How would the line of succession be if the crown prince was declared dead?

Question

Kind of similar to this question, but slightly different in some aspects.

In my medieval fantasy Kingdom, the next monarch is usually chosen by direct line of blood with no regard to the successors sex. So basically the oldest child of the dead King becomes the new King or Queen, their spouse the Prince/Princess Consort and their eldest Child the Crown Prince or Princess.

Some examples:

King Reginald had two sons: Hans (the older) and Heinrich (the younger). Hans becomes the new King, with Heinrich remaining a prince for lifetime (and possible replacement if Hans died without heir).

King Reginald dies and King Hans is crowned the new king. He has two Children: Annegret (oldest Daugter) and Arthur (jounger son). Annegret would be next in line but steps down in favour of her more capable younger brother, as she is mentally impaired. She remains a princess, just like her uncle Heinrich, who has thirteen legitimate (and a vast number of illegitimate) children that may not call themself Princes, but are still considered royalty.

King Hans dies and is succeeded by Arthur. Arthur has one illegitimate son, Michael (older half-brother), and one legitimate, Nikolas (younger). Michael is known to have a royal father, though no one knows he is actually the current King's son (and thus a prince). Princess Annegret has two children: Marcus (older son) and Hildegard (younger daughter) - like with prince Heinrich's children, they are considered royalty but lack a title. Some of Prince Heinrich's older children also have children by now.

Now, while King Arthur is still alive, his only true heir, Crown Prince Nikolas, disappears and is declared dead. Who would step up to be the new crown prince or princess?

I'm planning to have that be Michael, his illegitimate older son, who's heritage would be disclosed only at the old King's death. Who would be assumed to be the next heir in the meantime?

The Kingdom's safety much relies on a rightful heir for their protection, as only the TRUE King or Queen can control the Dragon that protects them (or so the lore /religion says, anyways). Given that this makes it very dangerous for the King to lack an official heir - people would be very upset, if not outright terrified, even if the King is still in good health - what can he do in the meantime? Should he disclose the info about Michael being his illegitimate child, and how would that affect Nikolas' status as Crown prince in case of his return?

An illegitimate child would still have the kings 'magical' blood and thus possible control over the Dragon, making them a viable heir, but Michaels mother being a lowly kitchen maid of questionable heritage would cause a big uproar, as the Royal bloodline is expected to be kept clean and only mix with other royals (while still avoiding direct inbreeding as best as possible).

I realize that last point is rather vague and opinion based, so please focus mainly on the question of who would be the 'official' most likely successor whithout Michael's heritage being disclosed.

@AlexP, so if the King openly acknowledged his illegitimate son, he could, in the same breath, explicitly rule that he is successor to the throne AFTER the younger legitimate son? That would indeed be an option I did not think of before. — SoraNoRyu, Aug 01 '19 at 11:29
As AlexP said, there can't be a canonical answer, it depends of the law/culture. Status of bastards for example may vary between kingdoms, and even non-writen rules (such as "keep the royal bloodline") may influence the outcome — Kepotx, Aug 01 '19 at 11:30
As a general rule, it is common practice to wait at least a day before choosing an answer, as it allows people in other time zones to see your question. It is of course up to you, but you are more likely to get more answers if the question is still open. Right now the question has only been viewed 68 times, it will hopefully get a lot more. Also, come join us in chat! — AndyD273, Aug 01 '19 at 13:14
Yeah, I don't think this can be decided as a world building question. There have been various answers throughout history to this and it's hardly the same. Generally what you describe is primogeniture - oldest succeeds. If, say, you have a current king and both him and his only child die, then the next in line would be the king's next oldest sibling. If they are not available, then parent. Then you go to the parent's siblings and their children (cousins of the king). It could get messy quickly. Some might be ineligible for succession, others might try to assert their claim through force. — VLAZ, Aug 01 '19 at 13:18
Then you might have a deposed king's heir showing up and asking for their rightful throne. The king's advisors might also try to scheme to put somebody they want on the throne. The succession might be decided (for whatever reason) through marriage and hop to a different bloodline - so the queen's family might get the throne. This can get messier still if the king had more than wife (at different points in time). Even worse - the king had a child with the first queen but then she passed away and he remarried - one gave birth of the rightful heir, the other didn't. — VLAZ, Aug 01 '19 at 13:24
The Simpsons considered this very question over 20 years ago. "Protect the Queen!" — user535733, Aug 01 '19 at 13:42
The true monarch is needed to keep the dragon in check. Can doing so be used as a test of "true-ness"? — DanDoubleL, Aug 01 '19 at 15:29

kingledion · Answer 1 · 2019-08-01T15:55:53.953

The winner of the ensuing civil war

There are too many instances to count of an unclear succession leading to war. Wars below listed by the death (or overthrow) of which country's king instigated the conflict, not by who participated.

England/Scotland

The Conquest
The Anarchy
The Baron's War
Scottish Wars of Independence
The War of the Roses
English Civil War
The wars following the Glorious Revolution: Nine Years War and Jacobite risings.

France

The Hundred Years War
The Mad War
French Wars of Religion (basically, to determine the religion of the next king)
War of the Quadruple Alliance

Castille/Spain

Conclusion

Just with the three large Monarchies of Western Europe over 1000 years, there are plenty of wars to determine who gets to be king. Even if there is a clear line of succession, there can still be a civil war. In your case, either everyone backs one candidate, or a war breaks out and the winner becomes king.

score 2 · Answer 2 · edited Jun 16 '20 at 11:03

2

The heir to the next kingdom over

The chances are the two royal families have intermarried repeatedly over the years for the sake of one treaty or another. That means that the next in line to the throne could well be the heir to the next door kingdom. The rules may exclude the ruling monarch of the next kingdom from taking over, meaning that his heir is heir to both, or they may mean that the next-over ruling monarch is actually the heir.

Whether it's reasonable to merge the kingdoms at that point (as per Scotland and England after Elizabeth I), send a younger son or other senior noble (George I, William and Mary), it's not that unusual to run out of heirs on the primary line and have to import some new royalty.

If there are multiple suitable heirs at such a point, one may be ignored or quietly disappear, there may be a civil war.

And that's just England.

edited Jun 16 '20 at 11:03

Community

1

answered Aug 01 '19 at 10:54

Separatrix

117,733
38
261
445

England and Scotland did not merge when James became king of both kingdoms in 1603. They became parts of a joint United Kingdom of Great Britain only one hundred years later, in 1707. (They never actually merged completely. Up to this day they are separate countries, with separate and quite distinct legal systems, different administrative structures, separate budgets and so on; Scotland has its own government and its own Parliament.) – AlexP Aug 01 '19 at 11:21
The problem in my case is that the Kingdom in question is completely locked off from the rest of the world, both politically and geographically, and has had no official contact to the rest of the world for 2000+years. The people are very proud of this, too, so suddenly opening the border to the evil outside world would not be an easy option. – SoraNoRyu Aug 01 '19 at 11:25
@AlexP, and that's still an oversimplification ;) – Separatrix Aug 01 '19 at 11:27
And still with England, we could speak about Hundred Years War: the nearest male relative of Charles IV was his nephew, Edward III of England, but the french Barons exclude him from the succession, as he was inheriting trough her mother. Instead, it was Philip VI, his cousin, who was crowned. The french barons use the outdated salic law to claim this. TL;DR: Unclear succession lead to a war (or several wars to be exact) that last for more than a century – Kepotx Aug 01 '19 at 11:28
@SoraNoRyu, it sounds like a classic case of the royal bloodline being so inbred that the last king tried to breed with himself. You'd be lucky if any "legitimate" heir was capable of surviving to majority. – Separatrix Aug 01 '19 at 11:28
@SoraNoRyu Still, there could be wedding between member of the royal family and vassals. This was not that uncommon (at least with cadet branch/prince quite far in the line of succession), so the powerful neighbour could be replaced by powerful vassal – Kepotx Aug 01 '19 at 11:35
@Kepotx, yep, next in line is probably going to be a senior noble, who is likely descended from an earlier illegitimate child because that's a good way to get status in a kingdom to start with. – Separatrix Aug 01 '19 at 11:36
@Separatrix which is why Michael, who's lowly, non-royal mother is rumored to have 'outsider'-blood, would be a good choice, just not a popular one. – SoraNoRyu Aug 01 '19 at 11:37
@SoraNoRyu, there'll be a be a senior family of the nobility who've married daughters of the royal line into their main bloodline to keep them loyal over the years, the next heir will come from that family. That's who William and Mary were for example. Mary was the daughter of the last king and though a woman and unable to inherit in her own right, they were still called back to England. – Separatrix Aug 01 '19 at 11:42

score 2 · Answer 3 · answered Aug 01 '19 at 11:50

This depends on the exact rules of surrendering your claim to the throne

Option 1 is that Princess Annegret merely surrenders her own claim. This will allow her children to still be considered claimants, and thus her eldest child would be the next in line after all of King Arthur's legitimate children.

Option 2 is that surrendering your claim also surrenders all dependent claims, ie, your children. If that is the case, then Prince Heinrich would be the new heir to the throne. If he's died already, then it would be his eldest child.

Typically, illegitimate bastards do not inherit, even if they've been openly acknowledged by both parents. However a monarch, head of religion, or other senior figure (depending on whether succession and inheritance is considered a legal or divine right) would have the power to legitimise a bastard, giving them all the rights of a true-born child.

Thus, King Arthur's current order of inheritance is: Crown Prince Nikolas > Princess Annegret's Descendants > Prince Heinrich > Prince Heinrich's Descendants.

If Michael is acknowledged and legitimised, then he would claim the position of Crown Prince, before even Prince Nikolas.

Princess Annegret only surrendered her own claim, her children are still considered claimants. — SoraNoRyu, Aug 01 '19 at 12:02

score 2 · Accepted Answer · answered Aug 01 '19 at 11:52

Depending on the politics of your society, this can be roughly thought about as a type of "search tree" - this is a concept in computer science known as searching through b-trees.

For example, let's presume a next-oldest type of search. Think of it like this: the king-ship or queen-ship is like a baton. Whoever holds it has the magic powers over the dragon (assuming they are the rightful heir, which we'll do for now and address Michael's situation in a minute). So when the proverbial royalty-baton passes from king to son, that son is now the king with the powers. If he dies/steps down/etc, then it passes to oldest child. If there is no child, then you "search" the lineage for the next of kin:

If there is no child, then go to the next oldest sibling. If there are no siblings, then you go "up" one level in the family tree to aunts and uncles. If they are dead, but have children, then it would be their children by age who have kingship (for example, king's father was oldest son of his father, but his son - the current king - dies, and there are no other siblings or children of the current king. So the king's next oldest sibling - the aunt - is "passed" the baton, but she's dead, so it goes to her children. If they're dead, it goes to her grandchildren. If there are no grandchildren, it goes to her brother/sister.) And repeat; you keep going "up" levels of the tree until you find someone with a living descendant. That person has the powers.

Now, presuming this policy, the Michael problem: There are two options. (1) He is not legitimate (the blood is tainted and he doesn't have the magic powers - which could be proven by a test of sorts, I presume). Or (2) He is a legitimate king, which would mean Nikolas was never a legitimate king! Perhaps that's even why Nikolas died - he might not have ever had the magical powers (or so people think / Michael says).

Good idea about the test, that could appease the people if Michael is to be legitimised. Both the King and the Crown Prince (Nikolas) are already known to posess the magic power, as is Princess Annegret, who has forfeited her claim as she is mentally unable to rule (she could defend the kingdom with her powers, but not lead it). Markus, her oldest, has not learned/shown the magic, but might possess it.
Basically, the line of succession you suggest would be (Michael>) Nikolas>Markus, right? — SoraNoRyu, Aug 01 '19 at 12:06
@SoraNoRyu correct, assuming the process is strictly next-oldest — cegfault, Aug 01 '19 at 12:17

score 1 · Answer 5 · answered Aug 01 '19 at 16:11

Marcus would be declared Crown Prince. The order of succession would be, starting from the top, and assuming Heinrich only has grandchildren, not great-grandchilren:

King Arthur
Crown Prince Marcus
Princess Hildegard
Prince Heinrich (if still alive)
Heinrich's oldest legitimate child (OLC-1 for short)
The legitimate children of OLC-1, in order of birth
Heinrich's second-oldest legitimate child (OLC-2)
The legitimate children of OLC-2, in order of birth
...and so on for the rest of Heinrich's legit offspring and their children.

If Marcus has children, they'd slot in behind him and before Hildegard. Hildegard's children would slot in between her and Heinrich's line.

AndyD273 · Answer 6 · 2019-08-01T13:15:26.807

The real legitimate king is the one who survives the encounter with the dragon.

3 heirs enter the dragon cave, one emerges. That one is the one that can command the dragon, and is the rightful heir.

Since the whole thing is based on "the true king/queen is the only one that can command the dragon", it is something that can be tested for.

It's essentially the same concept as The Sword in the Stone, except that instead of a sword, it is a dragon, and instead of getting embarrassed for trying and failing, you get burned to a crisp.