One of my player-knights was finally granted an Estate by King Arthur, so I'm trying to build it and go through The Book of the Estate. I'm not prone to spend a lot of time on details, but I enjoy knowing what stuff means. My first question is Held by Others. Is this something that's actually within the estate but held by others which are not vassals to the knight who was granted an estate?
What purpose does this entry serve in the game, besides providing a more realistic approach to estate building?

First, let us be clear on something: an estate is NOT automatically the same as a hundred. Estate can be anything from a collection of manors all around Logres to a part of a hundred or encompassing the whole of a hundred. An estate is what is being granted to a nobleman, a hundred is an administrative division of the kingdom.

In the Book of the Estate, the example estates are clear about this, IMHO. The "Held by Others" are landholders in the same HUNDRED where the estate is. Hence, those lands are included when the Hundred Court profits are calculated, whether they are granted to the estate or not: estate + held by others = the whole hundred.

So, as an example, lets say we have a hundred that is worth £75. King grants £50 of that as an estate to a PK, along with the hundred court profits. Hence, the player would write down something like:

Shakespear estate
Holdings: £50 + £2.3

Avonlea hundred (part), County: £50 + £2.3
Assized Rent: £50 in render
Hundred Court Profits: £2.3 (3% of £75)
Held by Others: £25

The "Held by Others" is simply other lands in the hundred which are not in any way part of the estate, but contribute towards the Hundred Court Profits. They are not vassals of the estate. The entry serves a function of realism, since Greg had all those hundreds with values derived from the Domesday Book. Needless to say, they don't always come up with a neat, even £50 per hundred (almost never, actually).

I hope this answers your question?

EDIT: It looks like Morien beat me to the punch, but I'll let this stand.

The 'held by others' section is for control of a given hundred in which an estate is located, not control of the estate itself. For example, the king may own all of Dwarin Hundred (50), then one day give someone a manor there (10). Later down the line, he wants to give his lands in Dwarin Hundred and its court away as an estate, but he can only endow as much land as he already has. So the estate looks like:

Dwarin Hundred (with court), Staffordshire
Customary Revenue: (51.5)
Assized Rent: (40)
Hundred Court Profits: (1.5)
Held by Others: (10)

The land held by others could be landed knights, widows, royal officers, outlying parcels held by other barons, abbeys, churches, anarcho-syndicalist communes (joking), etc.

I don't think this feature has or needs any other purpose than making sense, but I suppose if you're looking for one, it's to give you an idea of your neighbors.

Dwarin Hundred (with court), Staffordshire
Customary Revenue: (51.5)
Assized Rent: (40)
Hundred Court Profits: (1.5)
Held by Others: (10)


Small correction, the ESTATE would look like
Customary Revenue: (41.5)
since the Held by Others is not part of the Customary Revenue of the ESTATE. :)

The Hundred would look like:
Dwarin Hundred, Staffordshire
Customary Revenue: (51.5)
Assized Rent: (50)
Hundred Court Profits: (1.5)
Holdings: Estate (40+1.5), Manor (10)

In the Book of the Estate, the example estates are clear about this, IMHO. The "Held by Others" are landholders in the same HUNDRED where the estate is. Hence, those lands are included when the Hundred Court profits are calculated, whether they are granted to the estate or not: estate + held by others = the whole hundred.

Not very, but that is another topic.


The "Held by Others" is simply other lands in the hundred which are not in any way part of the estate, but contribute towards the Hundred Court Profits. They are not vassals of the estate. The entry serves a function of realism, since Greg had all those hundreds with values derived from the Domesday Book. Needless to say, they don't always come up with a neat, even £50 per hundred (almost never, actually).

I hope this answers your question?

It does, thanks. I don't care for such details since I tend to award players based on story considerations, etc. But it's always nice to know whatever something means.

This leads me to another question, which is more pertinent for my campaign:

On page, under Glory, The Book of Estate says (bold by me): "Knights receive 200 Glory upon being sworn in as an Estate Holder. If they have not previously been a landholding vassal knight (vavasour), they also get the 200 that they would have gotten for that honor. If the new lord also becomes a tenant of the king, he gets a one-time award of 100 Glory."

A) Does this mean the Estate can be granted by anyone else other than the king, for example, Earl Robert?

By the way, the knight was granted an Estate for upholding the Chivalrous code of Arthur and by becoming a Knight of the Round Table. Since I'm quite strict about these requirements, I considered an Estate a fit award for this specific player. This being said and following the question above:

B) If someone else other than the king can grant an Estate, would it be more appropriate to have this specific Estate, granted for these specific reasons, be granted by Arthur himself?

Note that there is a paragraph change between the final sentence and the preceding one. What it does mean is that if the vassal knight being elevated to an estate holder has already been a vassal knight to the king directly, he would just get 200 Glory (he would have gotten 200 + 100 for the original manor vassalhood, though). However, if he was a vassal knight to the Count of Salisbury, and now, with the estate, becomes a direct vassal (tenant) of the king, he gets 200 (estate) + 100 (tenant of the king) = 300 (and only 200 for the original manor vassal knight). In other words, the point about becoming the tenant of the king depends on the PREVIOUS vassal bond of the knight, not about the estate, since all estates are granted by the king.

p. 7 answers your questions fully: "Only the king can create a new estate and he alone has the power to dissolve one — and even then only if the estate comes back into his possession."

When the Estate holder marries his eldest daughter, he is entitled to a Universal Aid as stated in the KAP rulebook. Being that his vassals are going to pay up the event (including dowry), and since all his knights are household knights, can we consider all the peasants from all over the Estate his vassals? How does this work? Does he have to squeeze anything if peasants are considered his vassals for Universal Aid purposes?

In this case yes, the peasants are his vassals. I believe the way the universal aids work is that a special impost is levied that covers the cost of whatever is involved.

So, this means that - according to BoE - Universal Aid can go all the way up to a 100% squeeze with none of the harmful consequences?

BoE doesn't seem the Universal Aids, but yes I believe that's the general idea.

When you levy an impost arbitrarily, what you're basically doing is sending your armed men down to the village to go from house to house and rob the peasants at spear-point, possibly injuring a few and maybe occasionally killing someone. The damage done to your estate comes from your peasants running away to never return, some of who turn to banditry which further exasperates the economic situation.

The Universal Aids are 1-time-per-life special taxes that are deeply embedded in custom and law. Everyone knows what they're obligated to pay, it's like an extra onto their normal rent. I imagine the process is much slower and not as violent, which is why the estate doesn't suffer damage from it.

BoE doesn't seem the Universal Aids, but yes I believe that's the general idea.

When you levy an impost arbitrarily, what you're basically doing is sending your armed men down to the village to go from house to house and rob the peasants at spear-point, possibly injuring a few and maybe occasionally killing someone. The damage done to your estate comes from your peasants running away to never return, some of who turn to banditry which further exasperates the economic situation.

The Universal Aids are 1-time-per-life special taxes that are deeply embedded in custom and law. Everyone knows what they're obligated to pay, it's like an extra onto their normal rent. I imagine the process is much slower and not as violent, which is why the estate doesn't suffer damage from it.


Nothing much to add to that. :)

While the ransom can be more of a surprise, the knighting of the eldest son is usually known years in advance, giving the peasants time to prepare. Also, as the eldest daughter starts reaching the marriageable age, the peasants know that they are soon asked to pay for the dowry and the wedding. Again, they know in advance that it is coming and like Mr. 47 said, it is embedded in custom and law. It is not at the whim of the landlord.

Nothing much to add to that. :)

While the ransom can be more of a surprise, the knighting of the eldest son is usually known years in advance, giving the peasants time to prepare. Also, as the eldest daughter starts reaching the marriageable age, the peasants know that they are soon asked to pay for the dowry and the wedding. Again, they know in advance that it is coming and like Mr. 47 said, it is embedded in custom and law. It is not at the whim of the landlord.


Seems reasonable. Let us suppose the Estate Holder cannot adequately cover all the dowry + marriage expenses and wants to go raiding somewhere. What would be an appropriate region (529AD onward) to go raiding?

In 529 practically everywhere worth raiding is either ruled by Arthur or allied to Arthur. I suppose raiding Cornwall wouldn't stir up too much of a fuss from Arthur, but I would assume that the Cornish border is tighter than Fort Knox at the moment since the Irish are a non-issue, they only have that small stretch of land between the peninsula and the mainland to patrol.

Other than that, you could rent (or buy) a ship and pillage the tribal parts of Ireland if you really wanted to.

I think raiding is something that's supposed to be relegated to the early phases 480-518, and the twilight phase 558-565, before and after the flower of Camelot and Arthur's peace. What's supposed to substitute for raiding in that period is a) economic development made possible by the absence of raiding, primarily upgrading manors, b) Tournaments, and taking chargers + gear from knightly duels, and c) a legendarily generous King.


I know the question is academic, but how large an estate are we talking here? If it's the standard 50 libra, I would think the aid from that would be more than sufficient twice-over.

I know the question is academic, but how large an estate are we talking here? If it's the standard 50 libra, I would think the aid from that would be more than sufficient twice-over.

I used two sources to gauge the dowry for the eldest daughter of an estate holder:

1) Wife & Dowry Table (Book of Entourage, p. 19). The lowest possible roll with a result of Eldest Daughter, provides a wife with a dowry of (1d6+7)x5£. Assuming we roll the maximum, that's 13x5£ = 65£.

2) Your Dowry (Book of Entourage, p. 35), the Eldest Daughter of an Estate Holder entry is £3d20+45.

I could always go with the last option and say, the dowry and wedding are well covered by the universal aid (GM gets Arbitrary check, done!). :) That's what KAP implies.

I don't have Book of the Entourage, but surely those rolls are for the eldest daughters of other estate-holders, the kind the PK might marry, of whose financial status is unknown, who could be as wealthy as up to £150 or so. Going off KAP 5.1, it looks like maximum dowry = father's yearly income, shave some of that off and you have enough for the feast as well.

I don't have Book of the Entourage, but surely those rolls are for the eldest daughters of other estate-holders, the kind the PK might marry, of whose financial status is unknown, who could be as wealthy as up to £150 or so. Going off KAP 5.1, it looks like maximum dowry = father's yearly income, shave some of that off and you have enough for the feast as well.

Seems to me the entry on page 35 of the Book of Entourage is applicable to the daughters of player-knights (who can be played themselves).

Then again, I don't see why not: battles and raids and tournaments can be a great source of income (in fact, one of my players just won a Regal Tournament against everyone - he was using the simplified system in GPC, but still...).

Or, as I said, I can use only KAP and go with the whatever the Estate provides = dowry + marriage of daughter.

Mr.47 is right, the rule of the thumb is dowry = father's landholdings, and the rolls in BoEnt are simplifications, used for NPK fathers' decision about the dowry.

The variance in BoEnt can be due to richer (in land) father, or a father who has worked to gather more money (whether loot from raiding/war, adventuring, tournaments or simply saving some of the Discretionary Funds through the years). If the father is a PK, you shouldn't roll. Instead, the PK can decide for his daughter how much he wishes to/can put extra into her Dowry (past the annual income of the landholdings would be my personal ruling) to attract potential son-in-laws. The roll in page 35 is if the lady is played but the father is a NPK still, although I guess you could flip it and use it as a potential son-in-law's dowry expectation (which, if it is much above the father's holdings, clearly indicates that the s-in-l is famous or richer than the father).

As for your question about raiding in 529, your best bet would be to join Arthur's campaign in Galloway and Ireland and raid there. There are no good raiding opportunities in Logres: Welcome to Pax Arthuriana. Note, however, that during Pax Arthuriana the trade flourishes, and the widespread law and order (and absence of minor raids from bandits and Saxons) mean that the economy is booming. If you got your estate back in 518, you are likely making a mint in 530s onwards, probably even before. The other option is to start fighting in tournaments & challenges for armor, horse and/or ransom and hope to win. But in 529, many of the knights are out to war (and so should you be, as a loyal vassal of the king).

So dwarinpt I do have a question for you what culture are the players and what religion because the Bran's Head event happens in 529 along with the Anglian rebellions & Irish war begins. That being said for raiding other places your player knights could go would be the highlands of Wales who are not allied with Arthur and Northern highlands of Scotland with everything west of the highlands also being places that your player knights can go raiding. Also lets not forget the ever present war between the Dukes of Gloucester and Clarence.

So dwarinpt I do have a question for you what culture are the players and what religion because the Bran's Head event happens in 529 along with the Anglian rebellions & Irish war begins.

All are Cymric British Christian, although the connection with Bran's Head with unclear to me. :D


That being said for raiding other places your player knights could go would be the highlands of Wales who are not allied with Arthur and Northern highlands of Scotland with everything west of the highlands also being places that your player knights can go raiding. Also lets not forget the ever present war between the Dukes of Gloucester and Clarence.

The raiding part was just to a contingency in case the Universal Aid would be enough, but as others pointed out, it is. I agree that raiding, at this time, can be a difficult proposition. Most of the raidable kingdoms are far away and the logistics of it all can be daunting. Then again, the vikings raided Paris. Who knows what ambitious knights could do? Fortunately, there are still some battles to be fought, Ireland seems appealing (Pagan Shores), etc.

The reason I asked about the religion and culture is that many pagans would be very upset about the destruction of Bran's Head because it is a major holy site for them, and is a protector of the land. Along with the fact that it is the christian church that is destroying it may cause player knight if they were pagan to take up arms in defense of one of their holy sites.

That is why I had asked about the culture/religion.