One of my players is cooporating with his potential future wifes family in an effort to make them recieve some of her inheritance.
Why would anybody do such a thing you might ask.
In essence it comes down to winning her hand, the PK has been wooing said lady and they are both very much in love, problem is that it is the earl who has the final say in who is going to marry her and with the lady being the heiress to 3 manors it would be unlikely that the knight would be able to earn her hand.
Solution: have the lady give the one of the manors to her esquire uncle in a way that he becomes the direct vassal of the earl, thereby reducing the dowry.

My questions:
would this be possible?
what would the repercussions be?
and how would the different parties react to such an idea?

My questions:
would this be possible?
what would the repercussions be?
and how would the different parties react to such an idea?


I don't really see an upside for the Earl, though? If anything, he loses out on the value of his ward (the lady), whose manors are his until she marries. The Lady's Family doesn't have anything to say about it.

Now, if the lady were to offer one manor back to the Earl, that might be another thing altogether... As far as I know, if the vassal and the liege agree on such a transfer, it is legal, and it definitely would be to the Earl's benefit.

However, there might be some suspicion of coercion and of course her family (who don't get a say now, either) would be unhappy as it means their family loses out (surely the rich lady would support her less fortunate kinsmen, and so forth). Other vassals might worry a bit that this sets up a precedent, the Liege forbidding marriage until the heiress hands over at least some of her manors.

It is definitely rare for something like this to happen.

My questions:
would this be possible?
what would the repercussions be?
and how would the different parties react to such an idea?


I don't really see an upside for the Earl, though? If anything, he loses out on the value of his ward (the lady), whose manors are his until she marries. The Lady's Family doesn't have anything to say about it.

Now, if the lady were to offer one manor back to the Earl, that might be another thing altogether... As far as I know, if the vassal and the liege agree on such a transfer, it is legal, and it definitely would be to the Earl's benefit.

However, there might be some suspicion of coercion and of course her family (who don't get a say now, either) would be unhappy as it means their family loses out (surely the rich lady would support her less fortunate kinsmen, and so forth). Other vassals might worry a bit that this sets up a precedent, the Liege forbidding marriage until the heiress hands over at least some of her manors.

It is definitely rare for something like this to happen.


Interesting points you bring up. Especially about the dangerous precedence they would be setting.

about what the earl would stand to earn from the original arrangement, the assumption is that direct vassals are more valuable than vassals of vassals. and therefor having this heiress give a manor back to the earl under the agreement that he in turn bequeaths it to one from her family is both good for the earl and the ladies family.

but the rest of the court might not be pleased as you mention

One of my players is cooporating with his potential future wifes family in an effort to make them recieve some of her inheritance.
Why would anybody do such a thing you might ask.
In essence it comes down to winning her hand, the PK has been wooing said lady and they are both very much in love, problem is that it is the earl who has the final say in who is going to marry her and with the lady being the heiress to 3 manors it would be unlikely that the knight would be able to earn her hand.
Solution: have the lady give the one of the manors to her esquire uncle in a way that he becomes the direct vassal of the earl, thereby reducing the dowry.

My questions:
would this be possible?

No.
If the lady owes knight-service for these manors then the knight would still owe the same service to the earl
If this is an early Period, why did that worthless woman get the inheritance when there is a manly brother of her father who could qualify as heir?


what would the repercussions be?

If the knight tried any of those shenanigans he would still be married, but the earl would probably take it to court and get all three manors back to himself


and how would the different parties react to such an idea?

The earl would do the above
the uncle would finagle to get one of those manors for his own
the lady would be sad, because now her husband is unable to support her in the life style she is used to
The knight would probably get a reputation as a wheeler-dealer who is not very smart

If this is an early Period, why did that worthless woman get the inheritance when there is a manly brother of her father who could qualify as heir?


I was under the impression that the inheritance laws were male-preference cognatic primogeniture which would mean if i am not mistaken that daughters of the deceased goes before brothers of the deceased.

is this wrong

That is correct. That's how the rules are written at the moment.

Now I wouldn't mind as such if the rules of inheritance were different in Uther's day, i.e. skipping to uncles rather than daughters, reflecting the more martial nature of the landholding in those early days, but that is not how it currently is:
- Countess Ellen is an heiress.
- there are example heiresses (including potentially the one under discussion?)

Of course, a claim could be made that those heiresses didn't have any knightly uncles, but it is starting to be a bit of a stretch... Also, it would require rewriting the inheritance rules to make this distinction.

During Anarchy, of course, anything goes, and an usurping Uncle is a staple of literature in Arthurian sagas and after (Hamlet, anyone?).

If this is an early Period, why did that worthless woman get the inheritance when there is a manly brother of her father who could qualify as heir?

I was under the impression that the inheritance laws were male-preference cognatic primogeniture which would mean if i am not mistaken that daughters of the deceased goes before brothers of the deceased.
is this wrong

That is exactly my point