Re: Revisiting Princesses
1) I don't know if she has to be married to your king to work or if being married to the heir turned king is good enough. I can tell you that is it is rare to inherit lands and hard to do if you try it.
2) I doubt it. Marrying a foreign princess should wield you a better alliance with that faction than if you would just propose an alliance without losing an agent of your own (your own princess).
3) Yep, totally random or so they say. I haven't tested it though but others have.
4) That general won't become the faction leader directly unless, of course, your the HRE and he's the best general. He will however have a claim to the throne and might possibly lead a part of your former troops in the civil war.
5) Again, I doubt it. I don't believe the game is so complex. But if it by chance happens, I would be glad to roleplay it along.
Re: Revisiting Princesses
For me, this is quite a hypothetical subejct, as the implications are so rarely felt. This is my knowledge on the subject though:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Darkhorn
how can you tell which one she married?
She'll always be married to the next heir in line: the crown prince / oldest brother
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Darkhorn
If your king dies with no sons or brothers, BUT one of your generals is married to one of your princesses, does he have any claim to be your hier?
I've heard the same, but never seen it happen. Likewise I would imagine in case you've blessed more than one general with your princesses that the crown would go to the first marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Darkhorn
5) If your king dies without a MALE child (IOW, his heir is his brother), but he had a daughter married to another king, who may see his wife as the legitimate heir to her Dad's kingdom, is more likely to go to war with the knew king (his wife's uncle) to "liberate" her kingdom?
No.
I always only use princesses as loyalty-boosting attributes.
/HG
Re: Revisiting Princesses
4. No. I tried doing that in my Scottish campaign (it was VI) when my leader suddenly died, but it didn't count the general as an heir. So, no.
Re: Revisiting Princesses
Quote:
Originally Posted by therussian91
4. No. I tried doing that in my Scottish campaign (it was VI) when my leader suddenly died, but it didn't count the general as an heir. So, no.
In the past, some people have claimed it did work for them. Im betting it can work (just like you can gain another faction's territory), its just very hard to engineer.
I doubt it would work with any old general. It would probably need to be one with royal blood.
Im not sure how long "royal blood" lasts though. Uncles of the current king have royal blood. When these die of old age, do their descendant's have it? If not then that would mean you would have to marry a princess to an uncle!
Re: Revisiting Princesses
I recall a developer's post stating that marriages do not affect the chance on obtaining inbred vices, but I am not sure if he was refering to marrying a foreign princes or a nobleman's daughter. What I do know is that someone once experimented with this by marrying every crown prince to his sister in one campaign. He found not effect on the appearance of inbred vices after several centuries of dynastic incest.
Re: Revisiting Princesses
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowie
Im not sure how long "royal blood" lasts though. Uncles of the current king have royal blood. When these die of old age, do their descendant's have it?
Royal blood can be seen in the game as a fancy little crown to the right of the generals picture. Uncles have it, but when they die of old age, their "decendant" - that is the guy taking over the unit - loses the 'royal' status.
I can't see why it had to be a general of royal blood - marrying a princess makes you a part of the royal family.
/HG
Re: Revisiting Princesses
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Geek
Royal blood can be seen in the game as a fancy little crown to the right of the generals picture. Uncles have it, but when they die of old age, their "decendant" - that is the guy taking over the unit - loses the 'royal' status.
Not fully, they're still somewhat of half-royals (they'll still lead civil wars etc) even after losing that oryal status.
Re: Revisiting Princesses
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Geek
I can't see why it had to be a general of royal blood - marrying a princess makes you a part of the royal family.
Any Joe Bloggs marrying a princess would have a very loose claim to the throne compared to an existing royal who's grandad was the king!
Re: Revisiting Princesses
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Geek
I can't see why it had to be a general of royal blood - marrying a princess makes you a part of the royal family.
In real life, yes. In the game, unfortunately not.
Re: Revisiting Princesses
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Geek
I can't see why it had to be a general of royal blood - marrying a princess makes you a part of the royal family.
/HG
Marrying into a royal family is not the same thing as having a potential claim to the throne. Phillip II of Spain married Queen Mary Tudor of England, and had no claim to the throne at all at her death. Even Catholics recognized that, and would have to back Mary Queen of Scots if they objected to Elizabeth I as a protestant ruler of England.
Likewise, Prince Albert (husband of Queen Victoria) and Prince Philip (husband of Elizabeth II) got no claim to the thone of Great Britan at all.
Re: Revisiting Princesses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Not fully, they're still somewhat of half-royals (they'll still lead civil wars ect)
Any general can lead a civil war, heirs and former heirs are usually the most inclined to do so, but the ability to lead a civil war dosn't make you royal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandy Blue
Marrying into a royal family is not the same thing as having a potential claim to the throne. Phillip II of Spain married Queen Mary Tudor of England, and had no claim to the throne at all at her death. Even Catholics recognized that, and would have to back Mary Queen of Scots if they objected to Elizabeth I as a protestant ruler of England.
Likewise, Prince Albert (husband of Queen Victoria) and Prince Philip (husband of Elizabeth II) got no claim to the thone of Great Britan at all.
I do not think that is true - they may be a very long way from the throne, but in the hypothetically case that - gods forbid - most of the royal family died they would at some point be able to claim the throne, as a member of the royal family.
Now for roleplaying issues, it wouldn't be any guy marrying a princess - only nobles could hope to achive that. As a king, your duty is to make sure your family is in charge, and a marriage is a very serious matter, as a future son-in-law needed to have some power to add to the family business.
And remember - this is the middle ages civil wars we're talking about, so it wouldn't matter that much for those preparing rebellion that they had a legitimate claim to the throne. Just a small excuse like a family connection will serve you just fine, as it has been several times in RL history. If this is the way the game works or not, I'm not sure.
I still need proof that you actually can have a civil war instead of a "game over" I think it was Caravel who mentioned it would happen one out of ten times, but is there a screenie or anything else out there to support this claim?
/HG
Re: Revisiting Princesses
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Geek
Any general can lead a civil war, heirs and former heirs are usually the most inclined to do so, but the ability to lead a civil war dosn't make you royal
No, but I suspect the old coding about the generals are still in place, when the generals lived forever the royal blood never disappeared. And I suspect this is still true coding wise.
I tried to have a bizzaro campaign and get "King" d'Arc once, but it didn't work as every former hier that had ever existed had stronger claims than the best general in the French army (who was royally married).
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Geek
I still need proof that you actually can have a civil war instead of a "game over" I think it was Caravel who mentioned it would happen one out of ten times, but is there a screenie or anything else out there to support this claim?
/HG
Only died out 2 times due to lack of hiers so I cannot say for certain for the player, but the computer has it (that's why it's hard to kill them off with assassins sometimes).
Your land (and the comps) can be inhierited by another faction without that faction dieing out though (suspected to be caused by a civil war occuring at "game over" but you land getting inhierited happens first, so you have no land and no troops on either side).
Re: Revisiting Princesses
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Darkhorn
5) If your king dies without a MALE child (IOW, his heir is his brother), but he had a daughter married to another king, who may see his wife as the legitimate heir to her Dad's kingdom, is more likely to go to war with the knew king (his wife's uncle) to "liberate" her kingdom? :boxing:
It would be historical.... I kind of remember something about a very, very long war between two european countries because of family matters...
Re: Revisiting Princesses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Not fully, they're still somewhat of half-royals (they'll still lead civil wars etc) even after losing that oryal status.
I think that the "being of the royal blood" background for the character stays (in his picture when you right click on his unit), while the 'potential heir symbol' disappears (on his unit icon).
