Restoring Edmund Mortimer/Planning a Coup

[mlangsdorf]

I'm making some plans for putting the PCs in the aftermath of succession crisis similar to the one that put Henry IV on the throne of England: the previous king's heir presumptive was bypassed using legally shaky arguments. The PCs want the kingdom to do some stuff, and the heir presumptive is much likelier to agree to do what they want than the current semi-legitimate king.

I want to have some ideas for the possible intrigue, and I'm trying to figure out ways that the PCs can achieve their goals. Here's the approaches I've thought of, but I appeal to the forums for other ideas:

* Convince (or mind control) the current king to do what the PCs want without replacing him.
* Appeal to the parliament equivalent and convince them that current king is illegitimate, and then have the king replaced by the presumptive heir. (This may lead to a civil war, but with the backing of parliament, the heir's forces as much stronger than in the alternate civil war scenario below.)
* Assassinate the current king, then make sure the presumptive heir gets crowned.
* Appeal to a foreign power and use their armies to invade and conquer the country.
* Launch a rebellion using the presumptive heir's forces, reinforced by the PCs, and fight a civil war.

I've got some notes to cover these approaches, and I think these are all the traditional approaches to replacing a king, but I could be missing something. Anyone got any other suggestions on what the PCs could?

FWIW, this is a fantasy game and the PCs have access to lots of magic and a sizeable army. I don't want to bog down too much into the details of the tactics, just focus on the general ways that the PCs could solve the problem.

[ericthered]

You have yet to mention a proper coup. This involves quickly but fairly publicly eliminating the king's supporting apparatus before moving on him. Usually you have a few of them who support you, and you use your men to arrest/detain the others. The intent is to deprive an uprising against your new king of possible leadership, or of a real claim to continuity.

Parliament throws a kink into this, but that of course depends on the amount of power parliament holds. I don't think you really need them all on your side in the 1400's in any way other than generally needing the support of the nobles. If you have a legislature with a little more power (1500's on) it might matter. Your earlier list makes me suggest it might be the case that Parliament has the right to legitimize kings.

[mlangsdorf]

Actual coup. Definitely hadn't thought of it, but it's clearly distinct from assassination or a civil war.

The parliament doesn't entirely legitimize the king, but for purposes of this discussion they represent the factions who have to directly consent to the king's governance. If they say "we made an error, that other guy is king", the current semi-legitimate king is going to have difficulties governing.

I think the closest historical situation might be the Glorious Revolution: William of Orange was in the process of invading, but James II effectively abdicated the throne when it was clear that he no longer had the support of the Protestants in the army and in Parliament. There wasn't a coup or assassination and James II didn't lose in a civil war or foreign invasion. He just left when it became clear that he didn't have sufficient support to enforce his own will any longer. (Okay, he came back later in Ireland but that's beside the point.)

[Johnny1A.2]

If you've got a woman (or guy if that's what the situation calls for) who fits the bill available, there's always marriage politics. The new king is going to be worried about establishing legitimacy, the old dynasty and its retainers want back in power (presumably). One traditional way to resolve such situations is for the usurper or his heir to marry an heir of the former dynasty, thus uniting the bloodlines.

If your PCs could arrange that, they could offer that legitimizing option to the reigning king in exchange for 'x'.

[ericthered]

Another thought is that the king doesn't always get involved in the day to day running of a kingdom. He has ministers for that. You may be able to get away with getting rid of the favorite courtier or the minister actually behind the policy without getting rid of the king himself.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I'm making some plans for putting the PCs in the aftermath of succession crisis similar to the one that put Henry IV on the throne of England: the previous king's heir presumptive was bypassed using legally shaky arguments. The PCs want the kingdom to do some stuff, and the heir presumptive is much likelier to agree to do what they want than the current semi-legitimate king.

I want to have some ideas for the possible intrigue, and I'm trying to figure out ways that the PCs can achieve their goals. Here's the approaches I've thought of, but I appeal to the forums for other ideas:

* Convince (or mind control) the current king to do what the PCs want without replacing him.
* Appeal to the parliament equivalent and convince them that current king is illegitimate, and then have the king replaced by the presumptive heir. (This may lead to a civil war, but with the backing of parliament, the heir's forces as much stronger than in the alternate civil war scenario below.)
* Assassinate the current king, then make sure the presumptive heir gets crowned.
* Appeal to a foreign power and use their armies to invade and conquer the country.
* Launch a rebellion using the presumptive heir's forces, reinforced by the PCs, and fight a civil war.

I've got some notes to cover these approaches, and I think these are all the traditional approaches to replacing a king, but I could be missing something. Anyone got any other suggestions on what the PCs could?

FWIW, this is a fantasy game and the PCs have access to lots of magic and a sizeable army. I don't want to bog down too much into the details of the tactics, just focus on the general ways that the PCs could solve the problem.

I’m a bit dubious about some of your proposals but it’s your game and you know the background better. First, my take on some of your proposals, then some new ideas.

1. Convince (or mind control) the king. Convincing the king implies that the PCs already have an advisory role to the king. If they don’t, forget it. They could petition or ask a boon of the king regarding what they want. If the king is aware of being mind controlled, the PCs need to keep it up indefinitely or the king will a) reverse his decision and b) come after the PCs as soon as the mind control drops. Additionally, they may need to mind control the next heir to the throne if their boon is given as a gift rather than a grant, i.e., it is only for the life of the current PCs and the current king. If magic is available, they might be better advised to put a doppleganger or a simulacrum of the king on the throne. A homunculus of the king might be useful.

2. Appealing to parliament only works if a) there is a parliament and b) it is established as the supreme authority. Anything less than a doctrine of supremacy of parliament renders that appeal somewhere between mildly helpful and moot point.

3. The PCs need to be absolutely certain that the king’s assassination can’t be traced back to them. Even if the heir presumptive is crowned, he’s likely to have regicides put to death as a danger to his own rule.

4. Appealing to a foreign power or launching a rebellion are acts of treason. The PCs need to be successful. If they aren’t they need to put a vast distance between themselves and the king. They are unlikely to get the use of the heir presumptive’s forces since it would make him a part of their treason.

First, a note about heirs presumptive. There are two types of heirs, apparent and presumptive. An heir apparent will without question inherit unless he predeceases the king, in which case his heir apparent (if any) becomes heir apparent to the throne. This is usually the case for the throne passing to the eldest son or the eldest son’s eldest son.

An heir presumptive is only presumably the heir, but events can occur that effectively take the heir presumptive out of consideration. For example, the daughters of a sonless king are heirs presumptive to the king (assuming females can inherit at all) because their father might yet have a son, who would then replace them as primary heir. Likewise, the next older brother of a childless king is only the heir presumptive because the king might yet have a child who would displace him as heir. As a sidenote, even if female heirs presumptive are possible, they may create more problems than they solve. Female heirs presumptive are normally co-heiresses. I.E., they inherit equally. While royalty usually applies the rules of primogeniture, it doesn’t have to be the case. Among the nobility, a title goes dormant while there are co-heiresses, reviving when there is only one surviving line. If the king has an heir apparent rather than an heir presumptive, you are borked.

The PCs might consider proposing a regency by the heir presumptive for the king. The best argument would ostensibly be to provide the heir presumptive with actual experience ruling while the king is available to provide guidance. It would also relieve the king of the burdens of actually ruling.

One thing for the PCs to be wary of is getting the king to abdicate, if they are looking to put a friendly heir apparent on the throne. Abdication doesn’t just remove the king from the throne, it also removes his lineage from the throne. For example, if Queen Elizabeth II were to abdicate the throne tomorrow; Prince Richard, Duke of Glouchester, would be king and his son, Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster would be heir apparent to the throne.

Kings are normally priests. (The taking of Holy Orders which makes one a priest is part of the Coronation ceremony.) Getting the king excommunicated might help. More generally, getting the kingdom placed under interdict might bring the king down and deposing the king almost certainly would.

Other possibilities include arranging for a very public failure of the King’s Touch (healing) or a failure in the fertility of the land, either of which might indicate either a withdrawal, or the absence, of the Mandate of Heaven.