Morien
11-28-2011, 04:52 PM
Hi everyone. It just so happened that a good number of valiant (non-player) knights bit the dust in our recent session, leaving a host of winsome widows behind. Which then of course made me think how does this Widow's Gift thing really work...
1. A Widow's Portion is 1/3rd of the late husband's lands.
Fair enough. The write-up of Indeg hints that this doesn't absolve the widow from the duty of providing knights from her lands, though. On the other hand, we know from the standard knight expenditure that supporting a wife and kids costs 2L (or more). So, naively, we would simply say that the widow gets 2L of income in every manor, but that she needs to provide 1/3rds of the required knights of her late husband's lands as well (waived if she only gets 2L).
Example 1: The knight has 3 manors, one his own, the other looked after by a household knight, and the third with a vassal knight. He croaks, so the widow is entitled to 18L/3 = 6L, one manor's worth of income. But she actually needs to provide 1 knight as well, so she probably gets that household knight manor, taking the extra 2L for herself and having the household knight answer to the muster.
Example 2: The usual case, with just one manor. The widow takes 2L of income, which she needs to survive. Hence, there is not other requirement.
The Problem:
The problem arises from the fact that this leaves ye olde manor producing only 4L, which is just sufficient for a household knight, but what if the heir has a family of his own? He is needing to scrape up 2L of income, pronto. (One solution being, naturally, that he happened to marry another widow, who'd be bringing that same 2L to the family from another estate, which starts to sound like a game of whack-a-mole...)
What about the Liege Lord, if there are no heirs? Naively, you'd imagine that he is OK, as he can just install an unmarried household knight there. Yes, but what about a steward? A good steward is 2L / yr. Of course, the Lord might have more flexibility than your basic knight, and have household knights in his retinue who are able to double as stewards. But they would be stuck in garrison, then, unavailable for campaigning, really.
So based on that, the Lord's best option would be to marry the widow off ASAP and give the rest of the manor to the husband. This way, the Lord gets that one knight for the muster, the widow continues using her stewardship to benefit the manor, and the knight gets to have a family. But this works only if there are no heirs.
Alternatively, if one assumes that the widow is usable as a steward in the beck and call of the Lord, then the Lord has no problem whatsoever. But that sounds a bit dodgy to me, and the problem for the heir remains.
Another bit dodgy outcome out of this is that it becomes more worthwhile to court widows who do not bring a manor with them, only cash. For example, Imagine two widows, one with 2L income from one manor, and the other bringing one manor (only as a gift) which requires a household knight to protect it. Assuming that the (knight's and the widow's) manors are widely separated so that she cannot oversee both herself *, why then the knight needs to hire a steward, and his expenses become: 4L himself + 2L wife + 4L household knight + 2L good steward = 12L, which is all the money he can expect from the two manors. On the other hand, if he marries the widow without the manor, his expenses are 6L, but income 8L, for a 2L/yr profit. Alright, perhaps you can claim that the household knight is actually a 4L/yr profit, but it is harder to invest the household knight profitably during Pax Arthuriana. :) While that 2L turns into an apiary one year, a fish pond the next...
How have people dealt with this in their campaigns?
* = Not sure if it is said officially anywhere how many manors one steward can oversee... we have a rule of thumb that they need to be about within a day's ride, but given that the PK with Stewardship can stay away for a season and just incur -2, I we might have to relax this ruling...
1. A Widow's Portion is 1/3rd of the late husband's lands.
Fair enough. The write-up of Indeg hints that this doesn't absolve the widow from the duty of providing knights from her lands, though. On the other hand, we know from the standard knight expenditure that supporting a wife and kids costs 2L (or more). So, naively, we would simply say that the widow gets 2L of income in every manor, but that she needs to provide 1/3rds of the required knights of her late husband's lands as well (waived if she only gets 2L).
Example 1: The knight has 3 manors, one his own, the other looked after by a household knight, and the third with a vassal knight. He croaks, so the widow is entitled to 18L/3 = 6L, one manor's worth of income. But she actually needs to provide 1 knight as well, so she probably gets that household knight manor, taking the extra 2L for herself and having the household knight answer to the muster.
Example 2: The usual case, with just one manor. The widow takes 2L of income, which she needs to survive. Hence, there is not other requirement.
The Problem:
The problem arises from the fact that this leaves ye olde manor producing only 4L, which is just sufficient for a household knight, but what if the heir has a family of his own? He is needing to scrape up 2L of income, pronto. (One solution being, naturally, that he happened to marry another widow, who'd be bringing that same 2L to the family from another estate, which starts to sound like a game of whack-a-mole...)
What about the Liege Lord, if there are no heirs? Naively, you'd imagine that he is OK, as he can just install an unmarried household knight there. Yes, but what about a steward? A good steward is 2L / yr. Of course, the Lord might have more flexibility than your basic knight, and have household knights in his retinue who are able to double as stewards. But they would be stuck in garrison, then, unavailable for campaigning, really.
So based on that, the Lord's best option would be to marry the widow off ASAP and give the rest of the manor to the husband. This way, the Lord gets that one knight for the muster, the widow continues using her stewardship to benefit the manor, and the knight gets to have a family. But this works only if there are no heirs.
Alternatively, if one assumes that the widow is usable as a steward in the beck and call of the Lord, then the Lord has no problem whatsoever. But that sounds a bit dodgy to me, and the problem for the heir remains.
Another bit dodgy outcome out of this is that it becomes more worthwhile to court widows who do not bring a manor with them, only cash. For example, Imagine two widows, one with 2L income from one manor, and the other bringing one manor (only as a gift) which requires a household knight to protect it. Assuming that the (knight's and the widow's) manors are widely separated so that she cannot oversee both herself *, why then the knight needs to hire a steward, and his expenses become: 4L himself + 2L wife + 4L household knight + 2L good steward = 12L, which is all the money he can expect from the two manors. On the other hand, if he marries the widow without the manor, his expenses are 6L, but income 8L, for a 2L/yr profit. Alright, perhaps you can claim that the household knight is actually a 4L/yr profit, but it is harder to invest the household knight profitably during Pax Arthuriana. :) While that 2L turns into an apiary one year, a fish pond the next...
How have people dealt with this in their campaigns?
* = Not sure if it is said officially anywhere how many manors one steward can oversee... we have a rule of thumb that they need to be about within a day's ride, but given that the PK with Stewardship can stay away for a season and just incur -2, I we might have to relax this ruling...