So one of the players has been courting a lady and has at last got the Earl's permission to marry.

I could just gloss over it, but I wondered if it shouldn't be a significant event in the characters life like the Knighthood ceremony.

Any advice on what sort of things to include if I was to try and make it last about half a session at least?

Has anyone got any advice or stuff they have used in their campaigns?

https://www.medievaltimes.com/teachers-students/materials/medieval-era/marriage.html

Wedding Feast itself will offer opportunities to use the Book of Feasts. Especially since you can easily have the Earl 'sponsor' the wedding feast by having it in Sarum Castle, with loads of knights being invited.

I doubt you can make it last for half a session unless you will introduce a lot of side plots and/or some kind of mini-adventure happening in the background.

Christian or Pagan wedding?
Play out some of the bits, like the priest/druid giving some sort of sermon. Perhaps there have been problems with the commoners, and the sermon mentions it in an offhand way which offends someone (maybe the bride or groom - maybe a parent - maybe the Earl if he is there).

Definitely use the Book of Feasts if you have it, and if not, create a few *moments* for various players to encounter (drunk knight with some glory to throw around, want to take care of him but not offend him in the morning), bride's parents don't like the food being served and *audibly* complain about the quality (perhaps hinting that the bride is being offended against).

Someone comes up and requests a boon from the [host?]--per custom?

There were no comments a similar question so for the sake of TerryToil's event, if the Earl is hosting the marriage feast for his knight, would the Earl be the one to grant it or the knight? What happens if the request is extreme?

--Khanwulf

Someone comes up and requests a boon from the [host?]--per custom?

There were no comments a similar question so for the sake of TerryToil's event, if the Earl is hosting the marriage feast for his knight, would the Earl be the one to grant it or the knight? What happens if the request is extreme?

--Khanwulf

Could you elaborate a bit more on that custom? All I can recall of the top of my head is when Arthur gets married, there is a gift and a countergift being exchanged:

"A long ceremony goes on as the royals and their
retinues attend Mass, then go through their wed-
ding vows. Shortly thereafter, everyone retires to
the Great Hall to give Arthur and Guenever gifts.
Around noon, the royal couple reciprocates and gives
everyone a gift to exhibit their largesse. "

It also lists a limit (emphasis mine):
"Knights may ask for anything they want, and, if
it is not unreasonable, get it. However, to be refused
a gift asked this way is a terribly shameful denun-
ciation: A knight loses 1 point of Honor if his gift is
refused. "
So if it is unreasonable, they do not get it nor is King Arthur penalized for it.


There is also Sir Bleoberis demanding a boon from King Mark, and when that is granted, reveals that he wants the most beautiful lady of the Cornish Court, and King Mark has to allow Sir Bleoberis to take the lady with him. But that had nothing to do with a wedding but just keeping a promise that the king had made.

Arthur, by contrast, is smart enough to impose a limitation when the Lady of the Lake comes calling for a boon for giving him Excalibur... "He agrees to pay her whatever he can pay without losing honor." So when she starts asking for heads of people who have transgressed against her family, he can deny her request.

EDIT:
To answer the other question, there are two different things going on here:
1. Asking a boon from the host (King Mark's situation) -> Host grants or not.
2. Asking a reciprocal gift from the newly wed husband -> Husband grants or not.

First of all I would say that if a PK courted a woman and finally gets her to marry him, then yes the marriage should be an event. It is after all the climax of the Lover's solo. the best way to make it memorable is to have something happen that the players will remember.

Some ideas:
- Have some rival show up and try to prevent the marriage. Especially if during the courtship there was a rival to begin with. (also if there is another woman who fancies him. Maybe both his and her rival team up to prevent the marriage. In the end this could end in a double marriage as the rivals marry each other. In that case the rivals could end up to become good friends)
- Have events during the courting 'reappear'. If the knight visited a castle to find some trinket their lover wanted, have the Castellan appear at his wedding. Depending on how their relation was the Castellan could appear as a friend or enemy.
- Introduce a nemesis or other important character. Especially if they helped or thwarted that character before.

Could you elaborate a bit more on that custom? All I can recall of the top of my head is when Arthur gets married, there is a gift and a countergift being exchanged:
<snip>
So if it is unreasonable, they do not get it nor is King Arthur penalized for it.


There is also Sir Bleoberis demanding a boon from King Mark, and when that is granted, reveals that he wants the most beautiful lady of the Cornish Court, and King Mark has to allow Sir Bleoberis to take the lady with him. But that had nothing to do with a wedding but just keeping a promise that the king had made.

Arthur, by contrast, is smart enough to impose a limitation when the Lady of the Lake comes calling for a boon for giving him Excalibur... "He agrees to pay her whatever he can pay without losing honor." So when she starts asking for heads of people who have transgressed against her family, he can deny her request.

EDIT:
To answer the other question, there are two different things going on here:
1. Asking a boon from the host (King Mark's situation) -> Host grants or not.
2. Asking a reciprocal gift from the newly wed husband -> Husband grants or not.

Right-o. The other example is in the Book of Feasts, and is expressly similar in that if the PK doesn't put limitations on the request to be granted as groom, then there's mythic drama to be had.

So, basically, if the host can be induced to make a promise, they're liable, otherwise at the wedding the groom is the one giving and receiving gifts and bearing the burden of honor loss if he's unable to do so. Or! Placing reasonable restrictions on requests, such that the honor loss goes on greedy askers.

That addresses my main concern and of course raises the scenario for this knight's wedding....

--Khanwulf

Thanks for all the great ideas... unfortunately I got to see most of them after the session.

I used the Book of Feasts with the cards. As the Groom was effectively the host, I removed the host cards, had him at the Above the Salt, but allowed him to pick a Host card to play (on the party) each round, so he didn't feel entirely left out.

The feast was originally going to be a short affair, but the PK (in the GPC) being favourite of Merlin, used their intrigue to persuade Earl Roderick to attend. Which double the cost of the feast and lengthened it as well.

Right at the end of the Feast I had a knight burst into the hall and abducted a Lady...

The Knight (Sir Oswulf, although no one recognised him) in question was acting on a case of mistaken identity. He was in love with Lady Carine (a red head and sister to one of the PKs Sir Derfarn), the bride was also a red-head and was marrying Sir Perin. Sir Perin had announced Sir Derfarn his best man, and Sir Oswulf (a Saxon loyal to Uther) hadn't been invited, and had somehow got the idea Sir Perin was marrying his love.

This presented Sir Derfarn with a dilemma, should he go to the aid of his family and fail in his duties to Sir Perin? Luckly his good friend Sir Dervil (PK) and his half-brother Sir Alain (NPC) jumped into action allowing him to remain at the feast.

Unfortunately Sir Alain fell from his horse at the first hurdle (rolled a 20) and then proceeded to get "Lost in the Woods" (rolled another 20, was missing for nearly a week) while trying to locate his horse. Sir Dervil was knocked from his horse by Sir Oswulf (rolled a critical but flat-bladed him), but he at least recognised his sword and fighting style, so tracked him back to his manor by the following morning.

When he arrived in the courtyard Sir Oswulf & Lady Carine explained to Sir Dervil that they had been married that night (without ceremony) and that he should leave them. Sir Dervil driven by his hatred of Saxons, and loyalty to his friend, challenged Sir Oswulf to a duel should he win he would take Lady Carine back to her family. They agreed to first blood, the dishonourable Saxon ignored two hits (both only did 1 pt of damage) such was his desire to keep Lady Carine with him, he then flew into a rage (Berserk attacks from then on), and did not stop until Sir Dervil had knocked him unconscious. He dragged the weeping Lady Carine off Sir Oswulf, who she had rushed to attend and rode back towards the wedding party.

Meanwhile the host had called a Hunt, and used it as a excuse to hide the fact they were really hunting for the Knight, Lady Carine, Sir Dervil and Sir Alain. It was unsuccessful in finding a stag or similar game, but they did come across Sir Dervil riding back with Lady Carine the following morning.

Now Sir Derfarn is deeply indebted to Sir Dervil, much to his annoyance, and has the tricky issue of the validity of his sister "wedding". He has told the disgraced Sir Oswulf that until he can redeem himself through some noble deed, Lady Carine will be in a nunnery.

This all happened early in 488 so now the Sir Perin is being dragged away from his new wife to fight on foreign shores. Sir Derfarn has made sure Sir Oswulf is also leaving the country.

Thus ended the Tale of Two Weddings.

In the end the whole thing took all of the session, next week back to the GPC proper, fighting the Franks.

*Sniff* I always cry at weddings!

Good deal all around. Sounds like fun and games and everything is much more complicated now. Hopefully someone toasted the groom with wishes for a masculine child.

Madoc on the continent is fun. I always thought his retreat was very reasonable, in fact, given that he'd run out the clock on the time his fighting men were obligated to serve, and the costs of the expedition were about to go way, WAY up. I'm sure the lords with him made doubly-sure to point this out.... It's a dilemma. Perhaps your PKs would like to volunteer to stay behind at their own cost and take their chances with a prickly Syagrius on one side and the Franks on the other?

--Khanwulf

Very nice wedding story. :)

It is a valid marriage by medieval standards, by the way. Oswulf and Carine. The bride doesn't need the family's approval and as long as both entered the marriage willingly and there were no other impediments (previous marriage, kinship), then it was a marriage. Likely consummated, too, making it even harder to annul even assuming that the PK had any excuse to pursue that. So in short, Carine is married. Sticking her in a nunnery is pretty much the only option other than letting her go back to her husband.

Very nice wedding story. :)

It is a valid marriage by medieval standards, by the way. Oswulf and Carine. The bride doesn't need the family's approval and as long as both entered the marriage willingly and there were no other impediments (previous marriage, kinship), then it was a marriage. Likely consummated, too, making it even harder to annul even assuming that the PK had any excuse to pursue that. So in short, Carine is married. Sticking her in a nunnery is pretty much the only option other than letting her go back to her husband.

Yeah Sir Derfarn's player is pretty up on his medieval history, I think he realised that, hence "off to a nunnery with you". Thankfully Derfarn is the only character without Hatred Saxon's, so I suspect he will eventually come round. I think he is actually more annoyed at owning Sir Dervil a large debt, since his own family weren't able to deal with he situation.

Very nice wedding story. :)

It is a valid marriage by medieval standards, by the way. Oswulf and Carine. The bride doesn't need the family's approval and as long as both entered the marriage willingly and there were no other impediments (previous marriage, kinship), then it was a marriage. Likely consummated, too, making it even harder to annul even assuming that the PK had any excuse to pursue that. So in short, Carine is married. Sticking her in a nunnery is pretty much the only option other than letting her go back to her husband.

Emphasis mine. Really? Only the family of the groom could realistically fight it? Nunnery is certainly an option if the family of the girl can get hands on her, but that can be undone by a sufficiently impious raid or a large "donation" to the institution.

I do know that marriages were not supposed to be valid if they were undertaken without the consent of the bride and groom (duress or no). And that socially a "soiled" girl would generally find a marriage to a semi-reluctant groom a better option than being left swinging in the breeze. So consent is a formality, mostly. (This is a bit off the situation.)

What legal options would the family or families have if the marriage happened without their consent? Disownment? Inheritance adjustments? Royal involvement?

In this example Oswulf's family likely doesn't mind (though they might have had some even better ideas, considering he's in the king's favor, no?).

--Khanwulf

Emphasis mine. Really? Only the family of the groom could realistically fight it?

Them neither. It is totally between the groom and the bride. You don't even need a priest. A promise to marry was considered as good as the real thing.



What legal options would the family or families have if the marriage happened without their consent? Disownment? Inheritance adjustments? Royal involvement?

Disownment definitely. Disinheriting, yep.

Royal involvement doesn't matter as far as the marriage itself is concerned, but of course the King can bring a pretty heavy mallet down on whoever invokes his ire.

And of course there is always the issue of getting one or both of them to recant, for the good of their family. Basically perjure themselves by saying that they never consented or that the marriage never took place or wasn't consummated. Such as Giovanni Sforza having to sign a confession that he was impotent and that the marriage to Lucrezia Borgia was never consummated. Thus the marriage was annulled and Pope Alexander VI was able to arrange a more politically advantageous match for his daughter.

Thanks Morien, your response inadvertently made a future plotline I've been considering much easier!

So what if one of the pair dies before they can publicly testify to the marriage? And there are inheritance issues? Resulting children? It becomes a legal dispute subject to the various measures of justice?

Love the reference to Borgia!

--Khanwulf

So what if one of the pair dies before they can publicly testify to the marriage? And there are inheritance issues? Resulting children? It becomes a legal dispute subject to the various measures of justice?

Depends who all are involved.

A glorious, chivalric knight and his long-time amor get married but he dies soon thereafter, and she finds herself pregnant? Probably not a big problem, although brothers/other inheritors might contest it, and then it is up to the liege to decide. Probably she would turn to someone to champion her cause in a duel, and that would decide the validity of her claim. If the two were publicly betrothed to one another, then the marriage would probably be accepted as a done deal.

Random peasant girl claiming that Sir Lances-a-lot promised to marry her before a tumble in the hay? Yeah, not going to pass muster.

There is also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titulus_Regius

This is an interesting article, about marriage in medieval times.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/love-and-marriage-in-medieval-england/

It has a bit about reading the banns (the reading three times of your intention to marry) but that was late medieval so in this period there is no need to announce your intention.

I suspect part of the reason it was brought in was not only to check if there were an impediment, but also to help prove you were married, if everyone had been hearing about it weeks before. As the article does say a lot of issues in medieval times were about proving you were married.

"Legal records show people getting married on the road, down the pub, round at friends’ houses or even in bed. All that was required for a valid, binding marriage was the consent of the two people involved."

"Marriage was the only acceptable place for sex and as a result Christians were allowed to marry from puberty onwards, generally seen at the time as age 12 for women and 14 for men. Parental consent was not required." - Might not want to bring up having children getting married in game.

Depends who all are involved.

A glorious, chivalric knight and his long-time amor get married but he dies soon thereafter, and she finds herself pregnant? Probably not a big problem, although brothers/other inheritors might contest it, and then it is up to the liege to decide. Probably she would turn to someone to champion her cause in a duel, and that would decide the validity of her claim. If the two were publicly betrothed to one another, then the marriage would probably be accepted as a done deal.

Random peasant girl claiming that Sir Lances-a-lot promised to marry her before a tumble in the hay? Yeah, not going to pass muster.

There is also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titulus_Regius

Do greatly appreciate the historical references you bring into discussion, Morien.

So yeah, as supposed: if you have status to get your claim respected then your claim will hold up better. If not, then you're out of luck in obtaining justice. It's in line with the material in BoU and BotW, though we can presume in later periods that Arthur is more "just" and moderates what would otherwise be the more egregious behavior by his example.

Oh who am I kidding--the RT implodes because people can't keep it in their pants!

--Khanwulf

This is an interesting article, about marriage in medieval times.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/love-and-marriage-in-medieval-england/

It has a bit about reading the banns (the reading three times of your intention to marry) but that was late medieval so in this period there is no need to announce your intention.

I suspect part of the reason it was brought in was not only to check if there were an impediment, but also to help prove you were married, if everyone had been hearing about it weeks before. As the article does say a lot of issues in medieval times were about proving you were married.

"Legal records show people getting married on the road, down the pub, round at friends’ houses or even in bed. All that was required for a valid, binding marriage was the consent of the two people involved."

"Marriage was the only acceptable place for sex and as a result Christians were allowed to marry from puberty onwards, generally seen at the time as age 12 for women and 14 for men. Parental consent was not required." - Might not want to bring up having children getting married in game.

Yeah KAP downplays the early marriage ages in order to avoid supporting practices now considered unacceptable. Just as the books don't force you to get into human sacrifice, beheading or hanging prisoners to obtain favor of the deity (as some cultures of the time did)... some things are just unnecessary.

I'll also assume there was quite a bit of "I'm pregnant and we should be married already--dad agrees." "Um. Ok." (With and without pointed things.)
Plus some of "she's pregnant and I can't find X, so you can marry her. Now. You agree, of course. Say 'thank you.'" "Uh. Yes sire. Thank you."

Legal claims of all kinds were essentially a matter of reaching the bar for substantiation that others chose to impose.... Not much for peasants. Rather more when property became an issue.

Edit: "So, for engaged couples, having sex created a legally binding marriage. Consent could also be shown by giving and receiving an item referred to English as a ‘wed’. A ‘wed’ could be any gift understood by those involved to mean consent to marry but was often a ring. A ‘wedding’ where a man gave a woman a ring and she accepted it created the marriage."

Oho! So let's expand our understanding of the whole Madoc thing, shall we? He shows up with the ring token Uther gave to his mother, and they obviously consummated the promise. That means that for the purposes of the day Uther and the woman were married! Madoc is the legitimate son and heir, as acknowledged by Crown-Prince Uther. All of Uther's bastards do not carry marriage promises and remain illegitimate if potentially problematic should the nobility-at-large choose to support them. During the Anarchy the nobility apparently doesn't feel the need to do so, however, as the quantity of bastards dilutes any individual claim.

--Khanwulf

Arthur, by contrast, is smart enough to impose a limitation when the Lady of the Lake comes calling for a boon for giving him Excalibur... "He agrees to pay her whatever he can pay without losing honor." So when she starts asking for heads of people who have transgressed against her family, he can deny her request.


This actually is very different in Le Morte (Malory) than in GPC:

In Le Morte, Arthur meets the Lady of the Lake at the shore of the lake (she is NOT the arm holding aloft Excalibur from the lake) and this is Arthur's promise when he is given Excalibur:
"By my faith, said Arthur, I will give you what gift ye will ask."
No caveats there.

Even when the Lady of the Lake comes to claim her gift:
"Ye say well, said the king; ask what ye will and ye shall have it, an it lie in my power to give it."

It is only after the Lady of the Lake demands the head of either Balin, the damsel, or both, that Arthur balks:
"Truly, said King Arthur, I may not grant neither of their heads with my worship, therefore ask what ye will else, and I shall fulfil your desire."

So from that example, it is right and proper to deny unreasonable requests (although when dealing with the Faerie, one might end up cursed as the consequence). Now if the Lady of the Lake had said in the beginning that Arthur can have the sword, in return for the head of her brother's killer, and Arthur had said yes, then Arthur would be in a bind.

In GPC, Greg omitted Arthur's promise at the lake (indeed, the Lady is not mentioned at all, which gives the false impression that the arm was hers) and then inserted the caveat in GPC before the Lady makes her request at Court, making it seem that this was the first time Arthur is promising anything, where as in Le Morte, he has already promised 'anything you want' twice.

Yeah, honestly Balin did Arthur the biggest favor by taking the decision out of his hands. He didn't even have to moan "will no one rid me of this troublesome priestess?"

Of course, Balin got banished immediately on pain of death, but a good knight (as he just demonstrated with the sword) takes what licks are needed for the king. And then reconciles by offering something of greater value, later (like Rions!).

--Khanwulf

PS. Back on track with the discussion, obviously breaking a reckless promise gets you an honor hit. Arthur could afford it, especially if the request is publicly inappropriate (which might, oh, halve the damage), but it's there.