically if their solution here is the opposite of their eventual solution in the bigger plot.

So for the integrity of the big plot, I need a strong legal argument one way or the other. Regardless if it can become messy and peopel not obeying the law. Regardless of which way it works out, since I can make both work for me. I thought I had laid out exactly what was needed, and there's been a lot of helpful posts that took me at face value instead of assuming I needed something different than what I asked for.

So thank you for the advice, I'm sure it was offered in good will, but it's not what I need as the story is best served by a strong legal argument so we can see their choices around it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

We do not have enough information to make a decent argument. As I understand we have

A was King but Abdicated in favour of B his son
B dies with out issue
A fathers C
C now has the strongest claim in the absence of other siblings but If C has older siblings they have a better claim if male
Is C an adult or a minor. If C is a minor then who gets to be regent. A lot of succession crises were over control of minor heirs. It is the root of the War of the Roses.
Is A still alive and so eligible to be regent? Would the reason A was forced to abdicate be a reason the Lords would not want him to be a regent, wielding royal power by proxy.