Duchy of Cornwall

Scenario: The King of England's only son (referred henceforth as Duke of Cornwall) marries into Country A's (Scotland, Brittany, France, pick something) royal family. Country A's heir apparent dies, and Duke of Cornwall becomes the heir apparent of Country A through marriage. However, the Duke of Cornwall does something to royally piss the King of England off, and the King of England appoints his brother (not the Duke of Cornwall's brother, his own brother) as the heir apparent.

However, legally the title of the Duke of Cornwall can only be passed directly to the eldest son of the Sovereign. While the King's brother is now the Prince of Wales, he is not the Duke of Cornwall. Meanwhile, the Duke of Cornwall retains his title, despite being removed from the line of succession. The ruler of Country A dies, and the Duke of Cornwall assumes Country A's throne.

Can Country A declare war on the Kingdom of England, based on the premise that the Duchy of Cornwall is now the property of Country A?
 
Can Country A declare war on the Kingdom of England, based on the premise that the Duchy of Cornwall is now the property of Country A?

No, because the Duchy of Cornwall would be held in fealty to the Kingdom of England not Country A. Note how Richard Lionheart as Duke of Aquitaine was a vassal of the King of France not his father the King of England.

However, County A might declare war on the premise that the Duke of Cornwall was the rightful King of England when his father dies.

Plus when the Duke dies the King of England may take back the Duchy on the grounds that legally it should go to his son; indeed there may be a clause to that effect in the initial grant of appanage ;)
 
If the heir did something that warranted them being removed from the succession - and I can't think of any that did anything sufficiently bad to warrant it in OTL - then they would simply be attainted, which is to say, made into a legal non-person. They wouldn't have a right to anything, much less titles. They would also be killed along with it - if that were possible - to prevent just this sort of situation occuring.

If the King passed the heir over for another and they were somehow able to escape with life and limb, then the first heir would simply invade, angling at the realm entire, on the basis that they were the true heir by blood and the King had no right to exclude them from the succession. Certainly if they had the resources of another kingdom to back them up they would. After that it's a military toss-up.
 
Last edited:
If the heir did something that warranted them being removed from the succession - and I can't think of any that did anything sufficiently bad to warrant it in OTL - then they would simply be attainted, which is to say, made into a legal non-person. They wouldn't have a right to anything, much less titles.

If the King passed the heir over for another, then the first heir would simply invade angling at the whole kingdom, on the basis that they were the true heir by blood.

King Peter of Serbia passed over his eldest son George for murdering his valet, and the succession went to Alexander

Best Wolf
Grey rEGARDS
 
There's also the big issue that from the reign of Henry IV onwards, the King of England had no right to reelect a different son as the heir to the crown. Henry's claim to England was based on the idea that kings had no prerogative to elect a successor, and thus all previous elections were illegal, conveniently putting himself in a prime position to remove Richard from the throne. From that point on, the throne HAD to pass to the King's most direct (male-preference) relative.

The Duchy of Cornwall only existed for about 60 years before this...
 
King Peter of Serbia passed over his eldest son George for murdering his valet, and the succession went to Alexander

I was speaking specifically about medieval England, but you're right. Killing servants - or anyone else for that matter - wouldn't exactly have been regarded with such gravity in medieval times though.

Alexander publicly renounced his claim too. Not the case here.

Also, what Falastur said.
 
Real life tends not to work like crusader kings.
This could work with certain duchies such as you find elsewhere in Europe but the duchy of cornwall wasn't a real duchy, it was more just a title for the heir. It fully belonged to the king really.
 
..the King of England appoints his brother (not the Duke of Cornwall's brother, his own brother) as the heir apparent.

However, legally the title of the Duke of Cornwall can only be passed directly to the eldest son of the Sovereign. While the King's brother is now the Prince of Wales, he is not the Duke of Cornwall. ..

That bit won't work. The only way to remove the heir apparent from the succession would be attainder (eg he is accused of treason from compassing the death of the King , or some such. Quite probable I guess). But, if he's attainted he loses his Dukedom of Cornwall also . It's all or nothing.

Having said that , Bolingbroke did use his claim to the Dukedom of Lancaster as an excuse for his invasion of England, which resulted in the deposition of Rich II.

So if A wanted to overthrow the father (or uncle), as one does, but felt that an immediate overt claim to the throne might not be supported, an invasion on the pretext that "I only want my Dukedom of Cornwall, honest , that's all" might be useful.
 
Top