Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Dallman" data-source="post: 8227360" data-attributes="member: 6999616">Well there are several possible sequences of events, but they all have questions on them. First, was it defined when A's titles were surrendered to his son, B, if subsequent children of A (call them C, D and E) could inherit if B had no children? The king would have had to be involved in A giving up his titles, and if he were wise, he'd have made sure that the issue was settled in advance to avoid a potential civil war. If that was not settled, one interpretation is that C is (necessarily) younger than B, so could inherit if B died childless. The other interpretation is that C was fathered by someone with no right to the titles. and thus could not inherit them. And that's where the backers of C, and the backers of Q, A's younger brother, both have an arguable case, and the result depends on legal and cultural details about your setting that we don't know.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Dallman, post: 8227360, member: 6999616"] Well there are several possible sequences of events, but they all have questions on them. First, was it defined when A's titles were surrendered to his son, B, if subsequent children of A (call them C, D and E) could inherit if B had no children? The king would have had to be involved in A giving up his titles, and if he were wise, he'd have made sure that the issue was settled in advance to avoid a potential civil war. If that was not settled, one interpretation is that C is (necessarily) younger than B, so could inherit if B died childless. The other interpretation is that C was fathered by someone with no right to the titles. and thus could not inherit them. And that's where the backers of C, and the backers of Q, A's younger brother, both have an arguable case, and the result depends on legal and cultural details about your setting that we don't know. [/QUOTE]

Verification