We are making characters for a grand campaign in a couple of weeks and the GM has mentioned that if we change "history" then so be it. This led me to wondering what might be different if Guinevere was never with Arthur but someone else. I do not think it is all that possible but its an intresting thought so any advice on this would be appreciated. Where is she from? Which of the romancing skills should I focus on?

We are making characters for a grand campaign in a couple of weeks and the GM has mentioned that if we change "history" then so be it. This led me to wondering what might be different if Guinevere was never with Arthur but someone else. I do not think it is all that possible but its an intresting thought so any advice on this would be appreciated. Where is she from? Which of the romancing skills should I focus on?

What year are you starting? If Uther is the king when you start, you're probably not going to meet Guinevere with your first character, at least not as a grown woman. Guinevere's father is King Leodegrance of Cameliard, a minor kingdom in northeastern Wales (Cambria) that borders and is firmly allied to Logres. The Round Table was a wedding gift to Arthur for Leodegrance, as part of Guinevere's dowry, so if Arthur never marries Guinevere, there will be no Round Table in Camelot and by extension, no Knights of aforesaid furniture. Arthur not marrying Guinevere would also result in he and Lancelot never falling out, and Lancelot likely playing a much more active role in Arthur's court. This may end up completely thwarting Mordred in the end. Even more drastically, Arthur father's three sons that we know of, bastards, yet he and Guinever never have any children. This would imply that it's Guinevere of the two who is infertile. If Arthur did not marry Guinever, odds are he would have married a woman of childbearing ability, and thus borne legitimate heirs.

Without the union of Arthur and Guinevere, Pendragon doesn't really have a plot.

Without the union of Arthur and Guinevere, Pendragon doesn't really have a plot.

True. Of course the GM may implement 'Guinevere-in-all-but-name', who will fulfil all of Guinevere's legendary role, including the Round Table and Lancelot romance. But in the end, what would that achieve rather than change a name and toss out the richer mythology associated with Guinevere?

It is much easier to replace Lancelot or even Mordred. In our (concluded, older) campaign, Mordred came off more as a neutral guy. His exact parentage was never revealed (indeed, there was reason for the Players to suspect that he was actually the son of one of the 1st gen PKs with Queen Margawse), and he seized the throne as Arthur's heir as news came in that Arthur and Gawaine had been killed by Lancelot in Benoic. He allied himself with King Brian, expecting Lancelot to invade Britain to save Guinevere, and he had Guinevere burned at the stake to rob Lancelot of his 'prize'. King Brian attacked Arthur's army as it was landing and Gawaine got killed in the skirmish. At the truce talks at Camlann, one of the PKs accused King Brian for deliberately killing Gawaine, who was clearly identifying himself, and Mordred drew his sword to strike down that snake, King Brian... which started the battle, to everyone's horror.

Marrying Guinevere as a PK is probably far fetched. Why would Leodegrance accept a marriage between a lowly knight and a princes? Leodegrance is a king himself. He is also the first one to swear loyalty and that gave him the chance to marry off his daughter well.
So while you may be able to seduce Guinevere. I would find it hard to get her to marry you. Marriages are usually not for love, but arranged and hence I would put up some heavy problems before you are able to marry her.

Of course if she still marries Arthur, but is now head over heals in love with your PK, that would give a whole bag of troubles. You could be the one replacing Lancelot in the story and finally being the one to create the downfall of Arthur.

Nigel, since you're a player and not the game-master, my advice would be to go ahead and try it!

I think that experimenting with Arthurian tropes is a huge part of the fun in a Pendragon game.
As the previous replies show, the outcome might not be what you expect, which is precisely why you should try.

Thank you for the responses. We are making characters on Saturday. I wish that I knew more of the history as I was not aware that she is the daughter of a king. I do not see how it would be possible but I do enjoy thinking about how it would change the story.

Well, the Book of Sires, currently moving along in the production schedule, does help with the history of your father and grandfather. As far as the overall history of Pendragon, and your specific campaign, that can vary. Cornelius states, "Leodegrance is a king himself. He is also the first one to swear loyalty and that gave him the chance to marry off his daughter well." In one campaign in which I was a player, my PK was actually the first one to swear loyalty to Arthur vaulting off his charger to do it. He also married a younger daughter of King Ryons. So things are quite possible. It all depends on you, the gamemaster, and what you're willing to try.

Keep us posted on the campaign.

After making our Knights, I made the GM aware of my desire to marry Guinevere. He said it would be impossible. I didn't want to be a jerk and get off on the wrong foot so I didnt remind him that it is suppose to be an anything is possible game. We will see.

Just to point out that "If you change history, so be it" is different from "anything is possible". I think your GM made the right call: messing up the main plot of the GPC is something he is not interested in so he told you up front that it won't happen in his campaign rather than string you along. Also, you know, a princess and all that.

You might have a chance at Margawse or Morgan Le Fey, though. Both of them had knightly lovers. Marriage is probably not in the cards still.

I will have to look up Margawse, thank you.

I will have to look up Margawse, thank you.

Both Margawse and Morgan are high-status ladies with key roles in the GPC who will absolutely land you in a peck of trouble by being involved with them. You should totally go for it, in other words.

In the GPC Margawse marries King Lot, but seduces (or is seduced by) Arthur early in his reign. She's also probably about 16 years older than Arthur, marrying Lot the same year Uther weds Ygraine.

An additional interesting--and considerably more stable--target could be Anna, the "other" daughter of Gorlois and Ygraine. She gets little text in the legends, and in the GPC is shuffled off to marry a king in Brittany. I believe she's the oldest, as well, so perhaps 17 or 18 at her father's death.

--Khanwulf

An additional interesting--and considerably more stable--target could be Anna, the "other" daughter of Gorlois and Ygraine. She gets little text in the legends, and in the GPC is shuffled off to marry a king in Brittany. I believe she's the oldest, as well, so perhaps 17 or 18 at her father's death.

Anna is replaced by Elaine in GPC, and she marries King Nentres of Garloth, which is in south-eastern Caledonia, just north of Nohaut, not in Brittany.

The impression I get from Geoffrey of Monmouth is that, in his work, Anna is the daughter of Uther and Igraine, Arthur's full sister, and the Morgause counterpart (Lot's wife and the mother of Gawain and Mordred) - though some have argued for an alternate reading of the text, in which Anna is the sister of Ambrosius and Uther.

Anna is replaced by Elaine in GPC, and she marries King Nentres of Garloth, which is in south-eastern Caledonia, just north of Nohaut, not in Brittany.

Thanks Morien, that's what I get for conflating sources and the GPC, and making assumptions.

Anyway, the point is that there are a few other eligible ladies out there to set (high) sights on, if desired.

--Khanwulf

The impression I get from Geoffrey of Monmouth is that, in his work, Anna is the daughter of Uther and Igraine, Arthur's full sister, and the Morgause counterpart (Lot's wife and the mother of Gawain and Mordred) - though some have argued for an alternate reading of the text, in which Anna is the sister of Ambrosius and Uther.

Hoel of Brittany being referred to as Arthur's nephew, right? That reference is missing in GPC, as is Anna.


Thanks Morien, that's what I get for conflating sources and the GPC, and making assumptions.

Anyway, the point is that there are a few other eligible ladies out there to set (high) sights on, if desired.

No worries, I just wanted to correct that assumption. :)

Also, the reason I singled out Margawse and Morgan Le Fey is that both are canonically inclined to take knightly lovers (Lamorak for one, Accolon for the other), and are bloody marvellous fun for the GM to introduce. These two are no shrinking violets, but strong-willed queens, with plots and plans of their own. Especially Morgan can get the hapless PKs involved in soooo much trouble... :P

I realized that I am getting ahead of myself. As we are playing the Grand Campaign and are in Salisbury, is there someone that my first generation knight should go after, to set myself for the future?

That depends on what your PK does. Guinevere and Lancelot's hidden romance eventually brings down everything. The PK, if male and my assumption is you are, could not replace Arthur, but could replace Lancelot. Of course, once Lancelot arrives on scene, you and him could have a deadly confrontation. You could try for Margawse, but as state, she marries King Lot. Elaine, the other sister of Margawse and Morgan, is schedule to marry King Nentes. These two are political in nature. Remember that marriages are most times for political reasons. King Vortigern married for such, he arranged marriages for thus, and Uther is doing the same. So, you may not make it in the first round with these ladies. However, you do have other targets that the gamemaster should make known and available. Some of these could very well get you a high leg up in the political realm. But they may not come about until their husbands' deaths, or the game starts.

The gm is also letting you know up front that if you read that Lancelot did this quest, or Galehad did that, your PK has the chance to do it instead. So, in direct answer to your question, talk to your gm about your aspirations. See what comes about during that discussion. More importantly, if a chance for this to happen, can you answer "why" your PK makes a better choice than the one originally chosen. If the gm says, he is not interested in "canon", but more in role-playing the characters, and "anything goes" then the doors could swing wide open. But then, how far from the path does the story go is the next question. If the answer is more subtle, more akin to not having certain events from happening or happening with the original characters, then the doors are open, but with restraints.

One of my campaigns died when I did not allow a rival to Arthur to have a chance to pull the sword out of the stone as he was also a grandson of Uther. I had also ruled the players could become movers and shakers in the campaign, but my interpretation of that was not what the players had. So, I learned to listen more and better with the goals of my players.

I would say, set yourself up for the future, but first, as I said, talk to the gm and find out what is being allowed and where you can change things.

I would say just to have fun and see what comes about through RP. Your 1st Gen knight is likely starting out with one manor and probably isn't all that important to the rest of the realm. If you want to marry someone important, you need to show that you are also important. Work on getting that glory score up doing some heroic deeds and the doors will open. But, it can sometimes take awhile before your lord considers you worthy enough to give the hand of a notable heiress, and being a hero is dangerous. This route could leave your first PK dead with no heirs. So it has it's pros and cons.

That depends on what your PK does. Guinevere and Lancelot's hidden romance eventually brings down everything. The PK, if male and my assumption is you are, could not replace Arthur, but could replace Lancelot.

If the player knight does replace Lancelot as Guinevere's lover, their affair might not necessarily destroy the kingdom - depending on the stature of the player knight.

One of the major reasons why the Love Triangle (more accurately, the exposure of the Love Triangle) brought Arthur's reign crashing down was that Lancelot was an "over-mighty subject". He was the head of a major faction at the Round Table, the de Ganis clan, commanded the loyalty of approximately half the knights of the court. Because of that, a clash between Arthur and Lancelot meant civil war - even external war, because Lancelot came from Gaulish royalty, his family possessing its own kingdoms overseas. If the player knight who gets involved with Guinevere commands far less of a following, the consequences of their affair going public become less drastic - disgrace for the knight, banishment or execution, but a Round Table split in half, not likely.

I realized that I am getting ahead of myself. As we are playing the Grand Campaign and are in Salisbury, is there someone that my first generation knight should go after, to set myself for the future?

My recommendation:

1) Marry quickly within your class (a young knight's daughter with a suitable dowry), and have plenty of sons. Your first character is the basis of your future dynasty. You want as many kids as possible. (Also, check with the GM if he is using the insanely deadly childbirth and child survival rules in KAP 5.2, or more realistic ones in Book of the Estate. If the wife has a 10% YEARLY chance of dying in childbirth, your first wife is going to die within a decade, leaving you well situated to pursue a second marriage to an heiress, below.)

2) Playing the heiress game right at the start is foolish, IMHO, since your new, young character doesn't have the Glory and the liege's favor to aspire to such a prize (IMHO). At the very least, it ought to take years to build up enough goodwill with the liege to make it happen, which means your character might very well die heirless himself, rendering all of that moot. (This depends on the GM, of course.)

3) Uther Period in itself is more of a warrior's playing field, the romantic knights and courtly amor and courting the lady rather than impressing her father come much later. And the way to impress the father tends to be becoming a big man in Glory, liege's favor and in heroics.

4) Like Craiger89 said, while your first character is a landed vassal knight and thus in the top ten percent or so of all the knights, he is not a Baron, and very unlikely to marry to become a Baron. Really, the best way to 'secure' your future is to have kids and get as much Glory as possible, which hopefully will translate to a leading role in advising the Count, and perhaps being able to arrange better marriages for your sons. For instance, being granted the wardship of one of the heiresses by the grateful Count, allowing you to marry your eldest son to the girl.

A lot of the above depends on the GM, of course. Some hand out heiresses and manors like candy. But the above would be correct in the campaigns I run.

In addition to Morien's comments, all of which are highly appropriate recommendations, you may attempt to amass wealth and bribe your liege or the father of a particularly well-placed lady. The amounts you'd need to impress such, however, generally will mean that by the time you get it (ransoms, battle loot, etc.) you'll have plenty of glory to back that up as well.

I don't know of any reasonable examples, but consider that the ransom for a baron could be between 100 and 300 L (1 year's income). If you're lining up for a shot at what could be a significant financial reward for your family over time, counterbalancing that with an up-front down-payment to the family you're marrying into works and is appropriate.

--Khanwulf

The GM is known for a detailed and well thought out story. He is also known for not giving exp or loot. I am looking forward to our first session this Saturday. Thank you all again!

I had a thought and was wondering what you all thought of this. What would be a reasonably given dowry for a widow of an Earl that has an heir? Clearly he wouldnt become Earl but would he be given any manors?

I had a thought and was wondering what you all thought of this. What would be a reasonably given dowry for a widow of an Earl that has an heir? Clearly he wouldnt become Earl but would he be given any manors?

While she lives, you would be governing over the Dowager Countess' Widow's Portion, in other words, 1/3rd of the Earl's manors. Also, you would be governing over any manors she brought in as her first dowry. However, once she kicks the bucket, all those manors would go to the heir (those dowry manors were promised to her first marriage, after all). You would get nothing, unless she brings something extra (like money or extra manors from her family, which is unlikely). However, assuming that the heir is a minor, there is a high chance of you being able to parley the stepfather status into Regency over the County (during the Anarchy, that is), and hence be in a good position to marry your own sons off to heiresses and the like. Also, the Discretionary Funds from all of those manors would in any case be a very tidy sum, making such a marriage very very advantageous to your family.

While she lives, you would be governing over the Dowager Countess' Widow's Portion, in other words, 1/3rd of the Earl's manors. Also, you would be governing over any manors she brought in as her first dowry. However, once she kicks the bucket, all those manors would go to the heir (those dowry manors were promised to her first marriage, after all). You would get nothing, unless she brings something extra (like money or extra manors from her family, which is unlikely). However, assuming that the heir is a minor, there is a high chance of you being able to parley the stepfather status into Regency over the County (during the Anarchy, that is), and hence be in a good position to marry your own sons off to heiresses and the like. Also, the Discretionary Funds from all of those manors would in any case be a very tidy sum, making such a marriage very very advantageous to your family.

I hope, without derailing anything, to gain some greater clarity here. May I sketch out a scenario?

Earl has 9 manors (arbitrary number) plus 1 from his wife. So he (that is, his wife + help) manages 10 manors, total.

Earl dies with an underage heir, "Earl's Child".

Dowager widows portion is 3. Dowager now manages 3 + 1 manors. The remaining 6 of the Earl's estate revert to (Option 1) her for management in regency for the Earl's child, or (Option 2) to a male relative of the Earl?

A worshipful Knight with 1 manor marries Dowager. This knight most likely is Regent, having married the Earl's Widow, but this is challenge-able by other male relatives of the late Earl.

Dowager now manages 1 + 3 + 1 manors, and may administer 6 more if Option 1, above, on behalf of Earl's Child.

Dowager and Knight have a child, Knight's Child. Dowager dies.

Knight now manages 1 manor (self) + 1 manor for Knight's Child from the Dowager's original dowry (or does the dowry revert to the Dowager's parent's family?). Knight also manages 3 manors on behalf of Earl's Child until age of majority, if he is given Earl's Child as ward (easily done if he is regent). If Option 1, then Knight also manages a further 6 manors on behalf of Earl's Child. If Option 2, then some other male relative is already doing so and the administration of the honour is split.

At age of majority, Knight's Child inherits control of 1 or 2 manors (1 Knight + 1? Dowager dowry)?
At age of majority, Earl's Child inherits control of 9 or 10 manors (9 Earl + 1? Dowager dowry)?

Throughout, whomever manages the manors collects discretionary income. Yay! (They also pay off the Saxons. Boo!)
Whomever has both wardship would be able to arrange a beneficial match for a female Earl's Child. Perhaps to a son of Knight from a PREVIOUS marriage (since Knight's Child would be a half-brother).

So, questions:
1. Which option is most likely (1 or 2)? Or would this be a good place for a legal battle (i.e. battle of king's favor and bribes...)?

2. During the Anarchy everyone is scrabbling about in a last paroxysm of might-makes-right. The Knight, who is obviously puissant and worshipful enough to marry the Dowager, is then the likely Regent (or if he's feeling classical, head of a council). At any other time, who is going to be a likely regent? A male relative of the Earl? (Cousin, uncle, etc.?)

3. Who gets the Dowager's 1 dowry manor? Her family? (Because she died before a child reached majority.) Earl's Child? (Her firstborn.) Or Knight's Child? (Her child via the last marriage in which she controlled the dowry manor.)

4. Bonus question: WHAT IF the Dowager had been married previously (explaining in part why she could pick Knight for #3), and brought a widow's portion of 2 manors along from that with no children (to keep it simple). Once she dies, do those 2 manors return to the honour of her first marriage? I think yes....


Apologies, for this subject is endlessly confusing.

--Khanwulf

Widow's portion:
This is really, really simple.
While the widow is ALIVE, one third of the deceased husband's holdings are reserved for her maintenance. (Although more of this later.)
The operative word is ALIVE. Once she is dead, those holdings revert back to the dead husband's heirs. It doesn't matter if she had any children or not, if the firstborn son is an adult or not. Nothing else matters than if she is ALIVE or DEAD.

So, in your example, once the widow kicks the bucket, those 3 manors INSTANTLY revert back to the previous husband's heir. Now, if you manage to still be the guardian of the said heir, good for you. But they are NO LONGER Widow's Portion, since the Widow is dead, but part of the original Honour/Estate.


Dowry manor:
Now, things get a bit more complicated.
I'd argue that since the dowry manor does revert back to the woman's family if she dies without heirs (just like the husband of an heiress is out of luck if the heiress dies without children), then it is attached to the women for her life. Then and only then will it go down to HER heir(s), preferably her children but her family is she dies childless. Thus, she would bring the control of the manor to her second marriage, but once she dies, the manor goes to her firstborn's inheritance. See above for guardianship.


Guardianship:
The default guardian is the LIEGE. In the case of a Baron (including an Earl/Count), this is the King. He decides who is the guardian if he wishes to hand it down to someone else. So during Uther's time, it is not a legal wrangle but whoever the King wishes to reward. The male kin have NO legal right to being the guardian.

However, during the Anarchy, there is no King. In such a situation, the close male kin (i.e. a brother or an uncle) of the deceased Earl would be the obvious choice. Given that this doesn't happen in Salisbury in 495, it strongly hints that there are no surviving brothers & uncles of Roderick around. The whole plot then revolves around who does become the guardian of little Robert during his minority? The widow (Dowager Countess) is a woman, and hence some would argue ineligible. Thus, her potential new husband, presumably a respected and glorious war hero, would be well placed to try and put his name forward. Even without marrying her first, since probably a bit of time ought to pass between the funeral of Roderick and the new marriage... However, other knights might contest this. In our campaign, the Senechal of Salisbury tried to seize power by simply isolating the ruling family from other knights and declaring himself the Regent with the Countess' blessing. (It didn't work.)


So short answers to the questions:

1. Which option is most likely (1 or 2)? Or would this be a good place for a legal battle (i.e. battle of king's favor and bribes...)?
A: Up to the King. Neither one of the options has any legal claim. In the absence of the King, up to the might makes right: whichever side can rally the most knights to cow/force the other side to agree.

2. During the Anarchy everyone is scrabbling about in a last paroxysm of might-makes-right. The Knight, who is obviously puissant and worshipful enough to marry the Dowager, is then the likely Regent (or if he's feeling classical, head of a council). At any other time, who is going to be a likely regent? A male relative of the Earl? (Cousin, uncle, etc.?)
A: THE KING, or whoever the King says is the guardian.

3. Who gets the Dowager's 1 dowry manor? Her family? (Because she died before a child reached majority.) Earl's Child? (Her firstborn.) Or Knight's Child? (Her child via the last marriage in which she controlled the dowry manor.)
A: While she lives, her (and via her, her husband). After that, her heir(s), i.e. her firstborn son or daughters splitting it or her family getting it back. Her latter children from another marriage would be left high and dry, unless all of the previous kids die mysteriously...

4. Bonus question: WHAT IF the Dowager had been married previously (explaining in part why she could pick Knight for #3), and brought a widow's portion of 2 manors along from that with no children (to keep it simple). Once she dies, do those 2 manors return to the honour of her first marriage? I think yes....
A: ALL Widow's Portion manors return to their ORIGINAL honour when the Widow DIES.

One of the great things about these forums is that Morien lives here. I mean, all the time. :)

Thanks!



Dowry manor:
Now, things get a bit more complicated.
I'd argue that since the dowry manor does revert back to the woman's family if she dies without heirs (just like the husband of an heiress is out of luck if the heiress dies without children), then it is attached to the women for her life. Then and only then will it go down to HER heir(s), preferably her children but her family is she dies childless. Thus, she would bring the control of the manor to her second marriage, but once she dies, the manor goes to her firstborn's inheritance. See above for guardianship.

So even if the Earl's Child is female, she will still inherit the 1 manor the Dowager brought as her property? Or would that go to Knight's Child if male?

In other words, if Earl's Child is female, she becomes a 9 or 10 manor heiress?

I'm probably further confusing the line of succession, since the Earl's Child (daughter) could have an uncle (father's brother) as nearest male relative following the death of her stepfather (Knight).




Guardianship:
The default guardian is the LIEGE. In the case of a Baron (including an Earl/Count), this is the King. He decides who is the guardian if he wishes to hand it down to someone else. So during Uther's time, it is not a legal wrangle but whoever the King wishes to reward. The male kin have NO legal right to being the guardian.

So if Roderick dies in 493, say, then Lady Ellen and infant Robert would fall under Uther's control. The former to marry off with her widow's portion of Roderick's estate, and the latter as a ward. Generally we can all admit that Uther would have dragged his feet on resolving both points (and probably left Robert as a ward to his own court).

Thanks again Morien!

--Khanwulf

One of the great things about these forums is that Morien lives here. I mean, all the time. :)

Thanks!


Heh. Not quite. I just tend to login a couple of times during the day to check if there is anything for me to comment on. :P You are welcome, though.




So even if the Earl's Child is female, she will still inherit the 1 manor the Dowager brought as her property? Or would that go to Knight's Child if male?

In other words, if Earl's Child is female, she becomes a 9 or 10 manor heiress?

I'm probably further confusing the line of succession, since the Earl's Child (daughter) could have an uncle (father's brother) as nearest male relative following the death of her stepfather (Knight).


It is simple when you consider what the dowry is for:
"Marry my daughter and she will bring a manor into the marriage, to be inherited by your children with her."
Thus, since the dowry manor was originally promised to the 1st husband's children, it goes to his daughter even in preference of the son from a second marriage.

Now, if she had been an heiress, then normal rules apply: her firstborn son from whichever marriage inherits the manor.

However, if for the second marriage, the widow's family throws in another dowry manor, then that second manor would go to the children of the 2nd marriage, and the children of the first marriage would have absolutely no claim on it, regardless of gender. It would revert back to the widow's family if she dies without children from the second marriage.

Speaking of stepfathers: he would have no claim whatsoever to the stepchildren's inheritance. He is not of the same blood.

Although there is an additional little wrinkle that I forgot to comment on... according to some historical precedents, consanguinity for the marriage DOES count in-laws, too (and an even stricter criteria, everyone they have ever had sex with). So if you marry the Dowager, your children from a previous marriage are siblings (as far as consanguinity is concerned, not for inheritance purposes) to Dowager's children from her previous marriage, and hence a marriage of your eldest son to the daughter of the Earl would be incestuous. And hence invalid and forbidden and naughty in the eyes of he who judges all things. Of course you don't have to adopt so draconian a view in your story, though.



So if Roderick dies in 493, say, then Lady Ellen and infant Robert would fall under Uther's control. The former to marry off with her widow's portion of Roderick's estate, and the latter as a ward. Generally we can all admit that Uther would have dragged his feet on resolving both points (and probably left Robert as a ward to his own court).


Yep and yep. Although if I recall correctly, Ellen is also an heiress, so she has her own lands, too. They should be mentioned in Roderick's write-up in BotW.

Dowry manor:
Now, things get a bit more complicated.
I'd argue that since the dowry manor does revert back to the woman's family if she dies without heirs (just like the husband of an heiress is out of luck if the heiress dies without children), then it is attached to the women for her life. Then and only then will it go down to HER heir(s), preferably her children but her family is she dies childless. Thus, she would bring the control of the manor to her second marriage, but once she dies, the manor goes to her firstborn's inheritance. See above for guardianship.


My thinking on the above has changed. (Or potentially changed: it comes down to whether you think the dowry is akin to inheritance by the woman, or as a treaty between the two families for that particular marriage.)

I think the DOWRY is specifically the agreement between the families for that particular marriage. Hence, it is attached to the marriage, not the woman as such. This is different from the heiress situation, where the manor is HERS. The dowry manor, by contrast, is more of an inducement to the husband's family.

So, a situation:
A Lady marries a Knight, bringing with her one manor.

1) The Knight dies childless. The Lady remarries.
1a) Heiress manor: The Lady keeps the manor (although it is the guardian who controls it), and is still an heiress. She would bring her own manor into her second marriage, too, since it is hers.
1b) Dowry manor: The manor returns to the Lady's family (or whoever contributed the manor in the first place) at the death of the 1st husband. The dowry manor might be re-dowried for the second marriage, but it wouldn't be automatic. Note, the dowry manor does NOT go to the late husband's heirs, since they are not his and the Lady's children.

2) The Knight dies, leaving behind children. The Lady remarries.
2a) Heiress manor: The manor stays attached to the Lady (and hence, her second husband) for her lifetime. Then it would follow normal rules: her eldest son (from whichever marriage) inherits, and if there are no sons, the daughters (from all marriages) would split the manor equally.
2b) Dowry manor: The heirs of the knight would inherit the manor, as per normal. Presumably, they would be still minors, so the guardian(s) would control the manor.

Now, especially during the Anarchy, the rules might not be followed. Usurpations happen, and it would be easy to see dowry manors not being returned to their rightful owners (especially if the rightful owners are minors), or something like that. Also, the Widow's Portion is not always adhered to. No lesser personage than Princess Eleanor of England (Eleanor of Leicester), the widowed wife of William Marshal (junior, son of the more famous William Marshal), the 2nd Earl of Pembroke. A quick cut and paste from Wikipedia will suffice ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_of_Leicester ):
"Eleanor had brought a dowry of 10 manors and 200 pounds per year to this marriage. According to the law of the time, widows were allowed to retain one third of the estates of the marriage. However, her brother-in-law Richard took all of the estates and sold many, including her dowry, to pay William's debts. Eleanor strove for many years to try and recover her lost property."

So, despite being the King's sister, her rights were trampled on. The King in question was the rather ineffectual Henry III, so it took her second husband, the famous Simon de Montfort, the Earl of Leicester, to champion her cause.

Thanks Morien, very thoughtful.

I think that settles my question, in both specific and general ways: the dowry as I understand it exists to guarantee the status and protection of the bride, and including in widowhood. As such it would remain under her control (or her guardian) to ensure there is an income in the advent that she is abused, rejected or her husband dies--regardless of any widow's portion. There may also be grounds for the dowry to revert to the woman's family should the marriage be without children, which would help to explain why there is *also* a widow's portion at work.

In general, however, dowry and how it gets passed around--as well as the widow's portion--is a rich vein of conflict from which to mine. And, apparently, it WAS mined for such, as the English court documents attest!

It shows the kinds of complaints ladies are likely to bring to adventuring knights or Arthur's court. I'm going to assume that they would not personally bring such to Uther, who in my read is enough of a cad to attempt to take advantage of them; no, their male relatives might petition Uther.

Further, it illustrates how the three Rydychan brothers are able to get away with seizing the Countess' lands even when Uther was alive! While the law and custom is presented as plainly as possible in KAP books, for a modern audience, it was not so in-setting and many lords would be unwilling to waste resources on infighting just to push a woman's claim on some legal virtue. Even neighbor Ulfius didn't care to get involved--doing so might set unwelcome precedence and erode his own (male) primacy and ability to manipulate women's estates!

--Khanwulf

Further, it illustrates how the three Rydychan brothers are able to get away with seizing the Countess' lands even when Uther was alive! While the law and custom is presented as plainly as possible in KAP books, for a modern audience, it was not so in-setting and many lords would be unwilling to waste resources on infighting just to push a woman's claim on some legal virtue. Even neighbor Ulfius didn't care to get involved--doing so might set unwelcome precedence and erode his own (male) primacy and ability to manipulate women's estates!


That is one way of playing it, and sure, the write-up in GPC is explicit that the usurpation happened during Uther's reign. However, in our campaigns, the usurpation happens in the general chaos of St. Albans, during the Anarchy. That makes it much easier to explain why Uther would allow a bunch of ruffians to just take over a county, especially since, assuming that the write-up is also correct that the Countess of Rydychan is also the heiress, he would be her guardian and those lands ought to be his to rule. Those ruffians are not stealing the lands from the heiress, they are stealing it from the King himself! Their argument is especially idiotic, since if there are no valid heirs to Earl Bledri, the lands should escheat to the KING! Thus, they are squatting on Uther's property, by their own confession. I don't know about you, but my Uther would be pissing vinegar at the mere thought of such an insult to his kingly pride.

Frankly, I think it is another discrepancy between the old GPC view of Logres being more of a loose coalition of regional warlords that need to be cajoled into doing anything for Uther, and who are able to go to war against their King if need be (Gorlois up to 488, and again in 491), and the BotW view of Logres as a very centralized and ordered Normano-French state where the King is very much in control of what is going on.

Another potential way of rewriting it which comes to mind is that the three are actually UTHER's ruffians. Naturally, they would not be opposing the King's will in that case, but then when the King dies in 495, they refuse to hand back the lands to the Countess (who may have rebuffed Uther's attentions at some point, hence being thrown in disfavor with the King). This would give them an argument of sorts: the king told them to look after the land, and only a king can tell them to give it back, so there. They are just being loyal to Uther's final commands...

Another potential way of rewriting it which comes to mind is that the three are actually UTHER's ruffians. Naturally, they would not be opposing the King's will in that case, but then when the King dies in 495, they refuse to hand back the lands to the Countess (who may have rebuffed Uther's attentions at some point, hence being thrown in disfavor with the King). This would give them an argument of sorts: the king told them to look after the land, and only a king can tell them to give it back, so there. They are just being loyal to Uther's final commands...

This is the way I would play it if I was starting GPC again. If the players want an entirely different game, have THEM be the knights. Have them meet with the King (before that fateful day) and be ordered to hold those castles at all costs...

On a different note, I have this scenario to change with the various editions and supplements, so there is plenty of room for a gm to personalize the scenario to their liking.

That is one way of playing it, and sure, the write-up in GPC is explicit that the usurpation happened during Uther's reign. However, in our campaigns, the usurpation happens in the general chaos of St. Albans, during the Anarchy. That makes it much easier to explain why Uther would allow a bunch of ruffians to just take over a county, especially since, assuming that the write-up is also correct that the Countess of Rydychan is also the heiress, he would be her guardian and those lands ought to be his to rule. Those ruffians are not stealing the lands from the heiress, they are stealing it from the King himself! Their argument is especially idiotic, since if there are no valid heirs to Earl Bledri, the lands should escheat to the KING! Thus, they are squatting on Uther's property, by their own confession. I don't know about you, but my Uther would be pissing vinegar at the mere thought of such an insult to his kingly pride.

Frankly, I think it is another discrepancy between the old GPC view of Logres being more of a loose coalition of regional warlords that need to be cajoled into doing anything for Uther, and who are able to go to war against their King if need be (Gorlois up to 488, and again in 491), and the BotW view of Logres as a very centralized and ordered Normano-French state where the King is very much in control of what is going on.

Another potential way of rewriting it which comes to mind is that the three are actually UTHER's ruffians. Naturally, they would not be opposing the King's will in that case, but then when the King dies in 495, they refuse to hand back the lands to the Countess (who may have rebuffed Uther's attentions at some point, hence being thrown in disfavor with the King). This would give them an argument of sorts: the king told them to look after the land, and only a king can tell them to give it back, so there. They are just being loyal to Uther's final commands...

Yeah, quick question on the Countess: since she's been married twice, she can pick the next husband. Does she still get accorded a guardian for purposes of managing her land, however? If not, then she's the sole administrator of at least her widow's portion. The remainder of Earl Bledri's land would definitely escheat to the king, and yeah--Uther's not one to let his royal income from the middle of Britain get stolen by ruffians. He has (substantial) gambling and wenching debts to pay off, yaknow.

My operating assumption was that either the brothers paid of Uther (possible, but unlikely that they'd have the cash), or Uther just stopped paying attention after he married Ygraine and his health deteriorated. The last item seems unlikely. Anyway, I like your suggestion that these guys were favorites of his inner circle already, and when the Earl died were instructed to jack with the Countess because Uther didn't like her--probably because she was pretty at some point and dodged his advances.

To me, Uther is a "good" king only in the most basic sense of fulfilling the core purposes of keeping the Barons from knifing each other (a challenging task) and stomping on external enemies (Saxons). Those are the reasons the barons surrender significant resources and swear oaths: because without the king to focus attention everything falls apart. The Anarchy demonstrates this, and then Arthur demonstrates what a more virtuous king can accomplish to bring real peace. Virtuous even as he accrues consequences for failures early and late. Uther never had those virtues: of temperance, justice, and mercy that were regarded even among the Romans as signs of a superior leader.

From this perspective, Britain can be nodded to as a looser confederation of warlords than the centralized Norman presentation provides, by noting and using a kind of "rebellion-lite" prerogative in which legally the barons can respond first to threats to their own lands, before responding to the king. Doing so, of course, risks Royal Ire, but the other barons won't all suddenly jump up and cry foul just because Gorlois had Irish to deal with and didn't want to come back to his castles burnt. All this is not explicit in BotW, but makes sense.

Now I really am derailing the thread, however. Apologies.

--Khanwulf