Reasons for not inheriting noble title

[BlackBat242]

I agree here... unless the daughter is ruled incompetent to inherit in accordance with normal procedures, I cannot see the Moot approving of the disinheriting.

And then there is the separate issue of combining titles/domains. Again, I cannot see the Moot allowing this... I would fully expect something like the following to be Imperial Law:

Upon marriage of holders of, or heirs to, separate domains, the following provisions are legally placed into effect:
1. The domains remain the entitlement of the individuals, such marriage cannot create a unified domain.
2. At least two qualified offspring are required to be brought forth by the union, one to inherit each domain.
3. In the event one qualified heir to each domain is not brought forth (by birth, adoption, etc) then the nearest living qualified non-domain-holding/non-domain-heir relative of the individual lacking an heir automatically inherits the domain upon the demise of the heir-less individual.
4. In the event no related heir to the domain-holder can be found, the Emperor/Empress shall bestow the domain upon such a qualified individual as the Emperor/Empress and the Moot shall find deserving.

 

[FreeTrav]

On the other side of that question, the Moot dissolving the Imperium is the 'nuclear option' - it destroys the nobles' own power as well, so the Emperor's actions would have to be intolerably egregious for the Moot to be willing to pull that trigger. Doing a political occasionally, when it would arguably be better for the demesne in question, would likely not rise to that level; even being blatant about it might not rise to that level.

 

[FreeTrav]

Remember that the Imperium doesn't have any sort of written constitution, and that the ONLY checks that the Moot has on the Emperor are

1. Confirmation of the Heir to the Iridium Throne
2. The "Nuclear Option" of dissolving the Imperium
3. Trying to seat a new Emperor through the "Right of Assassination".

They're not a Parliament that can actually restrict the Emperor. Not even as much as the Barons did to King John in 1215.

 

[Timerover51]

Given the size of the Imperium, if the heir is serving in any of the military services, or has a tendency to wanderlust, he or she might not be able to assume the titles for a year or more, at which time, one of the siblings may have been designated a temporary fill-in, and then to avoid further transition time, be kept in the position. The primary heir is pensioned off.

 

[whulorigan]

On the other side of that question, the Moot dissolving the Imperium is the 'nuclear option' - it destroys the nobles' own power as well, so the Emperor's actions would have to be intolerably egregious for the Moot to be willing to pull that trigger. Doing a political occasionally, when it would arguably be better for the demesne in question, would likely not rise to that level; even being blatant about it might not rise to that level.

Remember that the Imperium doesn't have any sort of written constitution, and that the ONLY checks that the Moot has on the Emperor are

1. Confirmation of the Heir to the Iridium Throne
2. The "Nuclear Option" of dissolving the Imperium
3. Trying to seat a new Emperor through the "Right of Assassination".

They're not a Parliament that can actually restrict the Emperor. Not even as much as the Barons did to King John in 1215.

Yes, but the reality is that if the position and privilege of the Nobility is perceived as being sufficiently threatened, they may well decide to effectively "go their own way" with their territories, since the Emperor maintains his authority by the mediation of the Nobility in the first place. The purpose of the Nobility is a concession to the reality that the Emperor cannot rule a realm the size of the Imperium without people that he can trust to be on site to vicariously administer his will and policies. The collective nobility can effectively say "No, we won't support you" and refuse to comply with his wishes. One (or several) unruly nobles can be dealt with. A massed stand against the Emperor across many sectors of the Imperium is another matter entirely. And you can bet that nobles who perceive that a particular Emperor can and will meddle frivolously in their House affairs will collectively see this as a threat to all of them. Any action that an Emperor takes regarding the succession of a Noble Title will be done with care and due consideration (especially as to how it will be perceived by the Peerage).

For an inexact comparison, look at King John of England (whom you mentioned above). He tread upon the privileges of his Baron's and was forced by them to accept the Magna Carta in response. Also, English King Charles I tried to override the privileges of his parliament, which included many of the Nobility who valued their rights which went all the way back to the Magna Carta (and, yes, I know the Imperium is not Parliamentary - but the privilege-principle is similar). He engendered a Civil War that ended with his own execution.

Whether explicitly spelled out or not, the Imperium rests upon an "understanding" that the Nobility will serve the Emperor with loyalty and integrity, and in return he will endorse their Houses and support their Noble dignities. When either side of this equation falters, there is precedent for the other side to react against the implicit violation of trust. Whether he likes it or not, the Emperor's rule and authority is founded upon the good graces of his Nobles just as much as their positions are guaranteed by the authority of the Imperial system.

Also, even if it is only brought to bear as a last resort, the "Nuclear Option" of dissolving the Imperium may destroy the Noble's power de jure, but not necessarily de facto.

 

[rancke]

Yes, but the reality is that if the position and privilege of the Nobility is perceived as being sufficiently threatened...

The operative word here is 'sufficiently'. The emperor can't afford to alienate all his nobles simultaneously, but that doesn't mean he can't afford to do anything at all to offend any of them. Which means that he can disinherit a handful of noble heirs for good reasons without causing the nobility to revolt. He can probably even get away with a not so good reason once in a while.


Hans

 

[whulorigan]

The operative word here is 'sufficiently'. The emperor can't afford to alienate all his nobles simultaneously, but that doesn't mean he can't afford to do anything at all to offend any of them. Which means that he can disinherit a handful of noble heirs for good reasons without causing the nobility to revolt. He can probably even get away with a not so good reason once in a while.


Hans

Agreed. But the key here (and what I have been trying to highlight) is contained in the phrase "good reason". IMO, removing a Peer from his Noble status merely for personal political reasons/preferences (which is distinct from removing a Noble from a particular political office or government appointment) would not be seen as a "good reason" by the Nobility in general. (Removing a Noble for incompetence or disloyalty would be another matter entirely - one which would not likely arouse undue objection from other Nobles).

The Emperor might get away with it once or twice if he cloaked it in the right political rhetoric, but if it were perceived as a pattern, I think the Peerage would likely react in some way.

 

[rancke]

Agreed. But the key here (and what I have been trying to highlight) is contained in the phrase "good reason". IMO, removing a Peer from his Noble status merely for personal political reasons/preferences (which is distinct from removing a Noble from a particular political office or government appointment) would not be seen as a "good reason" by the Nobility in general. (Removing a Noble for incompetence or disloyalty would be another matter entirely - one which would not likely arouse undue objection from other Nobles).

The Emperor might get away with it once or twice if he cloaked it in the right political rhetoric, but if it were perceived as a pattern, I think the Peerage would likely react in some way.

The simplest way to let an emperor be pretty much as arbitrary as he wants to is to divide the nobles into the ones on the emperor's good side and the ones on his bad side. If you're on his good side, you can be confident that he won't disinherit your favorite heir just because the lad is a bit of a sociopath. If you're on his bad side... well, you should have taken care not to get on his bad side, shouldn't you?

Just to be clear: I have a picture of the Alkhalikois as being more evenhanded than that. I don't think they've tended to disinherit heirs for other than good reasons. I'm saying that theoretically an emperor could get away with a lot.

(I also think that in the Imperium 'good reasons' cover a broader spectrum than it did in historical kingdoms where you pretty much had to commit treason to get disinherited.)


Hans