The Queen is having a child! Except it's gone and turned

>>54145140
It doesn't because princesses can't hold land or authority. Invariably, either we wait until a male heir is born, or dredge up some side branch child with royal lineage to marry the firstborn of the triplets.

>>54145140
depends on the succession laws

Three different princess, split the kingdom into three separate parts.

This inevitably leads to civil war. Glindara the Good Princess and her holy knights battling against Ethora the Evil Princess and her demonic sorcerers, all the while Netura the Neutral Princess sells weapons to both side and takes over through cutthroat business decisions and clever investments in the private sector.

>>54145140
One has to come out first.

>>54145182
Bah. The true rule of secession is "my immediate family stays in power no matter what". If that means a woman sits on the throne, then a woman sits on the throne.

>>54145229
>secession

*Succession. Mea culpa.

Inevitably goes the Elizabeth and Mary route, whoever holds the most favor with the people rallies them behind her and causes rebellions until the other sisters die of "illness" or some other mysterious cause.

>Fantasy land is overrun with hellish creatures, few kingdoms remain and don't you imagine going outside the designated safe zones
>Royal Family still rules their heavily defended kingdom
>Triplet Princesses are born, but as only one can sit on the throne at a time the other two are schooled and tutored as Generals in the army.
I really want a Princess being a General without some hokey Star-Wars-like moment where the royal family gets BTFO or something and someone has to take the reins. How dumb of an idea is this?

>>54145331

Not unreasonable. Realistically speaking one can learn to be a general without having to fight oneself. True it would be impractical for her to lead from the front, but that is daft in many cases anyway. There is no reason a woman could not learn the same military tactics and strategies as a man, so there is no reason a woman cannot be a general, unless their martial tradition requires the general be able to fight or lead from the front, in which case it just isn't practical.... actually no, from atop horseback and with plate she could do it. The plate would make her largely impervious and most of the force in a calvary charge comes from the horse anyway.

>>54145140
it literally fucking doesn't ? Girls aren't successors to the throne.

Well, they can go sit third, fourth, and fifth in line behind their older siblings.

>>54145182
>>54145387
Someone didn't pay attention in history class

>>54145437
Yeah, you.

>>54145331
What happens if the sister on the throne dies with no male heir and the line of succession goes to the other sisters, who have only trained in warfare? Does it end in civil war?

>>54145212
spbp

>>54145140
Meantime we shall express our darker purpose.
Give me the map there. Know that we have divided
In three our kingdom: and 'tis our fast intent
To shake all cares and business from our age;
Conferring them on younger strengths, while we
Unburthen'd crawl toward death. Our son of Cornwall,
And you, our no less loving son of Albany,
We have this hour a constant will to publish
Our daughters' several dowers, that future strife
May be prevented now. The princes, France and Burgundy,
Great rivals in our youngest daughter's love,
Long in our court have made their amorous sojourn,
And here are to be answer'd. Tell me, my daughters,--
Since now we will divest us both of rule,
Interest of territory, cares of state,--
Which of you shall we say doth love us most?
That we our largest bounty may extend
Where nature doth with merit challenge. Goneril,
Our eldest-born, speak first.

>>54145437
never heard of gavelkind secession

>>54145437
your thinking of nobility but the royalty usually give the position to the husband.
the only time this isn't true is when the husband dies and the queen has enough political (and military) power

File: Tsar Nicholas II & King George V.jpg (98KB, 640x905px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 640x905px

>>54145535
It might, but if they're reasonable people (which does happen, even with royalty) you get a situation where the oldest/most senior/most supported princess gets on the throne despite minimal ruling training, a la George V & VI

File: warkus.jpg (371KB, 920x1323px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 920x1323px

>>54145331
You should watch Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind

>>54145212
This. If you're using English rules (1701 Compact) then it's "whoever was delivered first" has claim to the throne.

Unless the queen later has a boy (and you're not using the 2015 update to primogeniture)

>>54147938
Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II did not have a whole ton of political nor military power, yet we still remember THEM as the monarchs, not the people they happened to marry (Albert for Victoria; Philip for Elizabeth II).

Elizabeth I did not have a surfeit of political or military power, but was still regarded as Queen in her own right because the alternative was a fucking Scot, Mary. Who would also have been a Queen anyway.

In the case of Catherine the Great, Her Imperial Majesty The Empress and Autocrat of All the Russias, she actually seized power herself FROM her husband, Peter III. Quite right too, he was kind of useless.

>>54149499
I think he liked to play with toy soldiers. Wonder what he would have made of warhammer

>>54145140
It doesn't. Triplets still pop out in a certain order.
>>54149499
Yeah there was a bunch of queens who seized power, but even then they usually weren't """technically""" in charge of the kingdom/empire.

>>54145140
They're Huns/Turks/T'ang Chinese, so the strongest kills the weak and the rest of the family.

>>54145140

With any luck, two of them will die before their 1st year. It is generally assumed that women need 6 pregnancies for half of them to pass the year and reach adulthood, even among wealthy and healthy families, pre-modern medicine.

File: childsurvivalrate.png (359KB, 1249x636px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1249x636px

Women need to have about 4-6 children (not counting total number of pregnancies) so that at least 2 reach adulthood.

>>54149707
Victoria most certainly didn't seize power, though. It's just that all the male heirs died off (at birth she was FIFTH in line to the throne, she was never "supposed" to be queen). The point is that she was the reigning Queen of the United Kingdom and the one who was (nominally) in charge, not her husband Albert.

Likewise Edward VI named Lady Jane Grey as the heir to the English throne, and she was technically crowned as Queen, although the Privy Council switched allegiance to her half-sister, Mary I. Philip II of Spain was to be Mary's husband, but he was to *aid* her in ruling England and Mary would have been the actual ruler of the country both de jure and de facto.

However all of this was predicated on the idea that Mary was pregnant with Philip's child and would marry Philip. She was not, however, actually pregnant. Philip married someone else and Mary acknowledged Elizabeth as the heir to the throne.

However Mary, Queen of Scots, claimed the throne even though Henry VIII's last will and testament forbade members of the House of Stuart from taking the throne of England. However ignoring that she was the eldest claimant otherwise and many English Catholics supported her.

If you're having trouble keeping track, by the way, the succession goes:

- Henry VIII
- Edward VI (Henry's son) (died age 15)
- Lady Jane Grey (Edward VI's cousin once removed) (not considered a true Queen despite being named by Edward VI as the heir)
- Mary I (Henry VIII's daughter, only child to survive to adulthood)
- Elizabeth I (Mary I's half-sister)
- Mary, Queen of Scots (granddaughter of Henry VIII's sister; never actually Queen of England)

Like I said back up at the top of the thread, the only actual rule of royalty is "my immediate family must sit on the throne, no matter how many laws I have to twist or people I have to kill to make it so."

Poland, like, TWICE had a King (female), for Chrissake, in order to make sure this happened.

>>54145140
It doesn't. First one out gets the crown if there's no male heir.

>>54145224
Stop being Carolingian.

>>54149566
Probably would have been more into Historicals.

>>54149782
>T'ang
It's just Tang nigger.
>>54149890
That has nothing to do with what I said, and Victoria didn't even HAVE power.

And, in fact, the process varied wildly by time and region.

>>54149890
>Henry VIII's daughter, only child to survive to adulthood
Elizabeth was Henry's too.

Also you didn't mention that Jane Grey was queen for 9 days.

>>54149962
>Elizabeth was Henry's too.

Whoops, you're right. Meant to say that Mary I was the only child of Henry's by Catherine of Aragon to survive to adulthood.

Elizabeth was Henry's daughter through Anne Boleyn. Boleyn really got the short of the stick...he didn't divorce her, he annulled their marriage, which is a different thing entirely. Legally, this means that their marriage never actually happened...which technically means that there was no way she could have committed adultery against the King and therefore she shouldn't have been charged with it.

Henry VIII was a bit mad, though. Just a bit.

>>54145140
What players and "realism" would likely push? Two of the children are raised far away from the throne in secret. Kept ignorant of their blood- or smothered

If the queen has no other children it goes to the daughter who came out first. Assuming he olde British.

Otherwise if she has a son like 4 years down the line he gets to be next in line

Alternatively, your setting your rules. The queens horse could be next in line as far as we know.