Primogeniture help

[MNblockhead]

I feel like I just walked into the perfect support group for me.

"Hi, my name is MN Blockhead, and I am a homebrew lore rules lawyer."

 

[aramis erak]

Looking for either a RL historical example or a convincing legal argument for my campaign. In the primary kingdom they practice something very close to male-preference primogeniture. Basically eldest surviving male child inherits titles, if there are no male children eldest female child inherits. Then from there to siblings, etc. (That's the difference - look for female children before going to alternate heirs.)

We have a case where someone had forfitted their titles and their son took them up. If they later had a child and the son died without heir, would that child be in line to inherit?

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.

Primogeniture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The classic UK system worked basically as follows:
If there are sons, the oldest surviving son (excepting those in clerical orders) or eldest grandson
If no sons, the eldest surviving brother, or his eldest surviving son
Then the next eldest surviving brother, or his eldest surviving son.
and so on. If no brothers, go to eldest surviving uncle, then their eldest surviving son, then their grandsons
Keep backing up layers until the records fail or the next level was before the issuance of the title, then go through the daughters of the male line. If still none, revert to the crown or the earl, as appropriate.

Truth is, tho', it was more often breached than followed. Accusations of bastardy and/or parental infidelity. Legalistic accusations of minor crimes to get the liege to approve. And if the Liege says "no," he can pick whomever, with even flimsy cause.

In the example case you cite, yes the second son of the lord would most likely inherit, unless someone with deep pockets found or made up dirt...

 

[Baron Opal II]

Looking up the issues between Kings Edward VIII (Uncle) and George VI (Father) with how it related to Elizabeth II (Child) could be informative. In this case, King Edward never had children, which was the hope of King George V (Grandfather).

 

[John Dallman]

Looking up the issues between Kings Edward VIII (Uncle) and George VI (Father) with how it related to Elizabeth II (Child) could be informative. In this case, King Edward never had children, which was the hope of King George V (Grandfather).

When Edward VIII abdicated, an Act of Parliament had to be passed to give it legal effect. That Act specified that any children he had would have no claim to the throne.

 

[Orius]

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.

 

[aramis erak]

When Edward VIII abdicated, an Act of Parliament had to be passed to give it legal effect. That Act specified that any children he had would have no claim to the throne.

part of that is that the UK actually started observing rule of law after a few civil wars.... and actually enforcing primogeniture... except for the Crown after Henry VIII...

 

[Eltab]

Shakespeare's Henry V can be super-condensed to
Henry: "I am the true heir, by oldest child."
Dauphin: "No you're not; oldest-girl-children don't count. So I'm the true heir because line of oldest son!"
Henry: "My army and me can beat up your army and you."
Dauphin: "Possession is nine-tenths of the law."
CRASH BANG POW
Dauphin: "Would you like to marry my sister?"

Let your lawyer/player pick one candidate and in-character make his case.

edit: added names to quotes, for clarity

 

[pemerton]

I agree with what some others have said that the legal answer can be (i) somewhat arbitrary and (ii) potentially uncertain. Most modern legal systems have scenarios that can't be straightforwardly answered applying the existing legal resources; that will be moreso for pre-modern legal systems which have had less technical work done on them.

@Benjamin Olson's post obviously gives a good sense of what some of the key considerations are:

(1) Does the property follow the noble/royal title or is it passing under a separate regime?

(2) Is the abdication/forfeiture to be treated as equivalent to a death, with the later-born son treated as a son born after a literal death? Or is it a the legal extinguishment of that person's line going forward, so that the later-born son doesn't count as having the correct inheritance?

(3) If the later-born son is to be passed over in respect of either title or property, what happens next? Is there anyone identifiable with the right inheritance connection by tracing up the line? Does the abdicator act as a "block" to any tracing back up that line? Do the titles and/or property potentially revert to the authority that first granted them? Is the title instead extinguished and the property now (at law) vacant and unowned?​

You don't even need to decide these things. In the fiction they might be the subject of learned speculation among the leading lawyers of the realm, but the answers may be unsettled or not widely known. (Maybe an ancient digest discussed these matters, but the only remaining copy is with Keraptis in White Plume Mountain!)

As long as some of the basic concepts and considerations are laid out clearly enough, I would have thought your RL life lawyer player can run the relevant arguments and (unless there's some countervailing reason you haven't shown us yet) win the day.

 

[S'mon]

We have a case where someone had forfitted their titles and their son took them up. If they later had a child and the son died without heir, would that child be in line to inherit?

Yes, because clearly they cannot have forfeited the right for succession to pass through them, otherwise their son could not have inherited! So they remain a conduit for succession, ergo their later child can take the title just as their earlier child did. #lawyering

 

[pemerton]

Yes, because clearly they cannot have forfeited the right for succession to pass through them, otherwise their son could not have inherited!

Well, maybe in this system the transition upon forfeiture happens at interrupt speed!