Question on Medieval Succession rules

[NewJeffCT]

This is for a Pathfinder campaign, but I guess it could apply to any edition of D&D or any fantasy RPG.

The Duke has just been killed, and he died without a direct heir. His younger brother, the next in line, has gone missing and the younger brother's bastard son is a suspect in the Duke's murder.

If a noble dies without heir, how is medieval succession handled? Would the king appoint a new duke to take over? Would the closest duke (or dukes) gain the killed duke's territory? (That might make the nearest duke a suspect, though, right?) Would some local barons be upgraded to Duke (or whatever medieval title is one below Duke) ? Though, that might also make them suspects as well.

Thanks

 

[Sekhmet]

This is for a Pathfinder campaign, but I guess it could apply to any edition of D&D or any fantasy RPG.

The Duke has just been killed, and he died without a direct heir. His younger brother, the next in line, has gone missing and the younger brother's bastard son is a suspect in the Duke's murder.

If a noble dies without heir, how is medieval succession handled? Would the king appoint a new duke to take over? Would the closest duke (or dukes) gain the killed duke's territory? (That might make the nearest duke a suspect, though, right?) Would some local barons be upgraded to Duke (or whatever medieval title is one below Duke) ? Though, that might also make them suspects as well.

Thanks

In medieval England, a new Duke would be appointed by the Crown, most usually chosen from a Marquis or Earl.
See, titles are granted by the Crown. When a titled person dies, the title returns to the Crown. Most frequently (but not always) the title is inherited to the surviving eldest son, however the Crown is able to (at any time) revoke the peerage of noble children so that they are ineligible for succession.

A Baron would almost never be chosen for a Dukedom. You could acquaint that to a Sergeant (E5) being given Sergeant Major (E9) privileges in the absence of a Sergeant Major - bypassing 1st Sergeants, Master Sergeants, Sergeant 1st Classes, and Staff Sergeants.

English nobility went King > Duke > Marquis = Earl = Count > Viscount > Baron > Titled Upper Classmen (Baronet = Knight > Esquire = Squire) > Land Owning Commoner > Serf.

 

[TerraDave]

Reversion of title is an extreme thing for something like a Duke. (its different then, sticking with england, being a knight, which just can't be passed on, or sheriff, which is an office where you serve at the monarch's pleasure, or bishop, were, technically, you are not supposed to have heirs).

There is the Downton Abbey example: closest male relative wins (age breaks ties). They can be the 3rd cousin...but oldest wins. And the actual peerage can dictate terms. So one duke could be succeeded by a daughter (at least in terms of stuff), were the neighboring one might not be.

 

[Kabluey]

In medieval England, a new Duke would be appointed by the Crown, most usually chosen from a Marquis or Earl.
See, titles are granted by the Crown. When a titled person dies, the title returns to the Crown. Most frequently (but not always) the title is inherited to the surviving eldest son, however the Crown is able to (at any time) revoke the peerage of noble children so that they are ineligible for succession.

A Baron would almost never be chosen for a Dukedom. You could acquaint that to a Sergeant (E5) being given Sergeant Major (E9) privileges in the absence of a Sergeant Major - bypassing 1st Sergeants, Master Sergeants, Sergeant 1st Classes, and Staff Sergeants.

English nobility went King > Duke > Marquis = Earl = Count > Viscount > Baron > Titled Upper Classmen (Baronet = Knight > Esquire = Squire) > Land Owning Commoner > Serf.

This is correct, but several things to bear in mind. First, while the crown could technically refuse to allow a noble child to take his inheritance, there would almost certainly be ramifications to this. Nobles were very jealous of their power and their ability to pass on their titles and land to their children, so a king arbitrarily rejecting an inheritor could face problems with the rest of his nobles, up to and including outright rebellion. So, especially with a position as powerful as a duke's, a king would have to seriously weigh his options. With an open position, he'd want to appoint someone who is likely to be loyal or at least not a threat, but the other nobles - depending on their power in the kingdom - might want otherwise.

Another factor to bear in mind is that whoever takes the title, whether its a member of the former duke's family, or someone else entirely, will be expected to pay a substantial fee to the crown. It was a significant source of income for the crown. And if its an open title, then bribes and such may be involved as well. All in all, such a situation is rife with politics, backroom deals, and double-dealing.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Thanks - good info here.

 

[delericho]

This is for a Pathfinder campaign, but I guess it could apply to any edition of D&D or any fantasy RPG.

It probably doesn't need to be said, but in a fantasy setting, you should feel free to make up your own rules - do whatever "feels right". In particular, IMC, I would certainly get rid of the assumption of male succession - I run an "equal opportunities" sort of game.

... and the younger brother's bastard son...

Typically, bastard sons were excluded from lines of succession. Although in some cases they could be declared legitimate.

("The Tudors", and indeed the history it is derived from, makes a plot point of this. When Henry VIII had his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled, this had the effect of declaring their daughter Mary illegitimate. It was only later that Henry restored her to the line of succession, after her half-brother Edward.)

Edit to add: Henry VIII also had two other bastard sons, both called Henry, both older than Edward, and both of whom survived Edward. But neither became king, as their mothers were among the few women Henry VIII didn't marry.

 

[trancejeremy]

From what I've read of history, there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rule. Usually this is the sort of thing that would cause wars - rival sides trying to claim a title.

In the end, might makes right.

William the Conqueror, for instance, was the illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy. He eventually got that Dukedom, and supposedly inherited the Kingship of England because that king was childless and he was like a 2nd cousin one removed (the King's grandfather was brother to William's great grandfather). But he had to invade England to actually get the throne. (And bear in mind, the Normans weren't even native to France really, they were "Norsemen" or "Northmen", aka Vikings that had invaded France and settled there.

Also, a lot depends on who the duchy "belongs" to. Some are essentially their own smaller kingdoms (like the above example). But in later times, when everything was more or less settled, presumably the king's call.

 

[the Jester]

It varied.

If you're not familiar with it, there's an awesome game called Crusader Kings 2 (and presumably a Crusader Kings 1, but I've never seen that) in which you manage a dynasty. Succession rules are varied and somewhat complex. However, in a case like yours, it is likely that the oldest surviving legitimate male would inherit; if there were no surviving legitimate males, the oldest surviving legitimate female would instead inherit.

 

[haakon1]

Reversion of title is an extreme thing for something like a Duke.
...
There is the Downton Abbey example: closest male relative wins (age breaks ties). They can be the 3rd cousin...but oldest wins. And the actual peerage can dictate terms. So one duke could be succeeded by a daughter (at least in terms of stuff), were the neighboring one might not be.

Downtown Abbey was my mind too (along with Game of Thrones and Wikipedia about variations on succession rules), when I figured out the rules for my campaign.

I believe they were, in relation to the titleholder:
- Oldest Son
-- Oldest Son's son
--- Oldest Son's oldest grandson

-- Second Oldest son
--- And his male descendants

-- Oldest Brother
--- And his male descendants

-- If you run out of sons and brothers, then oldest daughter of the titleholder
--- Her male descendants, etc.

-- If you run out of sons, brothers, and daughters, then sisters of the titleholder, obviously oldest first

After that, if there's no "immediate family", the title returns to the sovereign (unlike Downton Abbey rules), but the sovereign by tradition USUALLY will give the title to a cousin of the titleholder.

Illegitimate folks don't count, but the titleholder can petition the sovereign for them to be added to the succession, and indeed can ask for non-relatives to be their heirs, though it's rare.

Also, with rebellions and the other problems D&D folks face, it's not unusual for a title to become vacant and the sovereign to appoint some notable servant of the realm (ahem, PC, retired PC, or major NPC) to be the new titleholder.

 

[Orius]

Well, usually the case is eldest surviving son, and then onto things like brothers and other such side lineages.

But honestly, for a game, you don't need to put a lot of thought into it.
Rules of succession can have arbitrary clauses in them after all. I'd say it's more important to have something that makes for a good plot in the game than making a lot of perfect legal sense (especially since some of these laws are perhaps not based on logic but rather come from the selfish whims of the aristocracy). And in a game, you can also assume that women can inherit as well as men. Really, the players probably won't care what the rules of succession are at all unless one of them stands to inherit something.