One PC in my campaign holds a banneretcy as a grant, but also for manors as a gift. These were four old manors, ruined during Ambrosius Aurelius reign, and they were given with the understanding that if the banneret did rebuild them, they would be granted to his son.

This banneret is now 58 yrs old, have 35 000 Glory and a place at the Table Round. The manors are all partly rebuilt. The PC/player keeps pestering me that the character/players lord should change the gift to a grant during his lifetime. "I have rebuilt the manors and my knight is great". My take on this is, gifts are for life, they are never (or very rarely) changed. So, I keep saying "No". I am to dogmatic about this? Does anyone have any relevant examples from history?

One PC in my campaign holds a banneretcy as a grant, but also for manors as a gift. These were four old manors, ruined during Ambrosius Aurelius reign, and they were given with the understanding that if the banneret did rebuild them, they would be granted to his son.

This banneret is now 58 yrs old, have 35 000 Glory and a place at the Table Round. The manors are all partly rebuilt. The PC/player keeps pestering me that the character/players lord should change the gift to a grant during his lifetime. "I have rebuilt the manors and my knight is great". My take on this is, gifts are for life, they are never (or very rarely) changed. So, I keep saying "No". I am to dogmatic about this? Does anyone have any relevant examples from history?


There is no such thing in feudal law as a rule that is never changed, or a law that does not have many, many exceptions. The gifts and grants that Pendragon uses are a massive simplification of feudal reality, where something like grants was more common than gifts, and something given as a gift had a tendency to be hung on to anyway.

If the lands were given with the understanding that they would be granted to the son, and the condition that they had to be rebuilt and kept in good order, of course the bannerette is reasonable in having the expectation his son will keep them.

But also, the giver of these lands would, realistically, scrutinize the letter of the agreement to find out if there's any way to keep the land for himself.

On other words, this is a perfect situation for politics in the game. The lord argues that the lands aren't properly built, partly rebuilt is not rebuilt, and tries to keep them. The player objects and says he has made a good faith attempt. The lord tests the waters among his advisors, to find out if the bannerette is popular or unpopular, and if they'll object if he keeps the land. The player should wine and dine the lord's other vassals, offering them offers of support if they support him. Very likely, the lord then offers a compromise agreement: if the player completes a specifically stated set of constructions on these manors, and keeps them in good order while he lives, the lands will become a grant.
Exactly how expensive and difficult the required building will be will depend on how well the player has done at his politicking: if he has many allies supporting him to the lord, he might just need to keep the lands in their current state of repair. If he has many enemies, the lord may assess some sort of building program that he believes is impossible to complete (giving the player the chance to do some adventuring to gain heroic amounts of money!)

(They may well be passed down to the son with the same obligation: if he fails to keep the lands in good order, the lord might reclaim them. In practice, this should probably be an empty threat. Once land is inherited, it is pretty hard to lose, barring conquest or failing to produce an heir, or really bad stewardship.)