Question on Medieval Succession rules

[Greenfield]

I agree with most of what was said regarding rankings and succession, with one caveat: Knight was not a position in the chain of command.

Knight was an award that was given to a person, not a family, and could be added to any title at all. So you might have "Earl Sir Jame Sedgewith" (presuming that there was a Earl James Sedgewith who earned a Knighthood.)

At the same time you might have "Sir Marten Stewart" who had no lands or other titles at all, just the Knighthood. It was an office, with duties, rewards and privileges, but it was completely independent of the noble rankings.

The nobility were believed to literally be a breed apart, almost a separate race from the common man, so while the Crown could award a Knighthood to a commoner, it couldn't change his race/breeding.

(Note: Access to a better diet in the formative years, particularly good quality protein and vitamins, makes children grow taller, aids in brain development, and helps them avoid many of the diseases born of want. The nobles, having been raised in such circumstance, *looked* like a different breed of men, and really were physically and mentally superior to the lower classes.)

 

[Ryujin]

An unrecognized bastard would not normally be in the pecking order for succession. On some occasions, when a noble has had no legitimate offspring, he might officially recognize a favoured bastard son in order to guarantee succession. This would, however, be a rather scandalous event.

Barring legitimate offspring or a recognized bastard, position could fall to a male kinsman (brother) or HIS offspring. If none remain then the monarch could appoint a new line, typically as a patronage award to a lesser noble for loyal service, or could parcel out that dukedom to surrounding lords.

 

[ninthcouncil]

It might help to consider the early history of the English Dukes of Norfolk. The chaotic and inconsistent way in which this title was handed down should help to dispel the notion that the process of inheritance was thoroughly regularised in mediaeval times.

The Norfolks started out as Earls – initially they were Saxon lords, but after the conquest, the title was forfeited and Roger Bigod, who had arrived with William the Conqueror, was appointed. His line held the title till 1207, when the 5th Earl died without issue. At this point, the title reverted to the Crown, and Edward II made his brother, Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk in 1312. Thomas died without male issue, but the title remained passed to his daughter Margaret as Countess of Norfolk, then to her son Thomas Mowbray. The title was at this time also raised in rank, making Thomas Mowbray the Duke of Norfolk.

In 1476 the 4th Duke died leaving a 3-year-old girl, Anne, as his only issue. She was then married to the 4-year-old Richard, Duke of York, son of King Edward IV, who took over the Mowbray lands and the title of duke of Norfolk. The child bride, however, died aged 8, and further complications arose when the propriety of Edward IV’s marriage was brought into question on his death. This eventually led to the duke being declared illegitimate and sent to the tower by the new king, Richard III (yes, him – this was during the Wars of the Roses), and his claims to the Dukedom of Norfolk dismissed.

Richard II then gave Norfolk to his close supporter John Howard, who happened to be a descendent of the 1st Duke, Thomas Mowbray, and the title has remained in that family throughout the intervening centuries (even though they remained Catholics).
To sum up – if in your game, the duke has died without male issue, don’t sweat it too much; there is no precisely right answer, as what happens is up to the king. If the family are important allies, he will probably ensure the title remains with them, even through the female line. If they are enemies, he may take the opportunity to confiscate the title and give it to someone more tractable. If the heir is missing, the king may also choose to allow some time, possibly years, to elapse before finalising the situation, during which time the lands may be administered by some proxy, probably a relative.

Some other points:
- Marquis, Viscount and Baronet are later elaborations and didn’t exist in mediaeval times. Count is the European equivalent of the English Earl, which term had been retained as a sop to the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy post-conquest. An Earl’s wife – or, in the case of Margaret of Norfolk, a female Earl – is a Countess. But there are no Counts in England.
- "Downton Abbey" is set over half a millennium too late to be any sort of guide to mediaeval protocol, at a time when legal institutions were much better developed and inheritance rules more rigidly codified. And people were flying around in biplanes, for pity’s sake.
- Ideas of aristocrats being somehow of a different breed are likely to be at least partly the inventions of later ages when, having lost their military function, the aristocracy needed an ideological justification for their dominance. It is unusual (and usually very damaging) for a noble class to be entirely closed. (The idea of “blue bloods”, incidentally, is a racist Spanish concept suggesting that the peasantry were contaminated by Moorish interbreeding, which was carried over into English only in Victorian times.)

 

[Greenfield]

As a general note, bastards were legally forbidden from inheriting, or of even owning land by any other means, throughout much of the European middle ages. Leonardo DaVinci was such a child, "born on the wrong side of the sheets" as they said. He had many rich and powerful sponsors, and received an excellent education, but could only advance so far because of his birth. That's why he was known by the town he came from, Vinci, rather than by a family name.

Henry the VIII was in anguish for a male heir, even though he had a son by Ann Bolyn's sister. (sp?). She wasn't his wife, so that son couldn't inherit.

 

[NewJeffCT]

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.

I know I don't need a lot of thought, but I'm also the type of person that will try to do something logical in game, as I've gamed with enough history and/or trivia buffs over the years that I try to be accurate when I can. (DMJeff - "well, the title would then pass to the Duke's second cousin..." - History buff: "well, technically, since either male or female can inherit, the Duke's Aunt would come before the second cousin, since she is more directly related and older.")

 

[S'mon]

The nobility were believed to literally be a breed apart, almost a separate race from the common man, so while the Crown could award a Knighthood to a commoner, it couldn't change his race/breeding.

(Note: Access to a better diet in the formative years, particularly good quality protein and vitamins, makes children grow taller, aids in brain development, and helps them avoid many of the diseases born of want. The nobles, having been raised in such circumstance, *looked* like a different breed of men, and really were physically and mentally superior to the lower classes.)

The Normans were Viking-descended, and tended to be tall with a lean, rangy look that is still common in western Scandinavia and among the English aristocracy today. Blond hair also more common than among the southern English common classes. Blond hair is also common in northern England (former Danelaw) and in much of Scotland & Northern Ireland, but the aristocratic/Viking body form is not.
So there are genetic as well as nutritional reasons why the Norman aristocracy look distinctive.

 

[Sekhmet]

I agree with most of what was said regarding rankings and succession, with one caveat: Knight was not a position in the chain of command.

My list was merely a descending list of nobility, to show why a Baron would not inherit a duchy without something extreme happening. Knights, no matter their stock, were always of higher station than peasants and serfs. There were many orders of Knights that were higher or lower station than other Knighted men, but I didn't want to go into extreme detail.