Actually, not really. Everyone seems to assume that the clan succession council decides by vote counting, with some sort of threshold etc. as in most modern political systems, some sort of judicial control on the proceedings that adheres to very detailed specifics etc. That was often not the case in high medieval times.9ofSwords wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:55 amRegardless what rules and traditions you as a GM ascribe to your clan succession councils, in play, who is the final arbiter of who is eligible to be present at these councils? Wouldn't this be the first order of business of any succession council -- to determine whether everyone present was entitled to be there? And this first order of business could very well be as contentious as choosing the new clanhead. It seems that there might need to be an inner council comprised of those whose clan identity is unquestionable, and this group might have final say.
Indeed, note that there is no reference to voting in the books (at least in the older ones); the right is one of attendance (and speech). I posit that what a council looks for is rough consensus, particularly among those who matter. Basically, almost all the "power" present must fall in line. If a sufficiently wide agreement is reached, the prospective candidate will just claim the clan headship. At this point the dissenters can either fall in line, or refuse to acknowledge the new clanhead. The latter option is rarely, if ever taken, since the rest of the clan and kin will then be united against them -- and, on the other hand, every clan member and "associate" has an incentive to reconcile the dissenters with the view of the rest of the clan, e.g. by offering something in return for falling in (assets, marriages etc.). Rough consensus is crucial, because the clanhead must have the loyalty and support of his entire clan and close kin, not just 51% of it, to be able to function effectively.
This automatically takes care of the right to attend, in those few cases it might be in doubt (the criterion is rather simple, "adult of at least half blood", but there are cases when blood ties are in doubt, and when adulthood is borderline). These few "borderline" attenders will have their influence reduced by the fact that it's not clear whether they should be there or not; because of this and their likely low numbers their position can strengthen a consensus or weaken it, but it's exceedingly unlikely to reverse it.