Page 1 of 1

Succession question

Posted: 11 Nov 2010 05:10
by SandChigger
TheKatieKerr over on Twitter asks...
Clarification on #Dune: was Paul Muad'dib the heir apparent or the heir presumptive to the Atreides duchy?
about 10 hours ago via web

I replied:
Well, his parents weren't married, of course, but Paul was being trained as Leto's successor. Presumptive, strictly speaking?
about 8 hours ago via web in reply to TheKatieKerr

Was that right, or not? :?

Re: Succession question

Posted: 11 Nov 2010 06:25
by Freakzilla
"You may refer to me as 'my Lady,' " Jessica said. "I'm not noble born. I'm
the bound concubine of the Duke Leto."
Again that strange nod, and the woman peered upward at Jessica with a sly
questioning, "There's a wife, then?"
"There is not, nor has there ever been. I am the Duke's only . . .
companion, the mother of his heir-designate."


I'm not familiar with those other terms enough to say whether or not they apply.

Re: Succession question

Posted: 11 Nov 2010 07:33
by SandChigger
Yeah, I wasn't sure, either. I've heard of heir apparent, but not the other; didn't really know what either meant, exactly.

heir apparent
noun ( pl. heirs apparent )
an heir whose claim cannot be set aside by the birth of another heir.

heir presumptive
noun ( pl. heirs presumptive )
an heir whose claim could be set aside by the birth of another heir.

And now you've added heir-designate to the mix. :lol:

Who was it a while back that posted a good explanation of the European nobility system, with the relative ranking of dukes vs barons, etc? Maybe they know.... :think:

Re: Succession question

Posted: 11 Nov 2010 08:51
by Serkanner
SandChigger wrote:Yeah, I wasn't sure, either. I've heard of heir apparent, but not the other; didn't really know what either meant, exactly.

heir apparent
noun ( pl. heirs apparent )
an heir whose claim cannot be set aside by the birth of another heir.

heir presumptive
noun ( pl. heirs presumptive )
an heir whose claim could be set aside by the birth of another heir.

And now you've added heir-designate to the mix. :lol:

Who was it a while back that posted a good explanation of the European nobility system, with the relative ranking of dukes vs barons, etc? Maybe they know.... :think:


I reminds me of the way Roman Emperors designated their adopted sons as their heir.

Re: Succession question

Posted: 11 Nov 2010 09:36
by Freakzilla
Paul doesn't really have to worry about a competing heir, does he? I mean, the Duke died before Alia was born and she gets her turn at the helm anyway.

Re: Succession question

Posted: 11 Nov 2010 10:22
by SadisticCynic
Presumably since Paul is older than Alia and from the same mother their would be no question about who is the heir, especially since the heir apparent is usually the male regardless of age (some speculation on my part there). The only way I can think of a question arising is if the Duke had married another woman and had a child (male of female?) with her.

Other than that, heir-designate seems a good word, since it allows for this occurance. This was probably part of the reason the Duke didn't marry Jessica; to allow for the enticement of marriage (and a new heir) from another House.

Well, that's my guess anyway...

Re: Succession question

Posted: 11 Nov 2010 12:41
by SandRider
heir-designate means what it says - the heir as designated by the sitting noble;
this term can be independent of the other two, and apply to both;

Paul is the Son of Leto by a "bound concubine", and so, by definition, is the heir presumptive;
his claim could be set aside by the child of Leto and a future wife - that child would be the heir apparent;

Leto could name either child his heir - they would be the heir designate;

in the European Feudal system, the heir designate title was used by nobles for political maneuvering;
Richard was the heir-apparent, being the second born (but eldest surviving) son of Henry II (the King)
& Eleanor (the Queen), but Henry named John Lackland, the youngest son, heir-designate a dozen
times or so in his wrangling with Richard & Eleanor - at one point, around 1183 I think, he imprisoned
all three of his sons and threatened Eleanor that he would go to Rome and get an annulment from
the Pope, marry his concubine Alice, and produce a new heir ....

and the problem, of course, comes after the death of the noble and heir designate is not the heir apparent;
results of this situation include assassination, imprisonment of the weaker heir, civil war, invasion by another opportunistic
noble, and potentially the loss of the noble claim ...

when Richard went on Crusade, John Lackland used the widely-known instances of Henry naming him heir-designate to
persuade enough nobles that he had the true claim on the throne, and Richard was an usurper ...



what we don't know here is how Frank saw the feudal system he used - no-one, including Shaddam, questioned Paul's right
as Duke of House Atreides; it's also clear that while male and female might not have been automatic political equals, there
was no contention at a female assuming a claim - altho to what degree ? who would have become Emperor if Shaddam had
died in power ?

Frank seems to place a lot of weight in the heir-designate title; it seems to me that hand-picked successors had as much legal
standing as birthright - Feyd thinks : The old monster is letting me in on secret things at last. He must really mean for me to be his heir.
also, on Feyd's birthday:
In honor of the na-Baron's nativity and to remind all Harkonnens and subjects that Feyd-Rautha was heir-designate, it was holiday on Giedi Prime.
Fenring to the Baron: "I . . . ah, congratulate you on the hm-m-m perfection of your ah-h-h heir. In the light of the hm-m-m elder, one might say."
meaning the Beast Rabban; from the appendix:
COUNT GLOSSU RABBAN (10,132-10,193)
Glossu Rabban, Count of Lankiveil, was the eldest nephew of Vladimir Harkonnen.
Glossu Rabban and Feyd-Rautha Rabban (who took the name Harkonnen when chosen
for the Siridar-Baron's household) were legal sons of the Siridar-Baron's
youngest demibrother, Abulurd. Abulurd renounced the Harkonnen name and all
rights to the title when given the subdistrict governorship of Rabban-Lankiveil.
Rabban was a distaff name.

but then, Fenring again:"My dear Baron, you know, don't you, that the Emperor has not given official sanction to your choice of heir?
"That's really why I'm here today. The Emperor wishes me to report on whether you've chosen a worthy successor.

{and also from the appendix}:
Na-: a prefix meaning "nominated" or "next in line." Thus: na-Baron means heir apparent to a barony.


so I think the answer to the question Was Paul Muad'dib the heir apparent or the heir presumptive to the Atreides duchy?
assuming that Shaddam had given Leto "Official Sanction" on naming Paul heir-designate, and there is no reason to think he did not,
legally Paul Atreides was the heir-apparent at the time of the move to Arrakis .... however - since Jessica was not Duchess,
there always existed the possibility of another future heir with a stronger birthright claim - whether or not Frank would have
thought this claim would outweigh the claim of the "Sanctioned Heir", I don't know ...

Re: Succession question

Posted: 11 Nov 2010 13:11
by merkin muffley
EDIT: COCK-BLOCKED!

Paul is the Son of Leto by a "bound concubine", and so, by definition, is the heir presumptive;
his claim could be set aside by the child of Leto and a future wife - that child would be the heir apparent;

Leto could name either child his heir - they would be the heir designate;


So, the heir-designate can be both an heir apparent or an heir presumptive?

legally Paul Atreides was the heir-apparent at the time of the move to Arrakis .... however - since Jessica was not Duchess,
there always existed the possibility of another future heir with a stronger birthright claim - whether or not Frank would have
thought this claim would outweigh the claim of the "Sanctioned Heir", I don't know ...


If Paul an heir-designate who is an heir-apparent at the time of the move to Arrakis only because there was no other child, doesn't that mean he is, by definition, not an heir-apparent? If an heir apparent's claim cannot be set aside by the birth of another heir, doesn't it mean that Paul is not an heir-apparent if that could change without a "designation?"

Does having an heir-designate give Duke Leto choices that he wouldn't have if there was an heir presumptive or an heir apparent? Does it give him legal choice of an heir, and the option to either designate, or not, any child he might have through political marriage?

If he was keeping himself open to a political marriage, I would think that the possibility of an heir from that marriage being designated would be part of the deal. However, I'm speculating that Duke Leto wouldn't want to be forced to make a different child his heir because of FH's attitudes about political marriages. One of the ways the concubines Jessica and Chani are given the respect of wives is the respect that's given to the birthrights of their children.

Re: Succession question

Posted: 11 Nov 2010 13:48
by SandRider
If Paul {is} an heir-designate who is an heir-apparent at the time of the move to Arrakis only because there was no other child, doesn't that mean he is, by definition, not an heir-apparent? If an heir apparent's claim cannot be set aside by the birth of another heir, doesn't it mean that Paul is not an heir-apparent if that could change without a "designation?"


yes ... & no;
or, maybe ...

heir apparent: claim cannot be set aside by the birth of another heir
heir presumptive: claim could be set aside by the birth of another heir

that's what I getting at - in the European Feudal system, birthright often outweighed the political schemings of a sitting noble
after the noble's death - in the example of the Plantagenets used above, Richard never really gave any indication that he was
too concerned with Henry's ravings; he assumed he would be King of England after Henry not only due to his birthright, but also
due to his military position (he was the beloved general of England's Army) and his political power (he was a "Special Friend" of
Phillip of France); had Henry died leaving John the legal heir-apparent, Richard knew he could simply take the crown -Rome
would support him due to birthright alone, the army would support him because he was Richard ... the nobility would support him
for these reasons and the fact that Phillip of France would support Richard's claim & lend military and financial aid in case a civil
war was necessary ....

but how strong was the heir-designate and Emperor's Sanction in the Empire ?
if the choice of successor by the sitting noble was considered sacrosanct, and the Word of the Emperor solid law,
then Paul could be called the "heir-apparent" (as Frank says Feyd was, using that phrase in the definition of Na-)
because his claim "could not be set aside by the birth of another heir", even one of a legal Duchess Atreides, without the
"sanction" of the Emperor ....

I had thought this was really clear in the text - until I started searching the .pdf; I think, from the quotes in the first book, anyway,
that Frank saw the succession question as depending on hand-picked heirs & the Emperor's agreement above birthright ...

and I started to look at the other books and think about it some more, but then I got majorly sidetracked trying to find
that fucking .gif of Kyle's Hair flapping it's feathered sides like a launching ornithopter, so I could post:

NB4:
[ .gif image ]
Hair-Apparent



but I couldn't fucking find it, and it pissed me off ...

Re: Succession question

Posted: 11 Nov 2010 15:07
by merkin muffley
Sandrider wrote:in the European Feudal system, birthright often outweighed the political schemings of a sitting noble
after the noble's death...

the problem, of course, comes after the death of the noble and heir designate is not the heir apparent


Ah, got it. Can get very complicated.

Brian Herbert is the heir abberant.

HA. :|

Re: Succession question

Posted: 11 Nov 2010 19:56
by SandChigger
HEARTILY concur! :lol:

Re: Succession question

Posted: 12 Nov 2010 08:38
by lotek
merkin muffley wrote:
Sandrider wrote:in the European Feudal system, birthright often outweighed the political schemings of a sitting noble
after the noble's death...

the problem, of course, comes after the death of the noble and heir designate is not the heir apparent


Ah, got it. Can get very complicated.

Brian Herbert is the heir abberant.

HA. :|



the heir abhorrent :)

Re: Succession question

Posted: 12 Nov 2010 09:44
by Serkanner
lotek wrote:
merkin muffley wrote:
Sandrider wrote:in the European Feudal system, birthright often outweighed the political schemings of a sitting noble
after the noble's death...

the problem, of course, comes after the death of the noble and heir designate is not the heir apparent


Ah, got it. Can get very complicated.

Brian Herbert is the heir abberant.

HA. :|



the heir abhorrent :)


I learn so many new English words here :lol:

Re: Succession question

Posted: 12 Nov 2010 11:33
by Apjak
lotek wrote:
merkin muffley wrote:
Sandrider wrote:in the European Feudal system, birthright often outweighed the political schemings of a sitting noble
after the noble's death...

the problem, of course, comes after the death of the noble and heir designate is not the heir apparent


Ah, got it. Can get very complicated.

Brian Herbert is the heir abberant.

HA. :|



the heir abhorrent :)


That make KJA the "Heir Usurper"?

Re: Succession question

Posted: 12 Nov 2010 12:15
by lotek
definitely
Fucking Prince John !

Re: Succession question

Posted: 05 Sep 2011 11:43
by Setzer
I always assumed that in a culture with both marriage and concubinage, the succession would get rather heated. The wife's children would naturally succeed, unless there were some unfortunate accident. I mean, god forbid some ambitious concubine arranged an accident or two that would leave her own children as the only heirs...

Re: Succession question

Posted: 05 Sep 2011 14:40
by A Thing of Eternity
Pretty much every society I can think of on our planet that hit the same style of governance had these same issues, history is rife with it getting bloody indeed.