My Player Knights advised Countess Ellen (in 499) to ally with Cornwall and to try to get as much as possible in return for swearing fealty and joining with Cornwall (preferring a proper Briton king over the Saxons). In 500, Prince Mark offers marriage and the script in GPC says that Countess Ellen refuses. Given that she's currently negotiating with Cornwall, I ruled that instead, she will accept the offer of marriage and Salisbury will become part of Cornwall.

Here's how I *think* that'll work, but please someone correct me where I'm wrong:

Countess Ellen becomes Princess Ellen
Salisbury becomes part of Cornwall and breaks its loyalty to Logres (I assume it's not still considered part of Logres since Cornwall is currently conquering various counties in Logres already)
Prince Mark becomes the ruler of Salisbury for now (as a regent)
Once Robert is old enough, he'll inherit Salisbury and be invested as the Earl by King Idres


Where does that leave us when Arthur pulls the sword out of the stone? Should Earl Robert just not go to London? It would seem like the right thing to do here for Earl Robert is to *not* go and swear fealty to Arthur and to remain loyal to King Idres.

Is returning to Logres an option for the Earl and for Salisbury?

I am comfortable figuring out how the Anarchy Period goes differently, but once the Boy King Period arrives, Arthur can't possibly allow Salisbury to remain a part of Cornwall, can he? He needs to consolidate those lands, right? Should Arthur go to war with Cornwall right away?


Also, what's the deal with Ban and Bors? They're referred to as the Kings of Brittany and Gales, but King Idres is King of Cornwall and Brittany prior to that and King Mark is mentioned as being King of Cornwall and Brittany afterward. Are there two Brittanies? Or does Ban or Bors hold Brittany for just a little while? Or what?

I'm pretty sure that even if Robert swears fealty to Mark (which he doesn't really have to do), Salisbury doesn't become Mark's because Robert doesn't owe Mark fealty for those territories. Mark might rule Salisbury as regent while Robert's a child, but he can't take Salisbury from Ellen because Salisbury isn't hers, and Robert is under no obligation to give his territories over to Mark just because Mark is married to his mother. As for Arthur, I think this being the Anarchy, Robert could simply swear fealty over to Arthur, especially 1) if he hasn't already sworn fealty to Mark, but in any case he could just switch because 2) this is the Anarchy. Please find below a link that shows just how fluid the situation could be--in this case, early 11th-century France. You'll find that powerful vassals could threaten to swear fealty to another lord.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/agreement.html

I think Mark is enough of a bastard to try and take over Salisbury for himself, first legally, and then (this being Anarchy) through force, with Cornish knights trying to assert dominance until eventually they're pretty much just one more band of raiders. I like to think of Ellen as a strong, independent-minded woman, so perhaps she'd get the marriage annulled (she'll find a way), which would free her of Mark but turn the legal issue into a tangled morass that probably wouldn't be resolved until Arthur untangles the Gordian Knot through conquest.

The GPC strongly implies that Countess Ellen CAN swear fealty on behalf of Robert. That's what King Cerdic wants her to do.

Cornwall is in the process of invading and conquering Logres. The PKs have come up with "swear fealty to Cornwall" as their plan for getting through the Anarchy Period. So they will become part of Cornwall. There's no need for Mark to try to take over, Salisbury is being handed to him in exchange for protection from Saxons and some of the land in Somerset and/or Dorset.

Personally, I'm not seeing Ellen as particularly strong or independent. She's constantly doing whatever her knights tell her to do and she never really influenced anything while she was married before.

You think it would be appropriate though, for Robert to swear fealty to Arthur instead of Idres when he comes of age, though?

If Arthur really is the rightful authority, then yes. One of the constants in medieval just war theory was the importance of rightful authority (as ill-defined as it sometimes was), and if lots of people accept Arthur's achievements as proof of his legitimacy, and Mark shows his defiance of that rightful authority in fighting Arthur, then Salisbury would be perfectly justified in fighting against King Mark.

Also, feudal law is unclear and murky and differed a great deal from place to place and time to time. This being the tail end of the Anarchy, I would think that just about anything could fly, including "you're a bad lord."

By the way, when we say "take over," what are we talking about? Tribute and military aid to Cornwall, or will Mark be appointing Cornish lords to fiefs in Salisbury? Swearing fealty would require the former, while the latter might be beyond that (maybe enough to inspire Salisbury to switch over to Arthur?)

By the way, when we say "take over," what are we talking about? Tribute and military aid to Cornwall, or will Mark be appointing Cornish lords to fiefs in Salisbury? Swearing fealty would require the former, while the latter might be beyond that (maybe enough to inspire Salisbury to switch over to Arthur?)


I like that. If my players allied with Cornwall, I'd certainly consider having the King of Cornwall interfering in the running of the region, and appointing his own cronies to positions the players have already won - or charging them fees to keep their position.