Post Reply Can someone explain something to me, please?
49791 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 4/14/18 , edited 4/14/18
Okay. Let's say a monarch dies without producing an heir to take the throne. But there are noble houses that serve the monarch and one of these houses can easily take over as the new monarch.

For example(just an example): Emperor Garrett dies without producing an heir or marrying someone. He was the last remaining member of his entire family and sole survivor of a tragic event. After his death, the noble house of Jefferson ends up taking the throne for themselves and becomes the new ruling family. Emperor Garrett could've had a child and wife but was too in finding someone.There was some sort of plan in case such a thing would happen but something prevented the plan from going forward.

What is that called when that happens? This happens in reality sometimes as well, right? Like it used to happen plenty centuries ago.

Anyway, what is it called when a monarch dies without producing an heir and somehow a new monarch takes over which was a non-related nobleman? Or something along those lines.

What do you think?
Humms 
13422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Online
Posted 4/14/18 , edited 4/14/18
A failure

49791 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 4/14/18 , edited 4/14/18

Humms wrote:

A failure





What is a failure?
Humms 
13422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Online
Posted 4/14/18 , edited 4/14/18

qualeshia3 wrote:


Humms wrote:

A failure





What is a failure?


One that has no successor, or one that has not even considered anyone to be a successor.

Unless they choose to die with their legacy, proving that they themselves have no successor, and that everything they have built will ultimately die as well, purely speculative, unless someone just walks in and makes themselves at home.

There are people who cannot be replaced, and would rather die with their legacy, maybe to be respected rather than tarnished, which seems appropriate.

We see it all too well in modern civilization, but there are people who pass down their rightful knowledge to proper successors.
1864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 4/14/18 , edited 4/14/18
"Pretender" = an aspirant or claimant to a monarchy that either has been abolished or suspended, or is occupied by another; may assert a claim and the term is also applied to those persons on whose behalf a claim is advanced, regardless of whether that person himself makes the claim; possesses a legitimate link to the line of succession.

"false pretender" = claimants with no kinship to the dynasty.

"heir apparent" = a person who is first in a line of succession and cannot be displaced from inheriting by the birth of another person.

"heir presumptive" = someone who is first in line to inherit a title but who can be displaced by the birth of a more eligible heir.


As far as I know, your example is simply following the lines of succession. Generally, the title will go to whoever the next of kin is, no matter how incredibly distant the person is related. Sometimes the next of kin is of a local noble house, and it may fall to the monarchy/nobility of another country. Nobles often have, at least, some hereditary ties to the crown, since common reasoning for the noble houses to have been established in the first place was compensation for having been a benefactor and/or relative of the monarchy. That, and it's the nobles and above who're generally allowed to marry into the monarchy.


EDIT:

"usurper" = an illegitimate or controversial claimant to power, often but not always in a monarchy; lacking any formal or legal right to claim it as their own; those who overtake a region by often unexpected physical force, as well as individuals or organizations who overtake a region through political influence and subterfuge; may include a person who succeeds in establishing themselves as a monarch without inheriting the throne or any other person exercising authority to validate the claim; may also be applied to an official acting ultra vires, outside their authority or jurisdiction.

"order of succession" = the sequence of those entitled to hold a high office such as head of state or an honour such as a title of nobility in the order in which they stand in line to it when it becomes vacated. This sequence may be regulated through descent or by statute.

Link to order of succession and the different types, etc. ;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succession I lack the patience to break it all down.
49791 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 4/14/18 , edited 4/14/18

Humms wrote:


qualeshia3 wrote:


Humms wrote:

A failure





What is a failure?


One that has no successor, or one that has not even considered anyone to be a successor.

Unless they choose to die with their legacy, proving that they themselves have no successor, and that everything they have built will ultimately die as well, purely speculative, unless someone just walks in and makes themselves at home.

There are people who cannot be replaced, and would rather die with their legacy, maybe to be respected rather than tarnished, which seems appropriate.

We see it all too well in modern civilization, but there are people who pass down their rightful knowledge to proper successors.


Interesting. So, that is what you meant by failure.
Humms 
13422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Online
Posted 4/14/18 , edited 4/14/18

qualeshia3 wrote:


Humms wrote:


qualeshia3 wrote:


Humms wrote:

A failure





What is a failure?


One that has no successor, or one that has not even considered anyone to be a successor.

Unless they choose to die with their legacy, proving that they themselves have no successor, and that everything they have built will ultimately die as well, purely speculative, unless someone just walks in and makes themselves at home.

There are people who cannot be replaced, and would rather die with their legacy, maybe to be respected rather than tarnished, which seems appropriate.

We see it all too well in modern civilization, but there are people who pass down their rightful knowledge to proper successors.


Interesting. So, that is what you meant by failure.


Mmm

But there is a much more concise response above. I like to get down to the simple explanation, one that doesn't necessarily have the proper terminology for your given timeline, but one that expresses..... direction, or purpose
17318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 4/14/18 , edited 4/15/18
A situation like you describe will almost always trigger a civil war unless the noble house had acquired an overwhelming level of force or political influence to support them (which would be very difficult while the Emperor was still alive and wary of being supplanted).

As your Emperor got older with no apparent heir the various nobles would start to form factions around the closest living relatives. If the complete line had died out (including 2nd or 3rd cousins and beyond) then it becomes more complicated as everyone has as much right to the throne as anyone else. The country could fracture into different provinces or a neighbouring country could invade to fill the vacuum. It would be highly unlikely that the succession would be easy or bloodless.

Even after your noble family takes the throne they would be wary of other claimants coming forward for at least a couple of generations. Queen Elizabeth I faced a dilema in dealing with Mary, Queen of Scots. William III & Mary II, Anne and the Georges all faced rebellion by the Jacobites trying to restore the male line of James II to the throne.
49791 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 4/15/18 , edited 4/15/18

MidoriNoTora wrote:

A situation like you describe will almost always trigger a civil war unless the noble house had acquired an overwhelming level of force or political influence to support them (which would be very difficult while the Emperor was still alive and wary of being supplanted).

As your Emperor got older with no apparent heir the various nobles would start to form factions around the closest living relatives. If the complete line had died out (including 2nd or 3rd cousins and beyond) then it becomes more complicated as everyone has as much right to the throne as anyone else. The country could fracture into different provinces or a neighbouring country could invade to fill the vacuum. It would be highly unlikely that the succession would be easy or bloodless.

Even after your noble family takes the throne they would be wary of other claimants coming forward for at least a couple of generations. Queen Elizabeth I faced a dilema in dealing with Mary, Queen of Scots. William III & Mary II, Anne and the Georges all faced rebellion by the Jacobites trying to restore the male line of James II to the throne.


Thank you.


9955 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 4/21/18 , edited 4/21/18
I think MidoriNoTora's answer of Civil War is the most common result. Royal families tend to be fairly extended so it's unlikely a monarch will have a succession plan that goes outside the proper bloodlines.

If it's a story and you want a clear successor, but something he/she has to work for. Have a son or daughter out on the borders doing something (Military campaign, governing a recently created or captured province), or a previously exiled relative brought back by high ranking officials to save the Kingdom from warring noble families.

If you want a fractured kingdom of warring provinces, or a high-unrest country under occupation then a emperor or king without issue and a nasty accident is a great background reason.
You must be logged in to post.