What happens if a player knight dies and has only a single daughter? She cannot inherit, right? In that case, who would inherit the knight's estate? A younger brother, I guess?

If that daughter gets married later, does she convey any of her late father's estate to her new husband?

Are we talking Uther's Period, Anarchy or Arthurian period?

In Uther's period, I would be tempted to let the younger brother to inherit. Uther needs knights and he needs them now! But on the other hand, see Arthurian period. It is always nice to have a heiress in hand to reward your faithful household knights with.

Anarchy, strongest wins. Usurpation by uncles is a staple of the damsel in distress literature.

In Arthurian period, the daughter would be the heiress and live as a ward of the Liege Lord. Once she marries, whoever the Liege Lord picks, the husband would gain the estate by the right of his wife. The younger brother of the previous owner is out of luck.

As for the PK's death and no son to succeed him, the big question is if the daughter is of age? If she is, the easiest thing is to marry her off and then play the husband. If she is under age, assign her as a ward to toe younger brother and let the younger brother rule until she marries. Good plot fodder there, too.

This is a complicated question, not a simple one.

Is the land allodial (also called folkland) or feudal? If allodial it's private property and would be owned by the men of the lineage decided, but an "heir" could give it to a lord making it feudal land and that lord would give it back to his vassal often has just a precarious benefice, but he would also protect his new vassal against anyone else's claims to the land. he might also grant it as a perpetual benefice (for life holding) or a perpetual and hereditary benefice (aka fief). sure the lineage could go to war with the lord over the land, but were they strong enough to win - almost never, so rarely a war.

Benefices could be held from a lord as either precarious or perpetual benefices (the normal case always when granted to household knights, in which case neither the daughter or the nephew had any rights to it. It when to whomever the lord chose to give it to or he kept it himself. If the nephew was a valuable knight he might grant it to him or if he had another knight he wanted to reward he might give him the hand and arrange a marriage for the daughter to him, but the daughter would have no right to the fee in that case.

The next thing to consider is what sort of feudalism exists in the land. England was abnormal as it had been taken by conquest in 1066. Count William the bastard (AKA King William the conqueror). William set up a system where he was the liege lord of every knight and every baron. Under this weird system) when a fatherless heiress or heir was a minor they became the king's ward, even when the heir was an adult their estate was taken over by a subescheator ( each county/shire had one of these royal officials). The estate became the king's until the heir paid a fine/relief to the king and he in tern granted them the estate back (charge at least £6 per manor). Minors could not pay reliefs until the age of majority (16 for girls and 21 for boys) and remained his wards with the rights to all the income his until they came of age and paid their reliefs. The king often granted these wardships to his household knights, whom then became the warden/guardian of the heir with all the funds from that estate until the heir came of age and paid the king a relief. Note: that though the English kings always claimed to be everyone's liege lord, the knights usually treated as their liege whomever gave them the land.

There were two alternative to this Royal feudalism. Under early feudalism every castellany was essentially it's own kingdom, with the castellan (this term really means the lord of a castle not his official). Under this system the fee would go to whomever the homage of the castellany decided. They could follow custom, but they decided what was custom, so could change it too. The lord could also try to get them to do whatever he wanted, in any case could do whatever he wanted until the homage decided the case, in short the knight of the lord decided whom the heir was.
Under normal feudalism/intermediate feudalism powerful nobles centered on a province with several castles had become "kings" in their provinces, but subject to the king in their dealings with each other. Their provinces were essentially like the modern protectorates (well, modern if one considers the 19th and 20th centuries modern). the case would be decided by the count's homage (aka the castellans/castle lords whom were the count's homage) or just by either the castellan's homage or just the count's lessor homage (made up of his personal knights) in the case of a simple knight. In the case was about whom was the rightful heir of one of these counties or the throne itself the king's homage (AKA his peers) would decide the heir. Any normal heir had to be acclaimed by the homage even if royal and the customary heir.

Have I confused you enough, I'm not done yet ;). If a freeman or woman did not like the results of any of these courts they could always demand trial by combat or war in the case of kings, examples Edward I was not legitimately the heir to France under Salic law and certainly not after the French peerage had elected their king, but decided to go for the trial by war starting the hundred year war, Count William of Normandy was not the legitimate king of England once the English peerage acclaimed Harold as king, despite Harold having signed over the kingdom to Count William to have his life spared by him. William the bastard went for trial by war to claim his "inheritance".

Welcome to the real middle ages all messy and confusing - just like any real time period.

Nice post, Snaggle. One quick correction, Edward III started the Hundred Years War, not Edward I.

As for dealing with Pendragon players in game, I tend to try and find out what they would like to be done, as players, in these cases. If they like the idea of playing the uncle muscling in, fine by me. If they prefer to use the uncle as a 'temporary PK' until the girl marries, that is fine, too. The intent is to have fun, in the end.

Also to those who answer and decide to read that if the father's knights are truly loyal to their now dead lord they may protect the lands and follow the daughter as their new liege lords if she was of strong enough character. It was not unheard of but it was still quite rare. Something you also have to take in consideration is which era its happening in because in Uther's it would be harder for the daughter to hold it while in Arthur's even at its most desperate was still considerably easier for a woman to hold the lands.

Nice post, Snaggle. One quick correction, Edward III started the Hundred Years War, not Edward I.

As for dealing with Pendragon players in game, I tend to try and find out what they would like to be done, as players, in these cases. If they like the idea of playing the uncle muscling in, fine by me. If they prefer to use the uncle as a 'temporary PK' until the girl marries, that is fine, too. The intent is to have fun, in the end.


:-[ I did type the devil long shanks, You're right of course Edward I was a typo :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :(
Letting the players decide is always the preferred - provided one can keep them from getting the camel's nose into the tent. There are plenty of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" types in real life.

Letting the players decide is always the preferred - provided one can keep them from getting the camel's nose into the tent. There are plenty of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" types in real life.


True, true... I actually was chatting about a similar thing with one player recently, and the comment the player made struck a chord. The point was that as long as the players worked for their manors, then it is alright when they get to keep the control of them despite some familial misfortune.

For instance, we have currently one PK that has been 'OOCly destined' to marry an heiress of that player's previous character's daughter (the heiress, too young still). So unless he screws up royally, the events will conspire to let him marry the girl, and hence the player will get 'his' manors back.

This has been answered, I think


What happens if a player knight dies and has only a single daughter? She cannot inherit, right?

Wrong. She does inherit it. She is an heiress.
This is why knights prefer to marry a woman without brother!


In that case, who would inherit the knight's estate? A younger brother, I guess?

If she is young, someone has to take care of the estate. Legally, it goes to her father's liege lord,who may sell the right to care for it to a custodian, who collects the money from it until she is married.


If that daughter gets married later, does she convey any of her late father's estate to her new husband?

Yes, all of it.

The player in question has decided he wants to play his eldest daughter as a women knight.

And so we venture bravely off the path...