As mentioned by me and others, I find the heiresses of Salisbury in KAP to be way off balance.
Here they are as revised, so far, for the Book of Salisbury

I recently had to redo these a bit. The entries ae below, and I've removed these to avoid confusion.

So here are my questions:
1. How much would the relief be for each? Ie how much does a knight need to pay to the Earl to marry each.
2. What are the years of birth for the ladies ( I note lady Indeg is listed as 40 in KAP 5.1 so I guess she was born in 445?)
3. Do any of them have children? If so what right do those children have to inherit the holdings?
4. What glory does a knight get for marrying each?
5. Where are the manors located? Are they in Salisbury ( in which case they are not on the complete map of Salisbury manors )?
6. What does the bit in brackets mean after each item of holdings? Ie Lady Gwiona has Treebridge manor ( £15.5, Wheelwell H., held by Sir Brian) - what does this mean?

The way I had played it was that for each manor you had a knight to do all the knightly things. In the case of these ladies without a husband either the lady had a knight living at the manor with a temporary right to stay and effectively costing the lady £4 (or £6 if the knight had a family) or the Earl had one of his household knights living at the manor and he used the rest of the income to keep the lady - keeping some for himself. Is that right?

My stab at answering your questions...

1. I think relief = 1 year's income. (Note, I don't have Book of the Estate, where I think it is explained, so I can't check.)

2. Adwen is underage, so I'd say less than 15 or so. Could make her like 12, to have some time for her to grow up and be still in her prime during the start of Anarchy. Indeg is clearly old (either 45 as in here or 40 as in the rulebook). The others I'd make between 16 and early 20s. Gwiona has had four suitors already, and is apparently quite trusted by the Countess, so I'd think something like 21 might work for her? Which would leave Elaine around 16-18? I'd tend to 'lowball' the ages of heiresses usually at the start, since it will take the PKs some time to earn enough Glory and stature and loot to compete for these ladies.

3. Since no children are mentioned, I'd assume they don't have any (especially since only Lady Indeg has been married before). Besides, having children would render them much less appealing marriage prospects: as heiresses their ELDEST son inherits the lot. If they'd already have a son from a previous marriage, the best you can hope is being the guardian of the kid until he grows of age (or for your lifespan, if you go with that rule). If there woudl only be girls, that would be relatively OK as your son with the heiress would be her eldest son and hence inherit it all. If only daughters survive, then they'd split the inheritance equally.

4. I think the official ruling is: Marriage Glory = Lady's Glory (max 1000).

5. They are in Salisbury, but using the new naming system. I forget if the new names are coming out with Book of the Warlord or if they are already in the Book of Estate.

6. Lady Gwiona is an odd case. She has Treebridge manor, which has the income of £15.5 and is located in the Wheelwell Hundred (subdivision of the county), and it is held by Sir Brian, who is her vassal knight(?). But this means that she doesn't have 'her own' manor, which is very strange. Greg, is this a mistake on your part, for surely as a vassal knight, Sir Brian would get the whole £15.5 lot and then Gwiona is left with nothing (no servitum debtum either, though)? Sir Brian is not explicitly mentioned as a vavasour, unlike Adwen's vassal knights, so perhaps Sir Brian is just the household knight assigned by the Count for the duration? But why wouldn't the other ladies have a similar arrangement then? If Sir Brian is a vavasour, then by marrying Lady Gwiona, the PK will gain a vassal knight, but no extra income of any sort.

The Count or whichever guardian for the lady has been appointed by the Count is responsible for honoring the knight service (servitum debtum) mentioned. So in the normal case, the Count being the guardian, he would get all the income, support the lady, and assign a household knight (if he so chooses) to look after the estate. Being the Count, he probably could leave the spot unfulfilled and just pocket the money, especially if he already has enough of an army to answer the muster of the King. If a PK marries a heiress who has 1 knight servitum debtum (like Lady Elaine), and he already has 1 knight servitum debtum from his own manor, he will have to hire a household knight so that he can bring 2 knights to the Count's muster, one from each manor.

5. They are in Salisbury, but using the new naming system. I forget if the new names are coming out with Book of the Warlord or if they are already in the Book of Estate.

Look under "Once and Future Game" section
"Winterborne Gunner" thread


6. Lady Gwiona is an odd case. She has Treebridge manor, which has the income of £15.5 and is located in the Wheelwell Hundred (subdivision of the county), and it is held by Sir Brian, who is her vassal knight(?). But this means that she doesn't have 'her own' manor, which is very strange. Greg, is this a mistake on your part, for surely as a vassal knight, Sir Brian would get the whole £15.5 lot and then Gwiona is left with nothing (no servitum debtum either, though)?

Yep, an error
Make it Reedbed Manor, £12 render, Roedeer Hundred
or in modern parlance
Rowde, Pottern Hundred

How about Lady Jenna? Is her dowry still the same (5 demesne manors, 5 enfeoffed manors, the town of Upavon)?

How about Lady Jenna? Is her dowry still the same (5 demesne manors, 5 enfeoffed manors, the town of Upavon)?

What a paltry dowry!
Ten manors and a town!
What is she, the daughter of a banneret!?
I'll figure this out properly after I speak to her father

What a paltry dowry!
Ten manors and a town!
What is she, the daughter of a banneret!?
I'll figure this out properly after I speak to her father


Eh... Greg... That is already more than most Bannerets -own-. That would be the equivalent of being a rich Banneret's heiress.

Granted, it is what, about 10% of Salisbury? And she is the only daughter, as far as I know. But given that most of the heiresses got scaled way way way down, I am not sure it is a great idea to give Jenna a much bigger dowry.

Here is a question about that dowry, by the way. If, lets say, a Baron were to marry her:
1) Ẁould the Baron swear fealty for those dowry manors to the Count of Salisbury? I assume he would, in order to keep the County intact. On the other hand, that does result in an unholy patchwork of lordships in a couple of generations, as people marry back and forth between duchies and so forth.
Or
2) Would the dowry lands transfer out of the Count's control and become part of the Baron's lands, and he would swear fealty for them to the King directly?

OK, some easy stuff!
:)


Here is a question about that dowry, by the way. If, lets say, a Baron were to marry her:
1) Ẁould the Baron swear fealty for those dowry manors to the Count of Salisbury? I assume he would, in order to keep the County intact. On the other hand, that does result in an unholy patchwork of lordships in a couple of generations, as people marry back and forth between duchies and so forth.

This is the correct answer
Yep, confusing and unholy
Sometime, like late Romance or so (I am quite unsure of the date) the king makes a law that allows the "sale" of land, which sort of makes things easier
sometimes

OK, some easy stuff!
:)


Here is a question about that dowry, by the way. If, lets say, a Baron were to marry her:
1) Ẁould the Baron swear fealty for those dowry manors to the Count of Salisbury? I assume he would, in order to keep the County intact. On the other hand, that does result in an unholy patchwork of lordships in a couple of generations, as people marry back and forth between duchies and so forth.

This is the correct answer
Yep, confusing and unholy
Sometime, like late Romance or so (I am quite unsure of the date) the king makes a law that allows the "sale" of land, which sort of makes things easier
sometimes


What if Jenna is married to a nobleman of higher rank than her father? Would a duke or a king need to swear fealty to Count Roderick for her dowry lands?

What if Jenna is married to a nobleman of higher rank than her father? Would a duke or a king need to swear fealty to Count Roderick for her dowry lands?


Yes, unless the king happens to be Roderick's King (i.e. Uther). I guess Madog would do as well. But otherwise, a duke would have to swear fealty for -those- lands.

Analoguous situation is King Henry II of England, who was also a powerful noble on the mainland, his lands stretching from the Pyrenees to the Channel thanks to his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine. Since those continental possessions were held from the King of France (who controlled directly only the territory know as Ile de France around Paris), Duke Henry of Normandy and Aquitaine, the Count of Poitou, Anjou and Maine, etc... was a vassal of the King of France. But King Henry II of England wasn't. And that was a right big mess that continued until the end of the Hundred Years' War.

What if Jenna is married to a nobleman of higher rank than her father? Would a duke or a king need to swear fealty to Count Roderick for her dowry lands?



Analoguous situation is King Henry II of England, who was also a powerful noble on the mainland, his lands stretching from the Pyrenees to the Channel thanks to his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine. Since those continental possessions were held from the King of France (who controlled directly only the territory know as Ile de France around Paris), Duke Henry of Normandy and Aquitaine, the Count of Poitou, Anjou and Maine, etc... was a vassal of the King of France. But King Henry II of England wasn't. And that was a right big mess that continued until the end of the Hundred Years' War.


Certainly true. However, both Henry of England and Louis of France were kings, and thus equal at least in theory. However, I see it as a little bit problematic that a king or a duke would swear fealty to a "mere" count, who after all is their social inferior.

The difference between a count and a duke was not huge, historically. It is mostly precedence of titles rather than any subordinate status otherwise, although there was the Duchy of Aquitaine which did have vassal counts (Anguileme, for instance).

So I would not see a problem as long as the person was not in the 'chain of command', so to speak. Secondly, no one forces you to marry an heiress if you are not willing to give your fealty to the heiress' feudal superior. Or, perhaps, the discussion is about a Count's eldest daughter (Jenna in this case), who has a dowry of manors. In Jenna's case, her husband would likely be selected so that he is an ally, and hence would have no problem bending a knee before the Count. With her stated dowry, around 10% of the whole honour of Salsbury (or whatever it is called), that is unlikely to lure any Dukes or Kings. However, it might be enough to get Baron interested, and hence the problem of superiority of title is avoided.

I admit, it would be much easier to just allow the transfer of land & responsibilities directly, with the blessing of the King, but that would also mean losing pieces of your estate for good with the dowries of your daughters.

Certainly true. However, both Henry of England and Louis of France were kings, and thus equal at least in theory. However, I see it as a little bit problematic that a king or a duke would swear fealty to a "mere" count, who after all is their social inferior.

That doesn't matter
they have to swear or the land isn't turned over to them

How about Lady Jenna? Is her dowry still the same (5 demesne manors, 5 enfeoffed manors, the town of Upavon)?

What a paltry dowry!
Ten manors and a town!
What is she, the daughter of a banneret!?
I'll figure this out properly after I speak to her father


Just to give another data point, Eleanor of Leicester, the sister of Henry III, the daughter of King John, when she married William Marshal the 2nd Earl of Pembroke (the son of the famous William Marshal):
"Eleanor had brought a dowry of 10 manors and 200 pounds per year..." (from Wikipedia)
Unfortunately, the historical pounds and Pendragon pounds are not directly comparable as far as I know, but if we assume that the manors would generally be 1:1, then we see that a princess would be getting roughly the same dowry as Jenna is.

Just to give another data point, Eleanor of Leicester, the sister of Henry III, the daughter of King John, when she married William Marshal the 2nd Earl of Pembroke (the son of the famous William Marshal):
"Eleanor had brought a dowry of 10 manors and 200 pounds per year..." (from Wikipedia)
Unfortunately, the historical pounds and Pendragon pounds are not directly comparable as far as I know, but if we assume that the manors would generally be 1:1, then we see that a princess would be getting roughly the same dowry as Jenna is.


Depends on the size of the manors, that was late middle ages... and 200 pounds PER YEAR?! A Market Town doesn't come close to that. :o

Depends on the size of the manors, that was late middle ages... and 200 pounds PER YEAR?! A Market Town doesn't come close to that. :o


Please note that the historical pound is different from Pendragon pound. For instance, the Crown income in 1300 during times of peace was around £30000. There is almost one zero more there than what is expected in KAP. Also, I don't know in that reference if the £200 / year was in addition to the manors or just stating the value of the manors.

Jenna has 5 demesne manors, 5 enfeoffed manors and the town of Upavon, which produces £15 annually. So while I admit that the Princess' dowry was much better, it was not incomparably better, and was given from a royal estate that is something like 20 times the size of Salisbury. Thus, Jenna's dowry represents a bigger chunk of Salisbury than Eleanor's did of the crown lands. Which is kind of my point: Jenna's dowry is relatively more generous than the princess' already, so I don't see a reason to beef it up even more.

Can someone explain to me (or Greg, :) ), how did he arrive at the values listed under each heiress? Thanks.

Can someone explain to me (or Greg, :) ), how did he arrive at the values listed under each heiress? Thanks.


Pulled them out of his hat (or whatever conjuring tool he uses), is my guess. :)

Given that the vassal knights have become 'rare' in the current vision of Salisbury given Greg's comments on the Forum (something like 20% of the manors are held by the Count's vassals, the rest are the Count's demesne manors), the heiresses holding several manor each does not fit with that vision at all. Holding a Manor is a Big Deal. Holding more than one is a HUGE DEAL. Hence, the heiresses have been toned down, and I presume Greg has just been rolling some dice to come up with 'about £10' manor values to show that not all manors are exactly £10 in value.

Also, demesne manor doesn't mean what it used to mean at some point (free money). Instead, it means that it is held by the title holder directly, not enfeoffed to another, different knight. You'll still need to provide a knight for it. In other words, the starting manors are the PKs' 'demesne manors' since they are holding it. If one of them marries an heiress with one demesne manor, the PK will have two manors he holds directly, but needs to get a household knight since two manors = 2 knights required by the liege. If the heiress has vassal knights of her own, then those manors will not be accounted by the PK: all the extra income (or losses) are for the vassal knight to enjoy; he will just show up as the extra knight for his manor.

Can someone explain to me (or Greg, :) ), how did he arrive at the values listed under each heiress? Thanks.

40 years of game design, my friend.
40 years.
And an idea of how I want to meet my objectives
so yea: pulled it out of my ol' beano :)

OK, some easy stuff!
:)


Here is a question about that dowry, by the way. If, lets say, a Baron were to marry her:
1) Ẁould the Baron swear fealty for those dowry manors to the Count of Salisbury? I assume he would, in order to keep the County intact. On the other hand, that does result in an unholy patchwork of lordships in a couple of generations, as people marry back and forth between duchies and so forth.

This is the correct answer
Yep, confusing and unholy
Sometime, like late Romance or so (I am quite unsure of the date) the king makes a law that allows the "sale" of land, which sort of makes things easier
sometimes


What if Jenna is married to a nobleman of higher rank than her father? Would a duke or a king need to swear fealty to Count Roderick for her dowry lands?



Does that mean that Earl Roderick had to swear fealty to the Duke of Silchester for the lands in Countess Ellen's dowry? I was under the impression those lands were part of Salisbury.

Those lands ARE in the county of Salisbury
But if Ellen's father owed the king knight service for them, then Roderick would have had to swear fealty to that lord
However, she was a single heiress, so when her father died the responsibility passed right to Roderi8ck







OK, some easy stuff!
:)


Here is a question about that dowry, by the way. If, lets say, a Baron were to marry her:
1) Ẁould the Baron swear fealty for those dowry manors to the Count of Salisbury? I assume he would, in order to keep the County intact. On the other hand, that does result in an unholy patchwork of lordships in a couple of generations, as people marry back and forth between duchies and so forth.

This is the correct answer
Yep, confusing and unholy
Sometime, like late Romance or so (I am quite unsure of the date) the king makes a law that allows the "sale" of land, which sort of makes things easier
sometimes


What if Jenna is married to a nobleman of higher rank than her father? Would a duke or a king need to swear fealty to Count Roderick for her dowry lands?



Does that mean that Earl Roderick had to swear fealty to the Duke of Silchester for the lands in Countess Ellen's dowry? I was under the impression those lands were part of Salisbury.

OK, that clears it up quite a bit. Thanks Greg.

My next question is, would this be common knowledge to a player knight, or would it be something he would have to pass a successful intrigue or stewardship roll to know?

I think the fact that the Countess was an heiress is common knowledge. After all, she is the 'liege lady' of the knights, not some random stranger.

If you were asking about the way the inheritance / fealty rules work, they should know those, too. It is bread and butter for the knights, comparable to knowing the road signs by a modern car driver.

I was referring to the latter. Thanks for the answer!

I have had to make some changes to the holdings of these fine women. I had forgotten that Wheelwell was conquered shortly before this list was made, and hence the ladies would not have held land from Count Salisbury there.
To avoid confusion, I have taken the liberty of removing the previous entry like this.

Chief Heiresses of Salisbury County
Many women live in the county, but these are the one who are available and have holdings sufficient to be worthy of marriage to a vavasour.
The holdings (and a few other minor things) have been changed from those in KAP5.1. The original holdings were much too large, created before the detailed economic system had been developed. These are more appropriate, but Gamemasters may choose to change them as they see fit.

Custodians of Heiresses
When all male family members die and leave an heiress her holdings are assigned to the care of a custodian. Such custodianship is considered to be a valuable prize. He oversees her land and collects its profits as long as she is unwed. He also decides who she will marry, and will collect money, called a relief, from whomever he decides will get her hand in wedlock. A custodian who is single may choose to marry her himself.
Count Roderick is the default custodian, but he may also grant custodianship to whomever he wishes, as he has to * and * here.

Lady Adwen
Glory 740; 46.3 Glory per year
APP 18
The young, underage daughter of Sir Bles, who was killed in battle, has inherited a considerable holding. She is heir to one manor of her own, plus three occupied by knights in vassalage to her.
Custodian
Open
Servitum Debitum
Four knights, three of them vavasours
Four Spearmen
Four Crossbowmen
Four garrison crossbowmen
Holdings £43.8
Aldertree Manor (£13.7, Alder H.)
Swallowcliff Manor (£11.1, Hillfort H., held by Sir James)
Sedgehill Manor (£8, Hillfort H., held by Sir Dylan)
Downriver Town (£13.4, Elmstump H., held by Sir Baldwin)

Lady Indeg
Glory 2,840; 23 Glory per year
APP 12
Lady Indeg is 45-year-old woman has been widowed twice and so can choose her own husband this time. But she is lonely and would like a knight to keep her company. Lord de Falt, father of her second husband, contests (and holds) her widow’s share of land from her second wedding.
Custodian
None
Servitum Debitum
Two household knights
Four guardsmen
Two garrison guardsmen
Holdings £25.4 (+£3.2, possibly)
Annas Manor (£9 Annaswater H.)
Straightford Manor (£13.4 Barehill H.)
Westrocky (Widow's Holding; Gift; £3, Barehill H.)
Southtown (£3.2; disputed, widow’s portion)

Lady Gwiona
Glory 856; 15 Glory per year
APP 16
She is the second handmaiden of Countess Ellen. She has never been married. Her last four suitors all were killed in war shortly after proposing to her, but the priest says she is not really unlucky.
Custodian
Open
Servitum Debitum
one
Holdings £15.5
Forest House Manor (£16.4 render, Vagon H)

Lady Elaine
Glory 258; 10 Glory/year
APP 18
Elaine is a beautiful woman whose father was killed by her mother’s lover who was subsequently hanged for killing a knight. Her mother was sent to Ambrius Nunnery in shame, leaving this manor to her only child.
Custodian
Open
Servitum Debitum
One knight
Holdings £9.8
Tinyhouse South Manor (£9.8, Annaswater H.)

I hope you don't mind, Greg, if I attach a little rant to your thread... Since I feel it fits best with this revision thread.

While Your Pendragon May (Will) Vary...
I keep seeing it again and again in many campaigns: the 'default assumption' is that since the main rulebook has all these heiresses, they are intended for the starting PKs to woo and win as their wives. And unfortunately, often as soon as possible, within a session or two. This is not how it is supposed to go, IMHO. Heiresses are RARE, and one of the primary means that the Count can use to reward knights who have gone way beyond in heroism and skill and loyalty. Your 21-year old starting knight has a snowball's chance in Hell distinguishing himself in a couple of years enough to be given one of these extremely rare treasures (Lady Indeg may be the exception, if she gets to pick her next husband, and the PK happens to have APP in the high teens).


HOW RARE ARE THE HEIRESSES?

Very, in the post-BotW era, where the number of vassals to household knights is 20% or less, which means you have maybe around 20 vassal knights in Salisbury (or even less, since the Count actually doesn't rule the WHOLE of Salisbury Plain). Usually, 3-5 of these are the PKs already, further diminishing the pool from which the (non-PK family) heiresses come. I did some number crunching on this way back when:
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2063.0
The revised BotE survival rolls are different from the ones used here... the father's survival chance follows that of the Wartime (Raid +1) section, but the children are using the peacetime rolls, so the number of children should be much closer to the peacetime one. So I probably should rerun the calculations at some point with the new odds. In any case, the main point is that we have probably something around 15% possibility (1 in 6) of a situation where there is a heiress or co-heiresses (say fifty-fifty split). So having something like 10 available manors, you'd expect ONE heiress per generation, and ONE manor to be shared between co-heiresses.

Of course, major battles such as those in 480, 484, 490 and 495 may result in more manors becoming available, but remember that in many of those cases, there would be sons, too. And it takes just one son to pre-empt heiresses. Since it is rare that the knights get slaughtered left and right (apart from Battle of Badon & Camlann, both of which are extremely bloody even for the winning side), you wouldn't expect more than 10% losses generally, maybe 20% if it is really bad (Battle of Eburacum, maybe St. Albans & Salisbury). So that is what, an additional manor or two going to the next heir? However, since many of those dead knights would have sons or brothers, there is actually a lower chance that the manor would default to an heiress. Maybe if you are feeling generous, it would be something like 25% chance for an heiress / co-heiress. So judging from that, you'd expect something of the order of 0.5 heiresses in 480, 0.5 heiresses in 484, 0.25 heiresses in 490 and 0.5 heiresses in 495, for a total of 'extra' 2 heiresses or so per generation, for a total of 2 heiresses and 2 co-heiress manors (something like 1d6: 1-3 two heiresses, 4-5 three, 6 four; I think BotEntourage used 1d3+1 for simplicity).

KAP 5.1 already has four heiresses, which is as many as you'd actually expect in a generation (especially since all of them are single heiresses, rather than co-heiresses), even given all the battles during 480 - 495. Of course, GMs can ignore the above calculations as much as they want; after all, having fun is the main thing and if your plotline requires an heiress, go for it! I am simply pointing out that marrying an heiress is the JACKPOT of your generation, NOT THE DEFAULT. (In addition, the above assumes that the inheritance is orderly, without an uncle or a bastard brother or a cousin managing to usurp the manor, as might easily happen during Anarchy.)


HOW TO GET AN HEIRESS (in my Campaign)?

Heiresses are a way for the Count to reward his knights with a manor without alienating his own lands (something he very very much doesn't want to do). Thus, it is a very potent carrot while at the same time not robbing the Count's heir of any of HIS lands. This being so, one should view the Heiresses as the primary means by which the Count would actually GRANT a manor to anyone who has deserved such preferment. One could look at BotE p. 18 for some examples (scaling down to a Count and a Manor level, rather than a King and an estate). Remember that the PKs are not the only ones clamoring for an heiress: there are loyal household knights who may have been fighting at the Count's side ever since he was knighted, and his father's before him, and who may have gained loads of Glory before you were even knighted. There might be other vassals, maybe even richer vassals, whose good will is worth more to the Liege Lord. Generally, though, once a PK starts breaking something like 4000 Glory, especially if the PK has managed to rack up some brownie points with the Liege (Sword Lake, doing well in battles, especially when he has seen the PK do well, etc), that is when in my campaign I would start thinking about the heiresses, waiting for the special something that would justify the reward (granted, if the PK single-handedly saves the Count's life, it doesn't matter if he has 1000 glory or 10000; he is getting rewarded!). After 8000, I'd probably be of the opinion that the PK has already proven his worth well enough that even in the absence of a singular event, his collective service is enough to deserve to be rewarded. Of course, there is a high chance that the PK is already married with children by that point, but that is the luck of the draw. A gifted manor (life-time gift) might still find its way to the PK's keeping, as a 'thank-you' from a grateful liege lord, or perhaps a ward manor (the heir is still a kid and you get to look after him and the manor while he grows up... a good chance to arrange a marriage of your (second) daughter to him, too).

Frankly, it would likely be easier to convince the potential-heiress' still-living father to marry the girl off to the PK, on the off-chance that he might snuff it. However, such 'potential-heiresses' are also primary targets for suitors coming from wealthy vassal knights (£20 - £40) or actual estate holders (£50 - £100). If the PK is a single manor knight, wouldn't it make sense for the girl's father to marry her daughter even better, say, to an estate holder? Yes, yes it would. And this of course means that the available pool of heiresses shrinks even more (since now even if the father dies, the girl is no longer available).

If a knight is already married, would an appropriate reward from the Count perhaps be the Custodianship of an heiress?

It's worth noting that while the heiress remains unmarried, if the Count is her Custodian, those lands are contributing to the coffers of the County, and with the high percentage of enfoeffed land in Salisbury, this might be a considerable benefit.

If a knight is already married, would an appropriate reward from the Count perhaps be the Custodianship of an heiress?


A very good point. That would also allow the PK to 'reward' his own son with the heiress, thus allowing the transfer of the manor to the next generation. This of course would require that the heiress is young enough and/or the son is old enough.



It's worth noting that while the heiress remains unmarried, if the Count is her Custodian, those lands are contributing to the coffers of the County, and with the high percentage of enfoeffed land in Salisbury, this might be a considerable benefit.


True, but it is not not that huge a benefit. While Count Roderick is in charge, he is getting loads of 'free income' from his fee farms, as seen in BotW. He still needs to support a knight and 3 foot soldiers (£5.5 per £10) from the manor, and even if you allow the rest of it to become Free Income (rather than just the 10% to Lord's Standard of Living and 10% Discretionary Funds), this is still only £4.5 per manor, compared to the Count's Discretionary Funds of £187.2. This is 2.4% increase. And as I said in the previous post, you wouldn't expect more than 4 manors to be in this state per generation (although when you add those manors with underaged MALE heirs, you will probably at least double it). So, in the end, we are talking about something in the 20% - 25% range ALTOGETHER for the Count (remember, this assumes it all goes to Free Income, which it probably shouldn't... at least you'd need some more administration at some point, so you'd easily lower that to 15% - 20% range, or even to 10% or so if you take £2 per manor as your yardstick). Sure, it is nice, but probably not a primary motivation for hanging onto the heiresses; I still think the primary motivation is to use them as 'bait' to exhort the followers to greater heroics, and to reward those who have done something great.

Now, during the Anarchy, things change somewhat. The Countess is left with only the Salisbury proper, something of the order of £800 (or closer to £1200 if she claims all the other holdings within Salisbury), and one fee farm. So she takes about 50% hit to the Discretionary Funds, and one might be looking at quite a few wards at this stage, maybe even more than usual. That being the case, one might be looking at a 50% increase to the Discretionary Funds due to ward manors. At the same time, though, she is facing more pressure to reward her followers to shore up her position, and those Saxon tribute payments make those ward manors less of a prize than they otherwise would be. So I wouldn't expect her to sit on those manors forever, either.

Nice rant Morien
I approve