Could someone give me some advice on this please.

I'm not totally up to speed on the distinction between demense and enfeoffed manors and their in-game implications.

KAP5.1 has Indeg's holdings as being;
Holding: 2 enfoeffed manors, plus 2 £. extra income/year. 14 Glory/year.;
Widow’s Gifts: 3 enfoeffed manors. 18 Glory/year.

One of my PK knights has just married Lady Indeg and wants to know what benefit it will bring him. Using the above information, is it correct to say that he gets 3 manors from her for good (the 3 widows gift manors) and the 2 enfeoffed manors for as long as she is alive (reverting back to the earl unless they have a child together - very unlikely at her age)?

Furthermore, all of these manors are enfeoffed, what exactly does that mean? Do they generate extra income for him (another 6L as standard, say minus 1L for a steward) or do they grant the service of another knight?

Enfeoffed basically means that it's a manor for which a knight's service is owed. So there is likely to be a knight already owning it and he will get the benefit of the land. This would make him a banneret knight and means he must live at the 'rich' level. Now, I don't know if he gets any of benefit from it other than a knight swearing fealty to him. Maybe a £1 per manor of something. According to the 'Book of the Manor' Earl's and the like receive some money directly from peasants on your land that helps them maintain a higher level of living.

Sorry, I had a point to make and think I got lost in my thoughts and so couldn't put things clearly. Hopefully I've helped though.

Thanks for the clarification.

Drilling into the detail more.. of these 5 manors, what if one of them does NOT currently have a knight? This is important because for one, there's always the chance one of these manors may not currently have a knight and two, if it doesn't, what then? Does Indeg get income for it instead or is that income taken directly by the earl? Also, if one of these manors is currently vacant, does my PK knight then have the power of being able to knight a man of his choosing to fill the position?

Lastly, what about the longevity of this award? Are the "widow's gift" manors forever and the "Holdings" manors only while she lives (barring offspring) or some other permutation?

Thanks for the clarification.

Drilling into the detail more.. of these 5 manors, what if one of them does NOT currently have a knight?

If it is listed as 'enfeoffed', he owes knight service for it. He can fullfill that service by either (1) enfeoffing it to a vassal knight or (2) Keeping the 6L for himself and supporting a household knight at 4L.

NT

A gift goes back to the Earl after she dies as far as I can recall. I'd need to double check in main rules. I'm pretty sure it is clarified in there. The other's pass on down the line.

I see others have adressed this, but in my opinion:


I'm not totally up to speed on the distinction between demense and enfeoffed manors and their in-game implications.

You are not alone in that confusion
I will address each part separately


KAP5.1 has Indeg's holdings as being;
Holding: 2 enfoeffed manors,

Lady Indeg is the "lord" of two manors
both are enfoeffed, which means that they are granted to another knight as his holding
These do not grant any income to the holder
these both supply one knight service for Lady Indeg's army muster

plus 2 £. extra income/year.
Income, cash, from other sources (unspecified in print, but certainly well defined historically)

14 Glory/year.;
Lady Indeg collects 6 Glory for each manor, plus two more for the extra income
The knights who hold the land also get 6 Glory for holding theirs

Widow’s Gifts:
This means that the manors are her former husband's holding, but she has the right to them and heir income for the duration of her life. In later periods (starting in the Tournament Period) the law is changed so that widows forfeit these gifts when they remarry. However, in earlier times windows could accumulate these from several dead husbands, becoming quite wealthy and prized for it. Alas, after three marriages a widow no longer must marry by her liege's demands, and they end up their days as rich old women courted by the flattering young troubador bucks.

3 enfoeffed manors. 18 Glory/year.
Once again, the manors all have knights that hold them, so Lady Indeg collects no income from these.

Although this could be a banneret with 5 knights, it is not one because that is a granted title, not a category (like rich or poor are categories)

So the net result is that she brings five knight followers, and £2 income.
Yes, that is right: your knight had better have another source of income to maintain himself, or squeeze each year...

Part 2
I will explain how I understand it would really work
variations and exceptions are always possible in your game


Thanks for the clarification.

Drilling into the detail more.. of these 5 manors, what if one of them does NOT currently have a knight?

This is important because for one, there's always the chance one of these manors may not currently have a knight and two, if it doesn't, what then?
If the holder has no heir, the land reverts to being held by Indeg. She will collect the money, but for "she," see below.
If there is an underage heir, then the estate falls into wardship, which means whoever is warden--has care of the ward, or young heir--collects the income.


Does Indeg get income for it instead or is that income taken directly by the earl?

You must decide on what her status is in relation to the land
normally, she will be in wardship
Normally the earl would hold it, although later int he reign (historically) the king himself gets this right for all deaths and land transfers.
Whoever holds the rights to her wardship has very powerful rights: he acts as if the land is his own in every way, except for ruining it. He keeps the income and makes all decisions concerning the land, and its owner, Lady Indeg. The warden even decides who she will marry, and he collects the payment for selling this right to her future husband.
The warden must maintain the landholder in proper station, care for her and the property, defend it, etc.

Also, if one of these manors is currently vacant, does my PK knight then have the power of being able to knight a man of his choosing to fill the position?

Knighting depends entirely on the Period. In Anarchy, knights can make knights.
In Uther and Boy King and the Conquest, Lords can dub knights.
After that only the king can make new knights
As for granting the land to another PC, he is the lord and can do so if he is really stupid. He will get a generous check, whether it is a Gift or Grant, but the norm is for lords to keep as much land as possible, because the flexibility of income is so much greater when he has a core of household knights living in his hall at L4/year.


Lastly, what about the longevity of this award? Are the "widow's gift" manors forever and the "Holdings" manors only while she lives (barring offspring) or some other permutation?

You have it backwards.
See my previous answers, but to repeat:
Gifts are short-term, for the life of the recipient only
Widow's Gifts are temporary for her life, and when she dies they return to the ownership of her dead husband's heirs
Holdings are her personal and will be passed on to her heirs, if she has any

Greg, Lusus & Eother, many thanks for your help.

To sum up then, from a game perspective, my player gets what? Just a £2 extra income? Or are those five knights now his too? And does he gain additional Glory?

Greg - Your answer also invalidates one of my earlier assumptions. I assumed that once a knight has other vassal knights that have sworn service to him he becomes a banneret knight, I did not think this title had to be bestowed. In fact I based this assumption on this;

P.56. KAP5.1 - Lady Adwen (Glory 740; APP 18): The beautiful young (but marriageable) daughter of Sir Bles, who was killed in battle. Her holding would make her husband a banneret and a rich knight. Holdings: 2 demesne manors, 4 enfeoffed manors.

This suggests that any knight marrying her becomes a banneret purely because her holding includes 4 enfeoffed manors (which I assume to be run by vassal knights) which then become "his".

P.56. KAP5.1 - Lady Adwen (Glory 740; APP 18): The beautiful young (but marriageable) daughter of Sir Bles, who was killed in battle. Her holding would make her husband a banneret and a rich knight. Holdings: 2 demesne manors, 4 enfeoffed manors.


Lady Adwen's husband becomes a banneret, because Sir Bles was a banneret and hence his title is gained by his daughter's husband 'by the right of his wife'. Same as marrying the heiress of a count (i.e. a countess): the husband becomes the new count. And yes, even though the holdings would still be the wife's (Lady Adwen's) by law, in practice, they are the husband's to do as he wills, based on other limitations, such as those 4 manors likely having vassal knights already who cannot be evicted without a fight and honor loss. But those four knights would take their orders from the husband.

Of course, if the husband is not 'worthy', the knights might obey him grudgingly. And they are likely to have stronger loyalty towards Lady Adwen (unless the husband impresses them), due to the family traditions.

P.56. KAP5.1 - Lady Adwen (Glory 740; APP 18): The beautiful young (but marriageable) daughter of Sir Bles, who was killed in battle. Her holding would make her husband a banneret and a rich knight. Holdings: 2 demesne manors, 4 enfeoffed manors.


Lady Adwen's husband becomes a banneret, because Sir Bles was a banneret and hence his title is gained by his daughter's husband 'by the right of his wife'. Same as marrying the heiress of a count (i.e. a countess): the husband becomes the new count. And yes, even though the holdings would still be the wife's (Lady Adwen's) by law, in practice, they are the husband's to do as he wills, based on other limitations, such as those 4 manors likely having vassal knights already who cannot be evicted without a fight and honor loss. But those four knights would take their orders from the husband.

Of course, if the husband is not 'worthy', the knights might obey him grudgingly. And they are likely to have stronger loyalty towards Lady Adwen (unless the husband impresses them), due to the family traditions.


I see. Thanks. Is there a list or reference of what knights in Salisbury are bannerets as this is now important or is it purposefully left open for personal implementation?

Morien - Again drilling into the detail prompts a few more questions. So if the husband is effectively able to order the knights around (let's assume he is worthy etc) is he then their lord? Do they obey him in the same way as my PK obeys his lord (Roderick), should I give them a Loyalty (Lord) passion for my PK?

This also leads me to wider point. Knights owe their lord service in return for their lands. I can never remember the exact amount (40 or 60 days) but lets assume 60. How does this work in times or war when knights may be away for years at a time, clearly more than the usual 60 days. Does the lord (or king) have the right to ignore this in times of need or does he have to pay reimbursement in order to do so? I'm assuming that whatever the answer, my PK knights would have to do the same for knights serving *them*.

oh and I assume that demense manors simply provide income. So if my PK married Adwen, he would get income, not knights, from her two demense manors.

Good Knights!

A revelation!!
New Information
and below, a continuing answer

Sir Pramalot crits here!


Lady Adwen's husband becomes a banneret, because Sir Bles was a banneret and hence his title is gained by his daughter's husband 'by the right of his wife'.

but alas, the dastardly target moved!

These things change with time and place, but my latest research indicates that banneret was not transferable.

Under Arthur this becomes the special honor that is granted to a warrior for valor in battle while under the king's command.
It has to be something really great--ordinary heroism does not count. You guys captured King Aelle and turned the battle? Bang, you are bannerets. AS A GIFT.
Upon death, it returns to the king.


I see. Thanks. Is there a list or reference of what knights in Salisbury are bannerets as this is now important or is it purposefully left open for personal implementation?

I left Salisbury entirely open for the GM to determine. To make things simple for beginners, figure that if it's not mentioned, it' not there. Simple!

Morien - Again drilling into the detail prompts a few more questions. So if the husband is effectively able to order the knights around (let's assume he is worthy etc) is he then their lord? Do they obey him in the same way as my PK obeys his lord (Roderick), should I give them a Loyalty (Lord) passion for my PK?

Yes, he is the object of their Loyalty (Lord) passion.
If they had been loyal to Roderick, then you ought to generate a new passion for him, because he's now a secondary lord. If they have a personal feeling of loyalty (as opposed to the obligatory, legal, normal honorable one) then make it a different passion: Love, devotion, worship--whatever title doesn't alert homophobia jokes.

I realize I've never said this before, but do believe that it is do.

This also leads me to wider point. Knights owe their lord service in return for their lands. I can never remember the exact amount (40 or 60 days) but lets assume 60. How does this work in times or war when knights may be away for years at a time, clearly more than the usual 60 days. Does the lord (or king) have the right to ignore this in times of need or does he have to pay reimbursement in order to do so?

He cannot legally arbitrarily demand his vassals remain. (Except kings, kings can do anything anytime, and are beyond all moral judgments)
The deal is:
1. defend the homeland at any time, at own expense
2. Serve 60 days for the lord at own expense, from the time and place of muster until the end of the term. Then go home. Period. That is all you are obliged to do. Saxons two days away? Tough stuff, my good and glorious lord, "I wish you well if you are staying."
OR, the lord agrees to pay for the cost of being in the field for a set amount of time, and the knights pretty much have to do it.

Then enters the issue: pay now or later, in advance, and so on. very tricky stuff, for which there are no standard rules for vassals. It's worked out according to tradition, etc, as to what the knights will tolerate. Of course, being deep in a foreign land modifies all choices...


I'm assuming that whatever the answer, my PK knights would have to do the same for knights serving *them*.

Yes

oh and I assume that demense manors simply provide income. So if my PK married Adwen, he would get income, not knights, from her two demense manors.

Correct
However, he is probably still responsible for supplying two knights too
Check his charter

He cannot legally arbitrarily demand his vassals remain. (Except kings, kings can do anything anytime, and are beyond all moral judgments)
The deal is:
1. defend the homeland at any time, at own expense
2. Serve 60 days for the lord at own expense, from the time and place of muster until the end of the term. Then go home. Period. That is all you are obliged to do. Saxons two days away? Tough stuff, my good and glorious lord, "I wish you well if you are staying."
OR, the lord agrees to pay for the cost of being in the field for a set amount of time, and the knights pretty much have to do it.


Joy! This is how I've been doing it.



Correct
However, he is probably still responsible for supplying two knights too
Check his charter


Woe! Greg you have an uncanny knack for answering and raising questions simultaneously. I'm fine with the income for the two demesne manors, but what determines whether he then has to supply these two extra knights? When you say check the charter, I assume you mean whatever I, as GM, decide on terms wise. Is there a precedent I can follow here? Is it common for demense manors to also require knights? (if so this seems to make extra land less and less appealing as you just end up spending the extra cash on more knights).

BTW. I passed on the good news about Indeg's "benefits" to my PC. His watered down response was something along the lines of "2 measly quid! For all that I went through (near death fights on two occasions and the years of effort) for this wrinkly old prune, who can't have kids! 2 quid!!!" This was not helped by my erroneous earlier statement saying that with 4 manors to his name he'd probably be looking at at least an extra £20 annually... oh dear.

Woe! Greg you have an uncanny knack for answering and raising questions simultaneously. I'm fine with the income for the two demesne manors, but what determines whether he then has to supply these two extra knights? When you say check the charter, I assume you mean whatever I, as GM, decide on terms wise. Is there a precedent I can follow here? Is it common for demense manors to also require knights? (if so this seems to make extra land less and less appealing as you just end up spending the extra cash on more knights).

BTW. I passed on the good news about Indeg's "benefits" to my PC...


Well, going strictly by what is written in Book of the Manor:
Demesne manor = a manor providing L6 and NOT requiring knight service (often given to knight bannerets to boost the lifestyle)
Enfeoffed manor = a manor providing L6 and requiring knight service (often subfeoffed further to another knight, who becomes a vassal of the knight originally owning the manor)

AFAOCIC (as far as our campaign is concerned), the Lord doesn't care how you manage your manors, as long as the requisite number of knights shows up for the muster. Whether the enfeoffed manors have a vassal knight (in your service) or a household knight (also in your service) depends on the history of the manor. Some have, some don't. Up to the GM.

The Lord of course would see a benefit in squeezing as many concessions from the knights as possible; hence demesne manors are very rare (a net loss for the Lord)! So in Lady Adwen's case, I would easily see the Lord saying that the suitor can marry Adwen, as soon as they make new terms for the demesne manors, turning them to enfeoffed manors. But going strictly by the definitions, Lady Adwen would bring with her 4 knights with their manors and additional L12 per year to do what the husband wills. The best precedent to follow here, in my opinion, is how much in favor the knight is with Lady Adwen's Lord? (And how comfortable, as the GM, are you with giving the knights that much extra income to play with?)

Note that you can make Indeg much more worth it for the player by making some of those knights mere household knights: say two vassal knights (so no extra income) + two household knights (extra L2 each) + L2 extra income = L6 extra income per year. And remind your player that having 4 knights in his command is nothing to sneeze at, either. Think how easily he can flatten a rival's manor?

Woe! Greg you have an uncanny knack for answering and raising questions simultaneously.


Good
There is always more to know
at some point I will cite a source and leave you in free fall. :)

Ah, sources cited!
Thank you Morien


Well, going strictly by what is written in Book of the Manor:
Demesne manor = a manor providing L6 and NOT requiring knight service (often given to knight bannerets to boost the lifestyle)
Enfeoffed manor = a manor providing L6 and requiring knight service (often subfeoffed further to another knight, who becomes a vassal of the knight originally owning the manor)

Thank you
I guess that PC is going to owe you! :D


AFAOCIC (as far as our campaign is concerned), the Lord doesn't care how you manage your manors, as long as the requisite number of knights shows up for the muster. Whether the enfeoffed manors have a vassal knight (in your service) or a household knight (also in your service) depends on the history of the manor. Some have, some don't. Up to the GM.

Yes, that's right
The liege has one concern: his knights on the field
ownership and stuff--other's concerns

The Lord of course would see a benefit in squeezing as many concessions from the knights as possible; hence demesne manors are very rare (a net loss for the Lord)! .......


This muddies my understanding of demense and enfeoffed somewhat. I thought all PK starting manors were demense manors That means there are 100+ of them in Salisbury at least (including NPKs), so not that rare, unless you mean rare to have *more* than one of them under your control. And a net loss only in monetary terms as the lord gets the knights service in return? hmm but that then contradicts the definitions of a demense manor. If demense manors do not require a knight's service, then that would suggest PK starting manors are NOT demense, but perhaps they aren't and I've just assumed wrongly.

The confusion is because of the terms. I use the definition of Book of the Manor, so all the manors that the PKs start with, and indeed the majority of the manors granted and gifted, are enfeoffed manors. That is, they bring with them the requirement of a knight service. In short, an enfeoffed manor is your typical manor: the Earl gives you land and you will fight for the Earl.

I know this is confused by the use of demesne to refer to the lands within the manor estate that belong directly to the knight and not to his (free) peasants. But as long as you use the clear and unequivocal definition in BoM, it is much easier:
- Do I owe knight service (or anything else) for this manor? If not, it is a demesne manor. If I do, it is an enfeoffed manor.

Now, enfeoffed manors can be held by a vassal knight (like many PKs are), or they can be held by household knights in service of a vassal knight or the Earl. The exact situation depends on the history of the manor. For instance, by the time the previous generation kicked the bucket, one family branch had 5 manors to their name: three in Salisbury and two in Hampshire. By GM fiat, the two manors in Hampshire were currently empty, but knight service was required of them. Two manors in Salisbury were also enfeoffed (belonging to the male and the female knight of the couple, respectively), while the third one was conquered/bought from Levcomagus and designated as a demesne manor as a result (i.e. no knight service needed). Once the lands were inherited by their second son (long story), he had the obligation to provide four knights (two in Salisbury, two in Hampshire) for Arthur's wars: himself and three household knights. When his older brother returned from the dead (not really, just disappeared for some years and was thought to have gone to the bottom of the ocean), they agreed that the older brother would lay aside his claim for the whole lot in return of a manor to call his own: hence, one of those household knight enfeoffed manors became a manor for the older brother vassal knight, making the muster: the second brother + the older brother (vassal knight) + 2 household knights.

Now, when eventually the next generation inherits, on paper it will be 1 demesne manor and 4 enfeoffed manors. However, the next banneret (despite what Greg has found, we will keep the title hereditary, thank you very much) cannot just kick his cousin off the land and go back to 3 household knights; no, he is stuck with the bargain struck by their fathers since it was a hereditary grant instead of a lifetime gift, so the muster is: the banneret + vassal knight + 2 household knights. And of course that demesne manor ensures that there is money left over for Superlative knight upkeep and a bit extra for the banneret...

There have been two other situations where we have had demesne manors. One was inherited in Hampshire, part of an estate also having one enfeoffed manor. Singular demesne manors are almost non-existent, since they don't bring any benefit for the Earl. Anyway, now those two manors are likely to be inherited by two twin sisters, so Arthur will most likely turn that demesne manor into an enfeoffed one as well.

The other situation is happening right now. As part of the French wars, the banneret (NPC) was helped by the PKs and other fortuneseekers to conquer a small French county which is part of Sir Kay's Duchy of Normandy. To reward his big sister (already a Round Table Knight) and to sweeten the pot for her future husband, a French banneret helping in the conquest, he is giving a demesne manor as her dowry (in addition to two enfeoffed manor she holds with her own right).

Morien - Thanks, that helps greatly.

The PK that married Lady Indeg has now been asking about going off raiding etc since he has knights and not money. I can handle that easy enough, but I have a question regarding conquered land. Say he decides to attack his neighbour (whether or not he's done anything to warrant it), kills or captures him and crushes his men, can he simply take the land and say "right, it's mine"? Is this recognised by the earl as legitimate? I realise there are plenty of consequences to his actions (blood feuds, allies of the conquered coming to attack him etc) but in pure game terms is this a valid tactic? We're in Uther phase btw.

Not a good idea to attack other knights loyal to your own liege, unless you have a well-known feud with them. Especially don't raid them. This is what neighboring counties are for. Claiming their land gets tricky, as you have to hold it by force of arms and a single knight's army isn't likely to stand up against the might of an entire county. Conquest is an act of war, and few lords care for their vassals dragging them into wars just for the sake of money. Raid neighbors, plunder enemies, pillage hated foes... just expect reprisals and don't disturb the peace any more than that.

Not a good idea to attack other knights loyal to your own liege, unless you have a well-known feud with them. Especially don't raid them. This is what neighboring counties are for. Claiming their land gets tricky, as you have to hold it by force of arms and a single knight's army isn't likely to stand up against the might of an entire county. Conquest is an act of war, and few lords care for their vassals dragging them into wars just for the sake of money. Raid neighbors, plunder enemies, pillage hated foes... just expect reprisals and don't disturb the peace any more than that.


I've been slightly more relaxed about it than that in the past. I had one of my PK knights attacked by another, and as long as it didn't blow up into full scale war (or at least not involve dozens and dozens of manors) the earl turned a blind eye; providing they both did their service to him. In fact one of the knights petitioned the earl for aid (which he turned down) and then turned to his neighbours. At the time Roderick had a nearby Saxon army in the 1000s to worry about so these small scale territorial disputes seemed of little importance.

Is the earl really likely to mobilse the county army just to re-take a single manor? If the manor's previous occupants are all dead or scattered, and the conquest knight does his knightly duty, isn't it easier just to accept the new status quo?

Is the earl really likely to mobilse the county army just to re-take a single manor? If the manor's previous occupants are all dead or scattered, and the conquest knight does his knightly duty, isn't it easier just to accept the new status quo?


Oh, conquest... Now this is a tricky issue. (During Anarchy, the rule is that what you can keep is yours and what you can't keep is mine.)

I am going to assume that the conquest didn't happen within one county, but involved another county.

You'll have to consider the big picture. Did the knight kill all the heirs (children) as well? Did he wipe out the cousins and nephews and nieces and others who might have a claim for the manor? If he did, I am impressed. Horrified, but impressed. If he didn't, then there are claimants in the enemy lord's court, calling for protection and justice. Regardless, the enemy lord has three choices:
1) get his army together, crush the interloper, and restore the lands (to the original family or to someone else, if there are no heirs)
- Pros: prove his might and discourage other would-be-conquerors and raiders, fulfill his part of the feudal bargain (protection of his vassals)
- Cons: none, really, if he is not already busy with something else and he is only dealing with a force that he can easily crush (such as that one manor)
2) ignore the situation
- Pros: he doesn't have to do anything (which is good if he is busy elsewhere)
- Cons: he loses a manor (and its knight service), and worse, he looks like a weakling, which would invite more attacks
3) accept the conquerer's oath of fealty
- Pros: he gains a new, obviously powerful vassal knight and he doesn't have to go to war to regain the manor
- Cons: his other vassals might be a bit troubled by this lack of liege support, and other would-be-conquerors might take note

So you see, the enemy lord pretty much has to do something. Of course, the PK's liege may up the ante by mustering his army to protect his vassal's claim to the newly conquered land, in which case the thing might get kicked up all the way to Uther, who is probably not amused by that internecine squabbling while he is fighting the Saxons. Whether he would rule for or against the conqueror, it would depend a lot on the individuals in question and his mood for the day (in our campaign). Does he have a reason to dislike the enemy lord? He will likely rule in favor of the conquering knight. Was the knight involved in Merlin's plots to snatch the baby Arthur? Then the knight might be in deep doo-doo, up to and including being declared an outlaw for breaking the King's Peace (and pissing the King off, which is the true crime here).

In our campaign, discounting the canonical conquests of Anglia and Hampshire by Arthur (and the continental war), we have had three conquests involving the PKs:

1) During Anarchy, Salisbury decided to go to war against Levcomagus, and conquered a dozen or so border manors. So while Levcomagus fumed, they were unable to do much about it, against the full might of Salisbury. However, a few years later, they struck, with the backing of Silchester and reconquered those lands and raided deep into Salisbury in retaliation, restoring the status quo.

2) In early 530s, the knights came upon a local family vendetta in Malahaut. One of them asked permission from the King of Malahaut to marry the displaced heiress and reconquer her land, and also conquer the aggressor's lands, promising to provide 3 knights from 2 manors. Now since this was a good deal for the King who would have been happy to just put an end to that vendetta anyway, he agreed, and the conquest then proceeded from that. (Not without consequences, some of which were rather gory.) Note that in this case, the liege lord was the same person for both parties (since the PK was championing his newly-wed wife's claim), and he decided to let the vendetta play itself into the conclusion without interference.

3) The conquest of Mortain, a county in the Duchy of Normandy, as part of the reconquest of Normandy by Sir Kay (the justification being that he got Normandy as a grant from Arthur during the Conquest period, so it is his by right). This is open war; the King of the Franks has marched his army twice against the Britons, but has been defeated both times by Sir Kay's army. On the other hand, Sir Kay's forces are not strong enough to conquer much farther than the Normandy area, and have been unable to take Paris. So things are starting to head towards a stalemate, which heavy raiding and an occasional set-piece battle in the menu.

It is always best to have some fig-leaf of justification, rather than naked aggression. Furthermore, if you can get your liege lord on your side prior to the conquest, all the better. A knight attacking his neighbors on a whim is a danger to all, while a knight settling an old family vendetta is less likely to go after someone else. Of course, usually the liege lords do not want their knights killing one another, since it weakens the county. The liege lord might be reluctant to protect the conquered manor, too, as it was not his decision to provoke a war. Heck, depending on things, he might even look the other way while the knight's own holding is raided, or make just a gesture at the protection (staging a demonstration at the border after the fact). Depends a lot on the personalities and the politics again. For instance, the fact that there is a big Saxon army in the neighborhood would mean, if I were the GM, that Earl Roderick would tell the two squabbling knights in no uncertain terms to agree on a truce right now or he will find two other knights to take care of the manors. Of course, they could be free to call his 'bluff' and he would be unlikely to do anything about it right now, but he would remember. And as soon as the Saxon threat would be resolved, he would turn his attention to the knights who have defied him and flaunted his authority and their oaths of fealty.

The PK that married Lady Indeg has now been asking about going off raiding etc since he has knights and not money. I can handle that easy enough, but I have a question regarding conquered land. Say he decides to attack his neighbour (whether or not he's done anything to warrant it), kills or captures him and crushes his men, can he simply take the land and say "right, it's mine"? Is this recognised by the earl as legitimate? I realise there are plenty of consequences to his actions (blood feuds, allies of the conquered coming to attack him etc) but in pure game terms is this a valid tactic? We're in Uther phase btw.

Quick answer: no.
The job of the lords is to keep peace among their knights, and the job of the king is to keep peace between his lords.
The consequences of a downright conquest like that has too many negatives to get away with it without the earl's support.
Do that in the Anarchy phase. :)

Apologies for dredging this thread up again. These events are now in play and I have another question regarding manor ownership.

To put this into context, I was asking what happens to the lands gained by my PK from marrying Indeg if she dies without producing an heir.



Lastly, what about the longevity of this award? Are the "widow's gift" manors forever and the "Holdings" manors only while she lives (barring offspring) or some other permutation?



You have it backwards.
See my previous answers, but to repeat:
Gifts are short-term, for the life of the recipient only
Widow's Gifts are temporary for her life, and when she dies they return to the ownership of her dead husband's heirs
Holdings are her personal and will be passed on to her heirs, if she has any


Reading this again suggests there is no difference between a gift and Widow's gift; both only last for the lifetime of the recipient. Gifts return to the earl and Widow's gifts return to the dead husband's family.

But what happens to the knights from these gifted manors when she dies? They have sworn loyalty to my PK. If the lands revert away from his ownership what then? The estate is no longer his, so I assume the knights are no longer his to command. Are they released from their oath?

Lastly, what about the longevity of this award? Are the "widow's gift" manors forever and the "Holdings" manors only while she lives (barring offspring) or some other permutation?



Gifts are short-term, for the life of the recipient only
Widow's Gifts are temporary for her life, and when she dies they return to the ownership of her dead husband's heirs
Holdings are her personal and will be passed on to her heirs, if she has any

Reading this again suggests there is no difference between a gift and Widow's gift; both only last for the lifetime of the recipient. Gifts return to the earl and Widow's gifts return to the dead husband's family.

Hm, pretty handy coincidence, eh? :)


But what happens to the knights from these gifted manors when she dies? They have sworn loyalty to my PK. If the lands revert away from his ownership what then? The estate is no longer his, so I assume the knights are no longer his to command. Are they released from their oath?

It depends on the oath, and to whom it was dedicated.
In general, an oath is to a person
Sometimes to an office
I think that you are asking,

"What happens to a player knight's Loyalty (Lord) if Lady Indeg dies?"

Answer: during these early periods, when a landholder dies without an heir
The earl (or whomever the dead person got the land from) assigns an overseer to the lands
His job is to run things for the earl, and to thoroughly check to see who has claimed to get the land (and at every death there are multiple claims, some flimsy and some really obvious, but all are considered.)
A judgement is made, and if no legitimate heir is discovered, the land returns to the earl

Doubtless there is a propensity for under-the-table payoffs, threats subtle or overt, untimely accidents, etc. in such cases, with the overseer as much a target as the various claimants. Might makes right, prior to the consolidation of Arthur's reign.

It depends on the oath, and to whom it was dedicated.
In general, an oath is to a person
Sometimes to an office
I think that you are asking,

"What happens to a player knight's Loyalty (Lord) if Lady Indeg dies?"


Let me clarify here because that is not what I'm asking.

My PK has become lord of Lady Indeg's estate by marrying her. This estate comes with a number of enfeoffed manors and knights. These knights have sworn loyalty to my PK as he is now their lord. If Indeg dies, he won't be their lord anymore. I guess we assume their oath is to the office rather than my PK.

Actually that makes perfect sense. Thanks :)