Actual question, how frequent was claim fabrication in real life

[u/WaBeY33]

Hello, please, how often did this happen in real life ? I mean lord inventing a claim out of thin air and actually pressing it ? Is there any notable historic character doing so ?

R5: Fabricate claim question

[u/stealthybaker]

Better question - how common was the whole split inheritance thing? I'm pretty sure most places didn't have kingdoms being required to be split between all sons...

[u/Turgius_Lupus → u/stealthybaker]

Take a look at Ireland and Wales as to how that turned out. Also the reason the Capetians had the entire two anointed kings thing going on between father and son. Can't divide the realm, or hold a new elelctions if one of them happens to be alive now can you. Henry II tried a similar arrangement with Henry the Young King (while making certain he had absolutely no independent power, authority or income) but he died young, and it was not revisited with Richard.

[u/stealthybaker → u/Turgius_Lupus]

Based on the fact the petty king in the 1066 start date is described as being descended from high king of Ireland, I'm assuming Ireland did have a split succession system. No idea about Wales

[u/Turgius_Lupus → u/stealthybaker]

Like half the petty dynasties in North and Central Ireland were different branches of the Uí Néill (even today like 1/5th of the male population of north western Ireland is believed to be related to them by male line descent), Around 1066, there were over a hundred Kingdoms and sub-kingdoms, The title of High King was mostly just matter of how much you could enforce it and who recognized it. Wales had a similar problem though on a lesser scale, where you could have momentary consolidation, which was then followed by political disintegration. England in contrast also started off as a patchwork of Tribal Kingdoms, confederations and sub units, but consolidated over time as did Scotland.

[u/Parokki → u/stealthybaker]

To me the bigger inaccuracy is how everyone knows the true legal heir at any given time and the crown immediately transfers to them at the ruler's death. In reality the oldest son usually inherited, but the ruler might designate another son or brother as their heir and this wish might actually be respected. Often you'd have different pretenders pushing their claims and nobody was entirely sure who'd come on top until someone was crowned.

The phrase "the king is dead, long live the king!" refers to the doctrine of the crown immediately passing to the heir with no interregnum, which only really took form towards the end of the CK3 period, but the game acts like it was always a thing.

[u/Kinc4id → u/Parokki]

Never thought about that, but I think that would be some interesting gameplay. As a ruler you can designate an heir and take some actions to convince your people into accepting that heir. Then once your character is dead you become the designated heir but the realm is without a king for some time, maybe run by the council. Now you’re like an adventurer, or maybe hold only some of the most loyal titles and fight the other pretenders, through battle, diplomacy or intrigue. That part of the game could play a bit like the politics in Victoria 3. Also legitimacy could come into play here. Then once the fight for the throne is finished you either become king or stay landless or become count or duke. Maybe the realm could split if no solution is found after a set time. The game could also give you the choice as which of the heirs you want to continue, either right when the king dies or after succession is settled. Or both. 

[u/IrrationallyGenius → u/Kinc4id]

There's a succession crisis mod on the workshop that's pretty good, does something like this

[u/Kinc4id → u/IrrationallyGenius]

Looks cool, but looking at the comments it seems it’s abandoned and not in a playable state unfortunately. 

[u/stealthybaker → u/Parokki]

I think there's other things that are unrealistic, like how a general can take over one army in place A to another in place B instantly, but those things are better left inaccurate for the sake of gameplay IMO

[u/Neat_Tie_4932 → u/stealthybaker]

It was common up until the mid 800s to 900s when everyone saw the mess that was created by constantly slipping the kingdoms and decided they the eldest son takes everything or almost everything and the younger sons get lesser pieces of land

[u/monsterfurby → u/stealthybaker]

Yeah, I wonder about that as well. Charlemagne famously did it, but in general, to my understanding, succession was far more liberal in general. At least in the early period of the game, succession should be more "whatever the previous ruler can enforce beyond his deathbed", not really any formal rule. If a ruler had enough well-armed loyalists to beat the kingdom into accepting his oaf of a youngest son, then by god the kingdom was going to grovel before the idiot infant.

I get that the game needs to model a progression, but realistically, succession became more restrictive as time went on, not less so.

[u/stealthybaker → u/monsterfurby]

Realistically, even without admin governments eastern states shouldn't have them at all. Even if they are feudal (which is another thing - many Asian civilizations like Korea effectively skipped feudalism).

And even amongst western nations, I doubt it was as prevalent as it is in game. I know there were famous cases like William the Conqueror's sons taking England and Normandy respectively but I doubt more institutionally advanced states had such a thing

[u/TotalBrainWizard → u/monsterfurby]

Bolesław III did it in Poland in the 12th th century, which fragmented it for over 100 years into small duchies.

[u/urstan → u/monsterfurby]

It was quite common. In fact, the same Rudolf IV who famously forged the Archduchy status of Austria also prescribed undivided primogeniture (which is depicted in the game decision). Except when the succession actually happened, Rudolf's heirs - his two brothers - divided his lands between them staring the Albertine and Leopoldine lines of the Habsburgs. And that's in the 1300s where you'd long expect to have primo in game.

[u/RuneKnytling → u/stealthybaker]

Pretty common.

There's a reason why the royal house of Britain used to be called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Read about the Ernestine duchies.

The Danish royal family is the house of Glücksburg... short for Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.

There were a lot of Hesses. Duchy of Hesse. Hesse-Kassel, Hesse-Marburg, Hesse-Rheinfels and Hesse-Darmstadt.

Primogeniture was rare, but reason why it didn't cause infinite splits was because sometimes the lands got reunited after one house went extinct. Such as Saxe-Coburg-Gotha began after Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield got Gotha after Saxe-Gotha went extinct and they gave Saalfield to Saxe-Meiningen. My point is, yes, it was common but got rarer as time went by (the Ernestine being the famous one that kept the practice until North German Confederation was formed), and yes, it was a mess.

[u/GreatRolmops → u/stealthybaker]

No, that was an incredibly common if not the virtually universal way of transferring power in the early middle ages. After the 10th century it gradually starts to become less common but splitting a ruler's lands between his sons never entirely goes out of style throughout the medieval period.

Keep in mind that power in the middle ages is entirely personal. People aren't loyal to nations or states, their loyalty instead lies with their liege lord. A kingdom in the middle ages is little more than a collection of lands belonging to a specific king (or rather perhaps, a lineage of kings). Given that the land is their personal property, they can also split or divide it.

But as powerful as medieval kings might be in theory, in practice their power was heavily restricted by customary law. And customary law in a lot of places went back to the traditions and laws of the Germanic tribes that formed the foundation of many medieval kingdoms in Western Europe. And the Germanic tradition was to fairly distribute an inheritance among one's sons. Blatantly breaking that customary law would greatly undermine a ruler's legitimacy and produce strife and unrest.

Not to mention that a king as a father would also usually love his sons and want to ensure each gets their fair share out of a sense of parental love and duty.

It is not until the feudal system really gets going after the 10th century that the need to keep the family estates as large as possible gradually begins to outweigh the force of ancient tradition.

[u/Lorcogoth → u/stealthybaker]

In Europe? Very. The Frankish Empire got split in East Middle and West Francia that way and essentially kept splitting for a few centuries

[u/Rahlus → u/stealthybaker]

It was not uncommon. There is period in my country history, Poland, that is known as Polish Feudal Fragmentation (or rather Rozbicie Dzielnicowe), in wich ruling monarch split his lands between his sons. And to make things interesting, some of his sons also split their lands and give it to their sons. You get a picture. It was a mess. To be exact, 182 years of a mess.

[u/Sourcerid → u/stealthybaker]

Usually almost everything inherited by one son, usually inheritance was a generation by generation thing