In my game Robert, Earl Roderick's son, is about to hit squiring age and the question of whom will squire hom has turned up.

One of my players is both the highest glory k.igbt around but also is husband to Lady Jenna, making him Robert's uncle. I was thinking he seemed a likely person - Arthur was Kays squire so presumably it does happen that family members are assigned each other - but was curious if anyone else had experience or ideas.

In particular, was there a medieval tradition for or against squiring wihin families? And would Robert be squired with any particular sort of person, ie would he get a busy, glorious posting (with all the risks that come with it) or would he get a quiet yet safe training ground?

I think it is more usual to squire them out of the immediate family, to liege lords, family friends, political allies... I think Arthur was a bit of a special case, Sir Ector deciding to keep the future King close rather than send him away.

Not to mention, the other knights should be getting a bit nervous about all the power that this one PK is accumulating already... I mean, he is already Robert's uncle and as Jenna's husband, he is likely the next biggest landowner in the county, too. And now he would be Robert's mentor as well? That will cement his influence years to come. Besides... is it safe? If Robert has a 'training accident', Jenna would be the heiress, and this PK would become the Count. Wouldn't it be safer, all around, to have someone else train the lad? ;)

I think the training of nobles is as much political as marriage. Placing with family is possible, and probably safest. There is already a bond between the two. But squiring him out to a neighbor may cement some political alliance. In the end it is up to the guardian of the person to decide of course.

Not to mention, the other knights should be getting a bit nervous about all the power that this one PK is accumulating already... I mean, he is already Robert's uncle and as Jenna's husband, he is likely the next biggest landowner in the county, too. And now he would be Robert's mentor as well? That will cement his influence years to come. Besides... is it safe? If Robert has a 'training accident', Jenna would be the heiress, and this PK would become the Count. Wouldn't it be safer, all around, to have someone else train the lad? ;)


Amusingly, the person most concerned about this.... is the knight in question. :-) He's quite a religious knight who dislikes attention and the player has played him as loving Jenna but disliking the responsibility thrust on him. He's now worried that if he gets Robert as a squire and anything happens to him, not only will he have more responsibility but everyone will assume it's a 'training accident' with finger-quotes and everything. :-)

That said, I was going to say that Roderick had two male children: one born in 485 (to match the infant Robert mentioned in the 5.0 core book) and another born in 491 (to match the errata'd birthdate of Robert in the GPC) to allow for a genuine accident to the squire. After all, anyone who has taken their squire into a large battle knows that they genuinely do wander off and have horrible fates attached to them. The second son may even be confirmed Robert in honour of his elder brother if needs must.

I think the training of nobles is as much political as marriage. Placing with family is possible, and probably safest. There is already a bond between the two. But squiring him out to a neighbor may cement some political alliance. In the end it is up to the guardian of the person to decide of course.


In non-Anarchy time it would probably be quite prudent to send him to another part of Logres like Dorset, Hampshire or Lindsey. In anarchy it becomes a little less hairy, but it still could be part of an alliance.

my knights originally paired up with Aelle to keep themselves from getting destroyed, but are now working to form a Logres Alliance. So far Salisbury, Silchester, Dorset, part of reclaimed Rydychan and possibly Clarence are on board. Perhaps giving out Robert to a nearby land would be tactical? (Rydychan in particular seems an interesting choice.)

So far Salisbury, Silchester, Dorset, part of reclaimed Rydychan and possibly Clarence are on board. Perhaps giving out Robert to a nearby land would be tactical? (Rydychan in particular seems an interesting choice.)


Silchester might be a good choice, too. Ulfius has power and prestige as one of the surviving dukes of Uther. Of course, if Rydychan has also prestige and a reputation as a honorable man, sending Robert to him might not be a bad idea. Allow the boy to make some nice personal attachments with his political allies. Might even find a nice wife candidate with huge tracts of... land. :)

In my current GPC the Player Knights convinced the Lady Ellen to marry the Lady Jenna to Sir Alain of Escavalon. He was one of the few 'chivalric' knights they had met and they took a shine to him. A crit on an intrigue roll had given them some info on his heritage. They were backing Nanteleod heavily against Idres and Cerdic and wanted to seal an alliance. Alains acquisition of a bannerety fast-forwarded his rise to prominence within Escavalon - though there was an assassination attempt after Netley Marsh.

They then squired Robert with Alain. Luckily he was not assassinated. It worked out very nicely overall. Robert has strong allies in the court at Carlion and is growing very powerful as a leading supporter of the Boy King.

Squiring in the anarchy is a bit dicey - particularly if you only have one heir. If you don't trust the knight then you may be giving them a free hostage. You don't want to mollycoddle the boy though. Having a big row with the Countess on this issue could be interesting.

Ulfius, Nanteleod or Corneus of Lindsey could be options. Nanteleod dies in 508 at Netley Marsh so that could make for an interesting battle event. Player Knights of Salisbury see his unit crushed and must fight off Cynric's warriors to rescue Robert. Corneus dies of illness in 508 so the succession to Derfel could provide some intrigue options if Robert was squiring in Lindsey.

There are some good replies there
My two pence:


In my game Robert, Earl Roderick's son, is about to hit squiring age and the question of whom will squire whom has turned up.
One of my players is both the highest glory knight around but also is husband to Lady Jenna, making him Robert's uncle. I was thinking he seemed a likely person -

A good choice, as long as Jenna trusts him
she would be aware that if she has a child by her new husband, having her firstborn in her husband's control is dangerous to her first heir


Arthur was Kays squire so presumably it does happen that family members are assigned each other - but was curious if anyone else had experience or ideas.

Actually that is an example of what to do with those bastards who will never inherit--make them the squire of the legitimate son


In particular, was there a medieval tradition for or against squiring within families?

The issue for firstborn sons is keeping them safe while also getting them trained properly


And would Robert be squired with any particular sort of person, ie would he get a busy, glorious posting (with all the risks that come with it) or would he get a quiet yet safe training ground?

Up to whomever assigns him
and in part, up to him

There are some good replies there
My two pence:


In my game Robert, Earl Roderick's son, is about to hit squiring age and the question of whom will squire whom has turned up.
One of my players is both the highest glory knight around but also is husband to Lady Jenna, making him Robert's uncle. I was thinking he seemed a likely person -

A good choice, as long as Jenna trusts him
she would be aware that if she has a child by her new husband, having her firstborn in her husband's control is dangerous to her first heir


Yeah, what sort of marriage it is makes all the difference here.

In this case Jenna married the knight, Sir Rhodri, for love: this is why she is married to a vassal knight rather than to a baron or count. (Indeed, the Duke of Lindsey was a potential husband.) In that case I suspect he seems a better choice.

If it was a more political marriage, though, it might seem a hazardous choice.

Marrying for love...how...unusual :o

A large part of the role of a squire is learning his future role by observing it in action. I think Robert would naturally become a squire of a nobleman of a similar rank to his father in order to observe/experience the sort of activities he will have to perform himself in his future rank. I'm not sure anything else will provide him with the relevant training.
As I see it, during the anarchy, a senior nobleman like Roderick is probably not going to want to place his heir anywhere he doesn't trust implicitly. A neigbouring Earl is therefore the best option. One that can be trusted implicitly, though that may be hard to find.
If I was Roderick, I'd have the nice PK killled in a hunting accident, re-marry Jenna to an Earl on one side and squire Robert with the Earl on the other. ;) ;D
But assuming that Roderick is a nice guy it still makes sense to keep the two potential heirs apart. Keeping them in the same place is a recipe for disaster.
IIRC The King of England and his heir never used to travel in the same ship to prevent unforeseen events wiping out the whole dynasty. i beleive the president and vice president of the US similarly travel seperately to preserve the command structure if one gets in trouble.

Tldr - A neighbouring Earl

HTH
GR

In a normal circumstance a noble would choose a neighbouring, and trusted friend, as the one to train his heir. Unfortunately the anarchy period is not normal. For one thing Earl Roderick, Robert's father, is not present. He died in 495. And without any senior lord to take charge it is probable that Robert is now his uncle's ward.

Depends a lot on how the things shook down after St. Albans. From what I understand, the nice PK brother-in-law is a bit of a modest sort, unwilling to push himself forward. Which leads me to suspect that the Countess is the official regent for her son, and hence in charge of Robert's upbringing. I could be wrong, of course.

I do agree with Gentleman Ranker that, if possible, a trusted neighboring Earl would be the optimal choice. Who is Robert's maternal uncle or grandfather? Is he a ranking noble? Such an uncle would have less incentive for killing the lad, since he can't claim the County by right, whereas Jenna's husband could do so jure uxoris, by the right of his wife, should Robert die. The uncle would benefit more from having the lad grow up to be a strong family ally.

Depends a lot on how the things shook down after St. Albans. From what I understand, the nice PK brother-in-law is a bit of a modest sort, unwilling to push himself forward. Which leads me to suspect that the Countess is the official regent for her son, and hence in charge of Robert's upbringing. I could be wrong, of course.

You have the right of it. Sir Rhodri is a very glorious knight - he killed Duke Goloris and has both chivalrous and religious traits - but he is also very modest and prefers to serve than to rule. There was some talk that Rhodri was sort of the male head of the family now but Sir Rhodri has no desire for that and instead the Countess has been the formal ruler, albeit with Rhodri filling in some ceremonial roles and being part of the council that advises Ellen.

The very first session on the Anarchy Phase, in fact, involved them going off to fight Water Leapers.... and even though he was injured, Sir Rhodri commented on how much he preferred this to the new-found responsibility and stupid outfits he has to wear in his first year of marriage to Jenna. Even the fact he has to be Rich rather than Normal is resented somewhat. :-)

Our session in Wednesday involved finally coming to a solution on this. One of the events in game was the Countess bringing forward the senior knights and asking where they should squire Robert: locally or elsewhere. Is it better to have Robert in sight or to have Robert further away? Is he a political tool abroad or is he a potential hostage?

Some knights did mention Rhodri, Jenna's husband, taking him on as a squire.... and Rhodri was very quick to say no. That's both ICly that he's modest and worried about the responsibility, and OOCly that the Rhodri player was worried that her character is already more glorious and rich than the rest & that having the Earl-in-potentia as a squire would just take the piss too much.

There was talk of sending him to a Logres lord to help form an alliance but the group, hopeful as they are of the alliance, thought it was too fragile right now and they couldn't risk Robert's life there. but they could not hide Robert locally - someone mooted "passing him around" between all the senior knights of Logres, to which I responded "He's a squire, dude, not a joint". ;D

In the end they decided they should send him out of Logres but far away enough that there isn't an immediate concern for his life in political struggles. That rules out the west because of Cornwall, the south and east because of Saxons... but the north, oddly, was viewed as more stable. And isn't the northern King Lot married to Uther's step-daughter and potential heir to the throne? Wouldn't be a good man to either get close to and/or keep an eye on?

So, despite the fact that OOCly some of them know what's coming, ICly they decided Lothian was a great place to try and get Robert ensconced. They've sent an ambassador to discuss the matter and see if a knight there can take on their charge. One of the players died in the session and, afterwards, suggested he might play a Lothian knight who comes down on a sort of "knight exchange".

This means that, unlike the GPC (where Robert explicitly says he's never been outside the county) Earl Robert will have experience of foreign courts. But he'll also make friends & enemies is Lothian, which could prove very interesting in the future. Will he be more sympathetic to Lot come the New Year Tournament? Or will it be 5 years of confirming that Lothian men can't be trusted?

Intriguing development. Could this result in them choosing the side of Lot in the coming events? If Robert sees King Lot as a good king and a good friend this could be the result. I mean if you have to choose between a king with experience against a young brat. And a bastard besides that (I think I remember that the true heritage of Arthur is only revealed afterwards). With the Saxon problem this could be the wiser choice at that moment.

Would make a rather interesting deviation on the story. ;)

Intriguing development. Could this result in them choosing the side of Lot in the coming events? If Robert sees King Lot as a good king and a good friend this could be the result. I mean if you have to choose between a king with experience against a young brat. And a bastard besides that (I think I remember that the true heritage of Arthur is only revealed afterwards). With the Saxon problem this could be the wiser choice at that moment.

Would make a rather interesting deviation on the story. ;)


I was pondering this but I dunno if puts the players in a poor position if they are opposed to Arthur early on. Then again they have bad feelings towards Merlin, so maybe they'd be understandably suspicious of his quisling and side with Lot instead? (Indeed, Sir Rhodri refuses to try the sword in t he stone because it's obviously a ploy of Merlin)

Alternatively, if they choose to go against Lot and side with Arthur even though they have history with Lot, would the infamous Orkney grudge-bearing come in? Could Robert end up this campaign's Lamorak?

I was pondering this but I dunno if puts the players in a poor position if they are opposed to Arthur early on.


Well it didn't do Gawaine and Agravaine any harm. Of course they were Arthur's nephews, which would have helped.

But later on Tristram was well accepted at Camelot, despite coming from an 'enemy' realm and making his name by killing the champion of an 'ally' realm; whereas being the sons of an eager vassal didn't do the Silchester boys any good at all when they rebelled.

Arthur seems to have come up with the "Don't be a dick" rule about 1500 years ahead of Wil Wheaton...

Regards
Luke

I was pondering this but I dunno if puts the players in a poor position if they are opposed to Arthur early on.


Well it didn't do Gawaine and Agravaine any harm. Of course they were Arthur's nephews, which would have helped.


If I remember correctly Gawain accepted Arthur as the King and did not side with his father against him. that would have helped a lot as well I think.

If I remember correctly Gawain accepted Arthur as the King and did not side with his father against him. that would have helped a lot as well I think.

Oh sure. The life expectancy of lords who declare against Arthur seems to be measured in months rather than years.

I dunno if there's anything in the wider canon about Gawaine breaking with Lot ahead of Terrabil, but the GPC is silent on the matter so, since it doesn't fit my conception of Gawaine's character, IMG he and his of-age brothers will be in Lot's host on that fateful day and will get to coin their Hate (de Gales clan) passion in the heat of close combat. Perhaps the reluctance of Gawaine to embrace Lot's anti-Arthur policy is part of how Merlin was able to delay the Lothian army's arrival at the battle however.

Once Lot is dead, Gawaine becomes head of the family and he can follow his inclination to bend the knee to his uncle; then it's all good.

Regards
Luke

I dunno if there's anything in the wider canon about Gawaine breaking with Lot ahead of Terrabil, but the GPC is silent on the matter so, since it doesn't fit my conception of Gawaine's character, IMG he and his of-age brothers will be in Lot's host on that fateful day and will get to coin their Hate (de Gales clan) passion in the heat of close combat. Perhaps the reluctance of Gawaine to embrace Lot's anti-Arthur policy is part of how Merlin was able to delay the Lothian army's arrival at the battle however.

Once Lot is dead, Gawaine becomes head of the family and he can follow his inclination to bend the knee to his uncle; then it's all good.


I like Luke's reasoning here. It fits with the whole motive of putting family first. It did feel a bit odd that Gawain would be so determined to avenge Lot's death in honorable combat in the midst of a battle, in which he himself would have fought against his own dad. But if Gawaine was fighting for his dad, and maybe if he has some guilt issues for not having been able to stop Pellinore, that makes it much easier to believe why he would harbor such a grudge and be willing to stoop dishonorable means to pursue his vendetta. Family first.

Whereas Arthur is family and not personally responsible for Lot's death.

I was pondering this but I dunno if puts the players in a poor position if they are opposed to Arthur early on.


Well it didn't do Gawaine and Agravaine any harm. Of course they were Arthur's nephews, which would have helped.


If I remember correctly Gawain accepted Arthur as the King and did not side with his father against him. that would have helped a lot as well I think.


This actually depends on what version of the story is used
Heck, in one Gawaine isn't even on the scene but it begin raised by the Pope!

I was pondering this but I dunno if puts the players in a poor position if they are opposed to Arthur early on.


Well it didn't do Gawaine and Agravaine any harm. Of course they were Arthur's nephews, which would have helped.


If I remember correctly Gawain accepted Arthur as the King and did not side with his father against him. that would have helped a lot as well I think.


This actually depends on what version of the story is used
Heck, in one Gawaine isn't even on the scene but it begin raised by the Pope!


That's a real beauty of the GPC. It is a solid road-map but there is so much other material out there for inspiration on where the story can go. And that's even before you and your players get involved and start messing with things.

Probably why it never feels like a railroad despite being scripted at times.

I dunno if there's anything in the wider canon about Gawaine breaking with Lot ahead of Terrabil, but the GPC is silent on the matter so, since it doesn't fit my conception of Gawaine's character, IMG he and his of-age brothers will be in Lot's host on that fateful day and will get to coin their Hate (de Gales clan) passion in the heat of close combat. Perhaps the reluctance of Gawaine to embrace Lot's anti-Arthur policy is part of how Merlin was able to delay the Lothian army's arrival at the battle however.

Once Lot is dead, Gawaine becomes head of the family and he can follow his inclination to bend the knee to his uncle; then it's all good.

I must agree with you here. I too like the reasoning of family first.

Btw. The large number of versions of the story is also a reason things may develop different I guess. But I like to keep things a bit logical. Luke's reasoning does that. Thank you.


I like Luke's reasoning here. It fits with the whole motive of putting family first. It did feel a bit odd that Gawain would be so determined to avenge Lot's death in honorable combat in the midst of a battle, in which he himself would have fought against his own dad. But if Gawaine was fighting for his dad, and maybe if he has some guilt issues for not having been able to stop Pellinore, that makes it much easier to believe why he would harbor such a grudge and be willing to stoop dishonorable means to pursue his vendetta. Family first.

Whereas Arthur is family and not personally responsible for Lot's death.

Just for the record

I believe that in the Vulgate Gawaine and a bunch of his companions from the north form the "Young Knights" who do fight against Lot and his men (!!)

They might be called something else, too. But they continue as the Young Knights in Arthur's realm, friendly rivals to the "old knights," who were Uther's men.