Could the forum please be my agony aunt for a bit of GM advice? I have a player knight (Pagan) in my group who has been chasing the most beautiful maiden in the county (APP 23), who is also Pagan. She has a reasonable dowry (a manor and a bit of money), but her father wanted a husband for her who would help curb her flirtatious ways. Unfortunately, not only does the PK go off with her for a roll in the hay after publically flirting with her at a Christmas court, but the next year she gives birth to a baby daughter.

Now, my question is this: the father is furious about his daughter's condition, but should/could he (along with the Earl) force the PK to marry her, possibly with a reduced dowry? In turn, would this make the daughter legitimate (of course, this would be a more important question if it had been a son). Malory's description of Arthur and Ygraine's reconciliation seems to make a fair bit of play of Uther and Ygraine's marriage so soon after Arthur's conception, so I wonder whether that would apply in this case, albeit after birth rather than conception!

The Earl could "force" the marriage. The Knight couldn't force it directly, he doen't get to command the PC direclty. He could petition the Earl. This could lead to a marriage (if the Earl sides in the knight's favor), or possibly a trial by combat (if the knight protests his innocence).

The knight could, also send his daughter off to a nunnery. Or seek vengeance against the knight in other ways.

The knight could also hold a sword to the back of the PK's head and suggest he marry the girl. (Whether it'd be wise...another story.)

And yes, marriage does retroactively debastardize the daughter.

Or does it? If the pc married the lady, and had a son in wedlock, wouldn't that newborn be classed as the heir, not the bastard who was born outside of marriage?

If the baby were born three months after marriage, that would be one thing (and honestly, the father would in all probability made his move then, not after birth--you may be able to retcon that, maybe?). I'm fairly sure that a son with the exact same parents would not be held inferior to a younger son just because of the timing of the birth, though I can't offer any concrete examples now.

Thanks for the replies everybody! By "forcing" them to marry, I meant morally more than legally, and yes I was thinking that the father would ask the Earl to apply some pressure if the knight didn't do the decent thing. I like the idea of sending her to a nunnery, which would be great if all three parties weren't pagan!

So, I'm inclined towards my initial solution which was for the father to insist that they marry, but hand over a much reduced dowry (with resulting decline in the Glory gained by the knight), and if he refuses (fail an honor roll?) get the Earl to put the squeeze on him. I'm lucky insofar as although I've had a further session since this all came up, the particular player involved didn't attend, so I could do a little bit of retconning. No other PKs were pursuing this lady, so it's all pretty hermetic.

A lower dowry would insult his daughter and his own family more than the knight. A lower dowry means the woman is worth less. The knight would probably say no as he could find a better match. So the father is almost certainly going to have to convince the Earl to arrange the marriage if he lowers the dowry.

And nothing says that a Pagan can't send his Pagan daughter off to a nunnery. It would serve her right for brining shame to the family. (And if there is no shame because they are pagan, then what is dad all steamed up about?).

Now, my question is this: the father is furious about his daughter's condition, but should/could he (along with the Earl) force the PK to marry her,


He cold



possibly with a reduced dowry?


mmmm, maybe



In turn, would this make the daughter legitimate (of course, this would be a more important question if it had been a son). Malory's description of Arthur and Ygraine's reconciliation seems to make a fair bit of play of Uther and Ygraine's marriage so soon after Arthur's conception, so I wonder whether that would apply in this case, albeit after birth rather than conception!


I am pretty sure it would legitimitize the child.

But does it take marriage to legitimize a child? I thought the only thing needed was for the father to formally recognize the child and he/she would be legitimized. Have I been wrong all these years?

But does it take marriage to legitimize a child? I thought the only thing needed was for the father to formally recognize the child and he/she would be legitimized. Have I been wrong all these years?


Yes, at least according to the law of england and Wales, and no according to other laws.



A bastard (also called whoreson) in the law of England and Wales is a person whose parents, at the time of his birth, are not married to each other.

Unlike many other systems of law, there was no possibility of post hoc legitimization of a bastard.


But,



In Medieval Wales, prior to its conquest by and incorporation in England, a "bastard" was defined solely as a child not acknowledged by his father. All children acknowledged by a father, whether born in or out of wedlock, had equal legal rights including the right to share in the father's inheritance.

I guess that in Pendragon that would mean the law would change in Wales (Cambria) sometime after the Cambrian War. At least among the knights. I'm not sure if it would work that way for the Hill Tribes though.

But does it take marriage to legitimize a child? I thought the only thing needed was for the father to formally recognize the child and he/she would be legitimized. Have I been wrong all these years?

Yes, at least according to the law of england and Wales, and no according to other laws.


And according to the laws of Pendragon, wrong again.





A bastard (also called whoreson) in the law of England and Wales is a person whose parents, at the time of his birth, are not married to each other.
Unlike many other systems of law, there was no possibility of post hoc legitimization of a bastard.



I have to disagree with this. Perhaps this was so among commoners, though I don't think so.



But,


In Medieval Wales, prior to its conquest by and incorporation in England, a "bastard" was defined solely as a child not acknowledged by his father. All children acknowledged by a father, whether born in or out of wedlock, had equal legal rights including the right to share in the father's inheritance.


This was not so in England in the ME
A bastard was illegitimate, and could NOT inherit anything from his father.
A legitimization process existed that had to go through the Pope, and was hence very expensive.

In KAP, the Pope only heads one church of several. The legitimization would be approved (or not!) by the local abbot for the British Christians. But it requires a formal, legal process tht may well be opposed by the others in the family that would inherit if there is no male heir.

Out of curiosity, what about legitimizing a pagan's bastard? Would it (in a pagan realm, anyway; say Lothian under King Lot) be a simple decision of the father?

Hum... That depends on whether it is a matrilinear, or patrilinear system. In a matrilinear system there are, technically, no bastards. The mother always knows the child, and the father is not that important anyway...

Even easier than that. In the old cymric (pagan) society an acknowledged bastard was considered legitimate.

Where Pendragon gets interesting is in allowing Pagan Knights. Juding from Greg's last post, it seems that as far as Pendragon goes, the Christian/Feudal view applies and bastards have no rights of inheritance.

Even easier than that. In the old cymric (pagan) society an acknowledged bastard was considered legitimate.

Where Pendragon gets interesting is in allowing Pagan Knights. Juding from Greg's last post, it seems that as far as Pendragon goes, the Christian/Feudal view applies and bastards have no rights of inheritance.


My objective is to keep things simple.
My rulings tend to be "from the center," or from the majority position.

Complications within a pagan and christian cultural conflict are variants on normal.
It could be fun to have inheritance issues. A knight going north with patriarchal expectations, or south without, are wonderfu opportunities.

But I don't want to have to make rules for it! :)

I understand. I don't want my games to get bogged down in legal matters all the time either. The ocassional knight cheated of his lands story makes a nice adventure. Lots of inheritance stories do not make for lots of nice adventures.

As a GM I was lucky. The one time it's come up the bastard squire went and got himself killed (Glorliously, too, for the 1000 glory) before inheritance became an issue. ;D