Hi all.

Another one of those inheritance questions, that is slightly different from what I could find with a quick thread search.

So here is the situation:
A PK knight is dying (-4 hit points after first aid and I confess I am reluctant as the GM to wave deus ex machina wand and have him healed by magic, since there is no reason for Camille to do so).

His lands: 1 manor in Salisbury (paternal), 2 manors in Hampshire (maternal).

Family: 1yr old son, wife possibly pregnant (have not thrown the childbirth for this year yet), 2 step-sisters (maternal), 3 male cousins (paternal, fathers' were cousins)

This is how far I have gotten:

a) Widow gets the Widow's Portion which is 2L / Manor. Now the question I would have about this is whether or not this can be converted to 'one manor, but you need to hire a knight', which would of course be more beneficial to the rest of the estate. I would imagine this has a lot to do with who is looking after the Widow's rights and who is throwing their weight around for the estate?

b) If the son survives or if there is another baby who survives, then there is no question who'd inherit the 3 manors. But if they die... What happens?

1) Stepsisters inherit their mother's two manors, while the cousins inherit the paternal manor.
2) Stepsisters inherit all three manors, since they are next of kin to the most recent holder of the manors. This would take the paternal manor out of the paternal bloodline, though. Cousins would likely object.
3) Cousins claim that all the three manors became part of the PK knight's paternal bloodline when he inherited the manors from his mother, so they should inherit all of them. Stepsisters would likely object (well, their paternal stepbrother, most likely, on their behalf).

My gut feeling is to go with 1. This can become messy in latter generations, if a direct line of descent gets snuffed out, but hey, court drama. Option 2 would be closest to the modern way of doing things, but it feels wrong that, for example, the sons of a widowed queen in her second marriage (step-brothers of the king) would have a claim on the throne over the king's uncle/cousins of royal blood.

Just to clarify, I'd see option 1 as the most just, but options 2 and 3 can come into play depending on the PKs (one who might be the eldest cousin (new char to replace the deceased PK), and the other who is stepbrother of the stepsisters through their common father). Yeah, our family trees tend to become entangled with one another. :P

What do you mean by (maternal) and (paternal) regarding the manors? inheritance is always passed down through the male line where possible.

I'm not sure how to handle the widow's portion. In my games, I basically handwave it away for player character estates - I think that the economics of pendragon aren't really fine-grained enough to cope with them well, because
(a) 3 manors probably means the estates are required to provide 3 knights to the overlord (whether or not the landholder is alive or not - someone will be administering those lands, and that person will have that obligation)
(b) widows portions take away income from the manors, meaning it's much harder to meet that obligation.

Maybe it's tradition that the new lord gets relieved of 1/3rd of his obligation while the widow lives...

Having said that, in this case, where there are 3 manors, it's pretty simple: I'd say the widow gets one of the manors to hold until she dies, and the overlord relieves her of the necessity to raise a knight.

Anyway, sidestepping that question...

You can get as messy as you want with inheritance, and it can be fun. But note that the default position in Pendragon is always the simplest. Estates are rarely broken up during inheritance - you just need to decide who gets the lot. (there can be exceptions, depending on how the player got each manor of the estate, but the default state is they manors stay together,) So here's how I see it...

* is there a male heir? If so, he gets the land.
* is there an opportunity to introduce a previously unknown heir, a lost child of the dead PC? This is a cheap way to let then player hang on to the land. Though you can make it more difficult by having the new knight have to prove his claim somehow.
* Is there a daughter? Note: this woman will be married off by the overlord, and the new knight will be an NPC (or another player). This means the lands leave the players control - he loses them and someone else gets them. There's the opportunity to play out who gets to marry her, and if your generous, you could stack the deck in favour of another knight run by the player of the dead pc. However, since most outcomes involve the player losing that estate, consider:
* is there another male relative, a cousin, uncle, or nephew played by the PC? If so, he will agitate for control of the land, by fair means or foul. (If there are more than one, choose by ranking within their own families - or if some are pcs and some NPCs, play the politics of succession out - each will be trying to win the overlord's support for their claim.)
* Finally, if no other possibility remains, then the overlord will take the land back and give it to someone else. (If the land is wealthy, he may try to do this anyway!)

What do you mean by (maternal) and (paternal) regarding the manors? inheritance is always passed down through the male line where possible.


I thought it was clear from the context. The PK inherited one manor from his father, and two from his mother, who was an heiress (no brothers). After his father died, having just had the PK as a child, the mother remarried and had two daughters with her second husband. Now the PK is dead, and the contenders for his three manors are:
1) His son who may or may not survive infancy (he was born last year). If he survives, no problem, he inherits all three.
2) His two step-sisters who, I believe, have a good claim on the two manors through their mother (but no relation to the PK's father and hence no claim on that one manor).
3) His cousins from the father's side, who would have a good claim on the manor the PK inherited from his father (but no relation to the PK's mother and hence no claim on those two manors).

Furthermore, wouldn't dower lands (not an issue here, but in general) be inherited by the offspring of the woman? Hence, for example, if a vassal knight (1 manor) marries a woman with a dower of 2 manors, their child would inherit all three. However, if the woman dies without a child, the manors revert back to her original family. Same if the husband dies without issue: the widow's dower lands will revert to her family, not to the husband's family.



Having said that, in this case, where there are 3 manors, it's pretty simple: I'd say the widow gets one of the manors to hold until she dies, and the overlord relieves her of the necessity to raise a knight.


Of course I find that problematic as well, or I wouldn't have asked. :) Why would the overlord excuse a widow from the necessity of furnishing a knight? Imagine a situation where, instead of just a couple of manor, this would be someone like a Countess, whose widow's portion would be, say, 50 manors out of 150. Many of those manors should, actually, already have a vassal knight. Or are we talking about 33% of the manors held directly by the deceased Earl (i.e. demesne manors)? This whole issue gets very messy, if vassal knights are partitioned off to Widows...



You can get as messy as you want with inheritance, and it can be fun. But note that the default position in Pendragon is always the simplest. Estates are rarely broken up during inheritance - you just need to decide who gets the lot. (there can be exceptions, depending on how the player got each manor of the estate, but the default state is they manors stay together,) So here's how I see it...


Yes, I agree with you in general, but as you can see from my clarification, the issue is not so clear cut. If it had been 3 manors inherited as a block from the PK's father, there would be no contest: after the son, the cousins would inherit it all. However, since two of those manors were inherited from the PK's mother, and there are still two daughters of that mother alive, shouldn't they have a claim on their mother's estates after their step-brother (the dying PK)?

If the sisters were full sisters, I would be inclined to let them inherit it all. Makes sense since I think a man's daughters should inherit before his brothers or cousins in normal manor cases. This also explains why there are so many heiresses around for the PKs to marry. But now the issue is confused by the fact that they are step-sisters.

Here is a quick family tree since I am not sure I am making this clear:
-- son -- son -- cousins (claim PK's father's manor via male line)
PK's Great Grandfather --|
-- PK's Grandfather -- PK's Father (one manor) -- PK (inherited 1+2 manors) -- PK's son (would inherit all 3)
married to =
PK's Mother (heiress of two manors)
who was widowed and then married =
Knight Not Related to PK -- two step-sisters of PK (claim their Mom's 2 manors)

Is that making it any clearer? The son is still a toddler and there is a good chance that he will not reach adulthood. If he does, he would inherit all three manors, so no problem. If he doesn't, however, what happens? Like said, my current gut feeling is to look which bloodlines have a claim to the manors:
1. PK's son has the blood of the PK, so he is entitled to all three obviously.
2. PK's stepsisters have the blood of the PK's Mother, so they can claim the 2 manors that PK inherited from Mom if the PK's son dies.
3. PK's cousins have the blood of the PK's Father, so they can claim the manor that PK inherited from Dad if the PK's son dies.

I do understand that it matters a lot how much political, social and military pressure each claimant will bring to bear (as well as game considerations by the GM), should it become an argument between the stepsisters and the cousins. However, I am trying to get a feel if my gut feeling is in line with how other people interpret the inheritance.

What do you mean by (maternal) and (paternal) regarding the manors? inheritance is always passed down through the male line where possible.


I thought it was clear from the context. The PK inherited one manor from his father, and two from his mother, who was an heiress (no brothers).

Ah, I should have realised - especially since I listed that maternal option as in my checklist.

This is pretty easy. You just treat each group of manors individually, go through the checklist and assign them appropriately.


After his father died, having just had the PK as a child, the mother remarried and had two daughters with her second husband. Now the PK is dead, and the contenders for his three manors are:
1) His son who may or may not survive infancy (he was born last year). If he survives, no problem, he inherits all three.
2) His two step-sisters who, I believe, have a good claim on the two manors through their mother (but no relation to the PK's father and hence no claim on that one manor).
3) His cousins from the father's side, who would have a good claim on the manor the PK inherited from his father (but no relation to the PK's mother and hence no claim on those two manors).

It sounds to me like you've answered your own question! Your reasoning here, given the family tree stuff I haven't quoted, is very solid to me. You are aware of the political stuff that goes on, so know that indirect claims such as these might not be granted, but yes, they do have probably good claims exactly as you have stated.


Furthermore, wouldn't dower lands (not an issue here, but in general) be inherited by the offspring of the woman? Hence, for example, if a vassal knight (1 manor) marries a woman with a dower of 2 manors, their child would inherit all three. However, if the woman dies without a child, the manors revert back to her original family. Same if the husband dies without issue: the widow's dower lands will revert to her family, not to the husband's family.

yes, perfectly right.





Having said that, in this case, where there are 3 manors, it's pretty simple: I'd say the widow gets one of the manors to hold until she dies, and the overlord relieves her of the necessity to raise a knight.


Of course I find that problematic as well, or I wouldn't have asked. :) Why would the overlord excuse a widow from the necessity of furnishing a knight? Imagine a situation where, instead of just a couple of manor, this would be someone like a Countess, whose widow's portion would be, say, 50 manors out of 150. Many of those manors should, actually, already have a vassal knight. Or are we talking about 33% of the manors held directly by the deceased Earl (i.e. demesne manors)? This whole issue gets very messy, if vassal knights are partitioned off to Widows...

You see why i handwave it away :)

If there is no surviving son then the estate should split and work along the bloodlines until the next heir is found (male cousin on one side, oldest step-sister on t'other). The gap between ought and is is where lawyers make their living however and people can be remarkably dickish when a capital asset that is the equivalent of several million quid in today's money is at stake.

Note that the step-sisters are only a vector for inheritance however - if they don't have (or acquire) a suitable man to take posession of the manors (and fulfill feudal obligations for same), then they will probably get frozen out. Of course lack of a husband is an eminently temporary condition, especially when you are the heiress to a wealthy estate.

Regards
Luke

Thanks, David and Luke. Seems I am on the right track here.

One additional question about the female inheritance, though... I seem to recall instances in history where the estate was divided up between the husbands of the daughters of the previous lord. Not necessarily evenly, but it wasn't always eldest takes all. And on other occasions, people got pissed when they didn't inherit anything through their wives, the king giving the estate as is to his son who married one of the daughters (can't recall if the said daughter was eldest or not, I'd assume not since she was still unwed).

Ah, here we go. Maud, the Countess of Leicester, and Blanche of Lancaster, daughters of Henry, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Earl of Leicester. Maud was the eldest daughter and inherited the earldom of Leicester (for her husband), while John of Gaunt married Blanche and became the Earl of Lancaster (later Duke).

I am sure there are many other inheritance oddities in the medieval times... Indeed, a lot of the friction between the nobles and the crown seem to arise from a perceived or an actual slight in the matters of inheritance.

EDIT:
Hugh le Despenser the Younger claimed the de Clare (Gloucester) inheritance in right of his wife, and ignored the claims put forward by the husbands of the other two sisters (who seem to have been younger sisters). This has been portrayed poorly in history, which would seem to indicate that the division of the estate was more normal. On the other hand, Despenser was such a detestable man that I would not wonder if he got more than his share of bad press for this.

I have just been reading way too much about this.



A PK knight is dying (-4 hit points after first aid and I confess I am reluctant as the GM to wave deus ex machina wand and have him healed by magic, since there is no reason for Camille to do so).

His lands: 1 manor in Salisbury (paternal), 2 manors in Hampshire (maternal).

Family: 1yr old son, wife possibly pregnant (have not thrown the childbirth for this year yet), 2 step-sisters (maternal), 3 male cousins (paternal, fathers' were cousins)

This is how far I have gotten:

a) Widow gets the Widow's Portion which is 2L / Manor. Now the question I would have about this is whether or not this can be converted to 'one manor, but you need to hire a knight',


anything can be done



which would of course be more beneficial to the rest of the estate. I would imagine this has a lot to do with who is looking after the Widow's rights and who is throwing their weight around for the estate?


Yes, of course.
That is what male relatives are for.




b) If the son... die... What happens?



The Period in question matters.
I am talking here of the post-conquest period when laws are established
Earlier, of course, things are working in this direction

Historically:
First, the king executes his right of primier seisen and the manor escheats to him.
Primier Seisen was a very very big deal in the Middle Ages, which was introduced by King Arthur, I mean Henry II of England.
It means that the king is the first person to take control of the land when an heir dies. He holds it for a year and a day, enjoying its profits.
Earlier, it was often the actual lord of the manor.

Escheat means someone moves in and takes complete inventory of the manor and its value. A thorough investigation is done to determine who is the rightful heir. This is done with documents, sworn testimonies of witnesses, and so on.

The wife gets her 1/3. It is hers to live on, like a life insurance policy.
When she dies the land goes to whoever the rightful heir of the original part was.

In this case, without a male heir, the ling's escheators turn the rights over to the rightful lord, since the heirs are women. Now the king's men leave, and the lord's move in to enjoy the land's profits until the girls are of age.

The matter of who supplies the knights, then, it given back to the lord to deal with. It is his job to provide knights, however he wishes to do it. He will use the funds from the manor to do that.

When the girls are of age the inheritance is divided evenly among them, whatever number or age they might be. Unless they join a nunnery. It was traditional to divide the lands between daughters this way.

People were very careful to keep track of things, so that let's say ol' mom outlives both daughters, who each have a son who grow up. They inherit their share of that 3 manors, which is 1 each, but would not split grandma's manor until she kicked off.

Your other options have every bit as much chance as happening, however, before the lawful period, or in the surrounding kingdoms, or for any and no reason that the king might wish. Oh, you being the king. ;)

In my game, many a manor has been lost to play this way.

Greg et al,

Many of us who are not historians or King Arthur experts are probably struggling with this topic. Do you have or know of a chart that can be used to showcase this?

Not trying to sound like I am volunteering, but I am working slowly on a flowchart of all this. I looked around and couldn't find one out there on the web (at least with my searches). Someone with more expertise and time probably could do it faster.

Possible?
Plausible?
Needed?

Bob

Many of us who are not historians or King Arthur experts are probably struggling with this topic. Do you have or know of a chart that can be used to showcase this?


Yea, sorry. Showing off.

Here is what to do for inheritance in KAP.
When an heir dies, the land is held until the next winter, in which phase the heir is chosen.
He moves in the next spring.
Unless he already lives there.

--Greg

Yea, sorry. Showing off.



When the land goes back to the king for a year, is that year's income considered the "inheritence tax" or does the heir have to pay an addtional year's income.

Alos, you use King, but is it the King or the Liege Lord?

Yea, sorry. Showing off.



When the land goes back to the king for a year, is that year's income considered the "inheritence tax" or does the heir have to pay an additional year's income.



I am not sure, but I think that he has to also pay a fee called a relief.



Alos, you use King, but is it the King or the Liege Lord?


King, actually, although it was sometimes given to his vassals, and when the king was weak, seized by them.