Spoiler Maps! Based on the GPC and Others

[Username]

I didn't articulate myself clearly. I think there's no dispute that the Roman Empire ended in the late 5th century in the west. Further, I don't think there is any meaningful dispute that people of the 6th through most of the 7th century would have considered the Byzantine Empire as the Romans. Though if I remember correctly, Justin, the emperor before Justinian was supposedly the last native Latin speaker.

What I was trying to say is that in the medieval times period in which the majority of the Matter of Britain comes from there was a certain skepticism about Byzantine claims as to the Emperor of the Romans by Western Europeans. While there was recognition of their Roman heritage and frequent recognition of them as Romania, their was a, a well documented I believe, push back against them especially amongst their detractors that they were Greeks who did not control Rome. I don't believe that they would have said when questioned that the Byzantines were not the remnants of the Roman Empire, but I believe that they were viewed as just that, remnants which had lost much of their "Roman" characteristics and become Greek. For example, even one of our most prominent authors on the subject of Arthur, Chretien de Troyes, refers to Cliges and Alexander as Greek, not Roman. That's why I believe the Romans in these stories are, more or less, what we think of as the Roman Empire, the empire that controlled Europe.

As to why Malory chooses for Arthur to defeat the Romans, I believe it mostly has to do with tradition. The Romans are a traditional Arthurian foe. Gildas in his history of the Britons has Arthur defeat the Romans but turn back before becoming the emperor. This is the earliest reference I know of, there may be others. Also, I'm not sure if the Alliterative Le Morte de Arthur is before Malory, but in that the Romans were also the enemy. That is not to say that the lose of Constantinople did not effect Malory's writing, but I do not believe it was the main reason. Malory, in my opinion, seems to be an impressive fusion and consolidation of the various materials and sources into one narrative more than a brilliant piece of writing on it's own.

[jeffjerwin]

The story of Arthur defeating the Romans (rather than turning back) first appears in Harding's Chronicle (first edition in 1457), which is a work of English nationalism that is meant (originally) to glorify Henry V, beside whom Harding fought at Agincourt.

Malory probably knew this text.

The Alliterative Morte is pre-Malorian and pre Harding, and reflects the tradition before Henry V's day: that Arthur did not defeat the Romans because of Mordred's treachery.

1 hour ago, Username said:

As to why Malory chooses for Arthur to defeat the Romans, I believe it mostly has to do with tradition. The Romans are a traditional Arthurian foe. Gildas in his history of the Britons has Arthur defeat the Romans but turn back before becoming the emperor. This is the earliest reference I know of, there may be others. Also, I'm not sure if the Alliterative Le Morte de Arthur is before Malory, but in that the Romans were also the enemy. That is not to say that the lose of Constantinople did not effect Malory's writing, but I do not believe it was the main reason. Malory, in my opinion, seems to be an impressive fusion and consolidation of the various materials and sources into one narrative more than a brilliant piece of writing on it's own.

Edit: Note that in the Chronicle tradition, Arthur fought the Romans only in the last year of his reign. The Romans (and French/Claudas' people) appear in the Vulgate as part of a conflict over Benoic/Benwick, and also in the Estoire de Merlin shortly after Arthur becomes king, so by the time that the whole Vulgate and Post-Vulgate is done (c.1250) Arthur fights the Romans three times: in (KAP dating) c.510 in alliance with Ban and Bors, in c.536 in alliance with Lancelot, and in 564 before Mordred's treachery. In KAP the first is moved to 527 because Malory adapted the Alliterative Morte, which had Lancelot present (it being part of a tradition where Lancelot doesn't have anything to do with the Downfall).

Edited December 6, 2019 by jeffjerwin

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

when he got backstabbed by Ricimer.

We are deep into the what-if, but if Majorian had completed a successful invasion of Africa and defeated the Vandals, Ricimer might not have had the backing to launch a coup against Majorian. Indeed, Majorian might have decided to do some pre-emptive shortening of Ricimer's career, instead.

Who knows? All I am saying is that Majorian was leading a successful (until Valencia) reconquest and unification of Western Roman Empire. Had he been successful in adding Africa, only Britain would have remained outside the traditional WRE. The elimination of the Vandal Kingdom of Africa would have been HUGE. Vandal piracy and the unsuccessful attempts at invading Africa drained both WRE and ERE of funds and manpower they badly needed. Even if we assume that Majorian still gets murdered by Ricimer on return, it is likely that Africa would have slipped easily to ERE's hold, making ERE more wealthy (no failed invasion in 468) and having a ripple effect on making Justinian's efforts to reconquer the WRE easier.

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Username said:

Gildas in his history of the Britons

You mean Nennius, although I think you are mistaken there as well. Nennius has the 12 Battles of Arthur, but not War against Rome. That crops up in HRB by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Jeff is correct that whilst Arthur slays Emperor Lucius, he doesn't get to Rome to be crowned as Emperor in HRB: "But at the beginning of the following summer, as he wason his march towards Rome and was beginning to pass the Alps, he hadnews brought him that his nephew Modred, to whose care he hadentrusted Britain, had by tyrannical and treasonable practices set thecrown upon his own head; and that queen Guanhumara, in violation ofher first marriage, had wickedly married him."

Gildas, born on the year of the Battle of Badon, famously doesn't mention Arthur at all. Nor any war against Rome.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Morien

[jeffjerwin]

4 minutes ago, Morien said:

You mean Nennius, although I think you are mistaken there as well. Nennius has the 12 Battles of Arthur, but not War against Rome. That crops up in HRB by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Jeff is correct that whilst Arthur slays Emperor Lucius, he doesn't get to Rome to be crowned as Emperor in HRB: "But at the beginning of the following summer, as he wason his march towards Rome and was beginning to pass the Alps, he hadnews brought him that his nephew Modred, to whose care he hadentrusted Britain, had by tyrannical and treasonable practices set thecrown upon his own head; and that queen Guanhumara, in violation ofher first marriage, had wickedly married him."

Gildas, born on the year of the Battle of Badon, famously doesn't mention Arthur at all. Nor any war against Rome.

Yes, it is better put here: Arthur never becomes Emperor, though he certainly kills the Emperor and routs the Roman army. He becomes Emperor in Harding and Malory alone (and, well, in Welsh poetry, where he is 'amheraudr" - the Welsh also considered Magnus Maximus an emperor).

Edited December 6, 2019 by jeffjerwin

[Morien]

6 hours ago, Username said:

Is there any information does anyone have any suggestions for forest placement on a county level? The map in the back of Pendragon 5.2 looks good at scale, but looks awful when scaled down to the county level as you can tell from my county maps. It's too much forest in too big of blocks. It's entirely unrealistic and I read recently that in the 11th century the forest cover in England would have been comparable to what it is now ~15%. Obviously Pendragon needs more, but I'd say, roughly speaking we're looking at nearly ~50% being forest cover now.

Just because it is forested, it doesn't mean it is uninhabited nor that it doesn't have fields (or other uses). Not every scrap of treeless soil is a field, or even a pasture. A lot of Cornwall is moors. I admit that I could stand seeing Cameliard as a bit of a break between Arden, Arroy, Bedegraine and Sauvage Forests, though.

Chalk it up to the Enchantment of Britain?

EDIT: Royal Forestry Society: https://www.rfs.org.uk/media/441738/7-a-brief-history-of-british-woodlands.pdf

Bronze Age: About 50%, Iron Age: clearing (didn't say, maybe 25%???), Romans: clearing even more (didn't say, to 10-15%???), Subroman & Anglo-Saxon: increasing to about 25% again, Normans: 15%, Mid-14th: 7%, Early Modern: some recovery (maybe 15%???), 19th century: Intense clearing so that at the start of 20th century only 5%.

EDIT 2: So if I were to start barbering some forests off, Cameliard as said in above, and then at least around the Royal Road in Hertford, Huntingdon, Lonazep and Lincoln. The area around Dorchester and Wareham, and then the forest between Hantonne and Portchester, and Isle of Wight. Probably the northern spurt of Perdue Forest, around Windsor. I might also get rid of the Campactorentin Forest, between Cirencester and Wandborough. In the north, I'd probably reduce the wood cover around Catterick, Carduel and Nohaut in general. Interestingly enough, while the Salisbury map shows plenty of forests all around the county, forests like Chute, Harewood, Colingwood and Savernak are omitted in the big map...

Edited December 7, 2019 by Morien

[Username]

@Morien You're right Gildas is the wrong person. I did not mean Nennius however. I was thinking of Geoffrey of Monmouth as well. I was so certain it was Gildas too haha. 

I would say, I wasn't claiming that earlier works made Arthur Emperor, actually I said the opposite though I used the wrong author name, just that Malory used the Romans as a foil because of their frequent appearances as enemies who Arthur defeats, I should specify here and say in battle and doesn't rule over. 

52 minutes ago, Morien said:

EDIT 2: So if I were to start barbering some forests off, Cameliard as said in above, and then at least around the Royal Road in Hertford, Huntingdon, Lonazep and Lincoln. The area around Dorchester and Wareham, and then the forest between Hantonne and Portchester, and Isle of Wight. Probably the northern spurt of Perdue Forest, around Windsor. I might also get rid of the Campactorentin Forest, between Cirencester and Wandborough. In the north, I'd probably reduce the wood cover around Catterick, Carduel and Nohaut in general. Interestingly enough, while the Salisbury map shows plenty of forests all around the county, forests like Chute, Harewood, Colingwood and Savernak are omitted in the big

This is useful, thanks! The block at scale are so huge that we have huge swathes of forest which isn't normal land use patterns for a heavily managed forest nor does the total amount of forest cover make sense for the heavy use. It looks fine at a British Island scale for generalizations (though I'm still learning to there being too much, but currently unsure). At a county scale, the issue become very apparent. However, there's so much though and I'm unfamiliar with where the cuts 😉 could happen that I figured I'd ask for advice. My goal would be 33% or so. Scotland on the maps, (mostly based on a map from Beyond the Wall, I think and from the GPC) is actually a good example, I think.

I was think about using the Domesday Book open map forest professions (found here https://opendomesday.org/map/ ) to use as a potential source of fragmentation and cutting, but as you can tell, woodlands we're everywhere, but I imagine there were little to no vast unbroken wildernesses. 

I'm not content with the watercolor style either, so I was thinking about doing the county maps inspired by a series of 1805 English county maps. Here's my current draft if you're interested in it for Salisbury. It's pretty hideous at the moment and will likely be very different when done, but it gives a different aesthetic.

 

Edit: @jeffjerwin Thanks for responding by the way, i didn't know that about Harding Chronicle and have never read it. I just assumed Arthur's crowning as Roman Emperor was Malory's invention.

Salisbury County Map 1805 County Map Style.pdf

Edited December 7, 2019 by Username

[jeffjerwin]

The forest cover in KAP is based on maps made in the 1930s of forest cover in the 'Dark Ages' that have since been discarded. Here: 

You will notice that the boundaries of the forests have a bit more detail than in the KAP maps.

I use the following website for my game: http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/forests/. Note, however, that Forests and Chases are not necessarily woodland, just areas with abundant game, such as open fields, light woodlands, and marshes.

[Morien]

14 hours ago, Username said:

Here's my current draft if you're interested in it for Salisbury.

Do my eyes deceive me, or are you bringing the Modron Forest much farther east (engulfing Vagon and reaching the outskirts of Wilton) and Camelot Forest much farther north (covering Broad and Ebble) than I recall them being?

Edited December 7, 2019 by Morien

[Username]

@jeffjerwin Thanks! I'll definitely use those. I think they'll be good.

@Morien They are. The Salisbury map you posted has the forests to different extents then the large scale maps. I'm actually working from a larger map of the whole of the British Isles to make the county maps. That way the changes I make stylistically can be easily extended to the whole country. I was thinking about using the Salisbury map for Salisbury, but since the scope is so limited I was hesitant since it seemed that the work would just have to change if I found a better source. I did plot the larger villages (Upavon and Warminster) from there and the castles. I'm also considering doing another version of the manors, but I like that map so much that it seems redundant. I actually use that Salisbury map instead of anyone of the ones I have.

Edit: To anyone who'd know, would the mountains/hills of Wales/Cumbria been forested in the 6th century? My familiarity with English geography is Google Earth. And I notice that much of it seems to be marginal land either pasture or what looks to be scrubland. I'm considering about seeding the mountains with trees to represent that.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Username

[jeffjerwin]

2 hours ago, Username said:

 

Edit: To anyone who'd know, would the mountains/hills of Wales/Cumbria been forested in the 6th century? My familiarity with English geography is Google Earth. And I notice that much of it seems to be marginal land either pasture or what looks to be scrubland. I'm considering about seeding the mountains with trees to represent that.

No, only the valleys, which are heavily forested.

But Snowdon is still called a 'forest' - it being wild country - but the uplands are pasture for sheep and cattle; open brush. The forest where Perceval grows up is in the deep valleys below Snowdon, where there are tangled woodlands.

Edited December 7, 2019 by jeffjerwin

[Username]

Hello, back again! The county map style update is completed, I think. I finished it at lunch today. Anyways, I'm uploading it here for people to take look at and when I'm sure I'm satisfied with it, I'll add it to my first post. The inspiration for this one was a series of 1805 county maps I found for counties in England. They were really interesting and labelled the hundreds of every county, not something I wanted to do personally, but really interesting nonetheless. I did use a fantastic heraldry with a little touch-up in Photoshop for the county crest in the corner. I can't remember who shared that, but thank you! I remember getting it from a Google Drive Link. If you want me to take it off, just let me know and I'll replace it on the map with a new one. Finally, the file is kind of large for a map file of it's scale. I haven't compressed it yet, so you may have to wait a second for the imagery to fully load.

As an aside, I really thought about doing a legend for this one like the Salisbury county map, but it's not really a thing in these old maps and I was having some difficulty deciding on the design. I also spent entirely too long trying to place the county names in the counties themselves and they never looked good/didn't obscure something essential. So, I tossed it and stuck a pretty cool name card in the corner of I do say so myself. 

Salisbury County Map 1805 County Map Style.pdf

[Username]

Salisbury County Map 1805 style Manors .pdfSo, I ran into a problem printing my previous image, my printer didn't recognize the text. So, I converted it to a jpg and exported it again. While I was at it, I also plotted the starting manors on there. The quality has dropped, but here's one with Roderick and Robert as Lord and two with the manors plotted. One of them has a reddish tint the other fits to the color scheme better. I'll add Roderick's map and the red Manor map to the first post as well. I think I'm going to lay off the county maps for a while unless there's one someone would like. Meanwhile, I think I'm going to work on a Cambria map. I'm thinking something very Celtic in style and truly ancient looking. And/or maybe a campaign/military map for the campaign from Savage Mountains. Let me know if there's anything that comes to mind. I'm interested in feedback. This is pretty fun for me so I'm interested in a challenge. 

Edit: Tried to fix the weird link placement and failed...

Salisbury County Map 1805 style Manors Red.pdf Salisbury 1805 Style Compressed (Roderick).pdf Salisbury 1805 Style Compressed (Robert).pdf

Edited December 18, 2019 by Username

[Tizun Thane]

I like the old style of your maps. A cambria map will be especially useful, I agree.

[Username]

I command thee revive ye olde topic! Anyways, just like the best zombies we're back. So, I've been working on a Cambria map. (Tons of assets from the Book of Kell's and other old manuscripts, but all of the designs I've put together have been an ugly mess. My dream is some Celtic style map, but since this is basically all on me, it's not going as well. As an unrelated note, Celtic knotwork is like really hard to make into a country border. )

Anyways, depressed by repeated failures and not wanting to make bird no. 4 as a design, I looked at the later maps. And was wondering if anyway had some thoughts to share on the 544 map in the GPC. So, clearly the GPC maps are meant to be more or less as a summary. This is the general situation kind of thing. My questions are:

1. Does Roestoc become Elmet? I think this is probably GM choice, but any thoughts?

2. Does Cameliard become part of Logres? Cameliard presumably after the death of Leodegrance. He doesn't have a son, does he?

3. Is their any push for consolidating those Cumbria nation's into one of the bigger kingdoms? 

4. Deira and Nohaut seem to be reintegrated into Malahaut. Now, I know their not represented earlier, but I think this is a good move to represent the end of Saxon presence. My question would be would you think they stay as Malahaut counties? My feeling is yes since the general assumption seems to be their names don't change back from the new Saxon names when reconquered.

5. Shouldn't Leinster and The Pale be shown as Arthur's realm? Since their speculative land grants. (Whether or not we agree with the imperialistic Arthur representation aside.)

6. Should Pomitain/Isle of Man be listed as it's own kingdom?

7. I'm going back and forth on the idea of including the French lands that would remain a part of Arthur's domain on the map or not. Any preferences?

 

Unrelated to these, I'm going to make a layout for a few other counties in the county style. Is there any anyone else would like?

[Morien]

5 hours ago, Username said:

1. Does Roestoc become Elmet? I think this is probably GM choice, but any thoughts?

No. Forget about Elmet, it stays Roestoc. Greg had a habit of playing with different names for the kingdoms, some of them historical, others literary.

5 hours ago, Username said:

2. Does Cameliard become part of Logres? Cameliard presumably after the death of Leodegrance. He doesn't have a son, does he?

Bit up to the GM, as 4th edition states outright that Guinevere inherits the kingdom once Leodegrance snuffs it, but some stories do introduce a brother ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinevere#Origins_and_family ). The way I GMed it, Leodegrance did not have a son, and Cameliard was ruled by Queen Guinevere with her King Consort, Arthur. I.e. a personal union via Guinevere, rather than subsuming the kingdom into Logres.

5 hours ago, Username said:

3. Is their any push for consolidating those Cumbria nation's into one of the bigger kingdoms? 

Malahaut would no doubt like nothing better, but after Arthur smacks them around during the Boy King, I think he grabbed some lands there, too. For example, Carduel swears allegiance straight to Arthur, not to Malahaut. So making waves there might send the little kings squealing like pigs being slaughtered to the High King: "Help, help, we are being oppressed!"

In our old campaign, Malahaut was very eagerly trying to add some of the minor kingdoms (Rheged, for one) to its lands, whenever Arthur was distracted with something else.

5 hours ago, Username said:

4. Deira and Nohaut seem to be reintegrated into Malahaut. Now, I know their not represented earlier, but I think this is a good move to represent the end of Saxon presence. My question would be would you think they stay as Malahaut counties? My feeling is yes since the general assumption seems to be their names don't change back from the new Saxon names when reconquered.

Yes, although they are more like vassal kingdoms rather than total reconquest like in the south.

5 hours ago, Username said:

5. Shouldn't Leinster and The Pale be shown as Arthur's realm? Since their speculative land grants. (Whether or not we agree with the imperialistic Arthur representation aside.)

Leinster, no. Leinster is its own independent, allied and friendly kingdom. The whole Irish war is to help Leinster.

The Pale, I think yes.

5 hours ago, Username said:

6. Should Pomitain/Isle of Man be listed as it's own kingdom?

It was incorporated via marriage as part of Galeholt's Kingdom of the Isles (i.e. Dal Riada), in 520s. Galeholt dies in 550s, so in 540s, it would still be part of his realm.

5 hours ago, Username said:

7. I'm going back and forth on the idea of including the French lands that would remain a part of Arthur's domain on the map or not. Any preferences?

Sure, why not. Adds something extra that the current map doesn't have.

5 hours ago, Username said:

Unrelated to these, I'm going to make a layout for a few other counties in the county style. Is there any anyone else would like?

Whatever gets your fancy. Hantonne and Silchester (because of the proximity to Salisbury & later Camelot) would likely be most useful for people playing the default GPC.

[Username]

13 hours ago, Morien said:

Bit up to the GM, as 4th edition states outright that Guinevere inherits the kingdom once Leodegrance snuffs it, but some stories do introduce a brother ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinevere#Origins_and_family ). The way I GMed it, Leodegrance did not have a son, and Cameliard was ruled by Queen Guinevere with her King Consort, Arthur. I.e. a personal union via Guinevere, rather than subsuming the kingdom into Logres.

I like this. I didn't think she had a brother, but I knew someone on this board would be able to tell me if it was otherwise!

13 hours ago, Morien said:

Yes, although they are more like vassal kingdoms rather than total reconquest like in the south.

Do we know if Deira has a Saxon king in the later periods? I see Nohaut does.

13 hours ago, Morien said:

Leinster, no. Leinster is its own independent, allied and friendly kingdom. The whole Irish war is to help Leinster.

You're right. That's my mistake. I forgot about King Anguish which is a pretty big oversight.

13 hours ago, Morien said:

It was incorporated via marriage as part of Galeholt's Kingdom of the Isles (i.e. Dal Riada), in 520s. Galeholt dies in 550s, so in 540s, it would still be part of his realm

This is a good point, the 544 map seems to show Dal Raida broken and Pomitain independent which was the confusion. Anyways, it doesn't make any sense to see Dal Raida split since Galeholt joins and isn't conquered like Lot who's "greater" Lothian I am going to show as split. 

13 hours ago, Morien said:

Sure, why not. Adds something extra that the current map doesn't have.

Thanks, I'll give it a shot. I'm thinking an Alaska/Hawaii-style inlay. Maybe the same for the whole of Ireland too.

13 hours ago, Morien said:

Whatever gets your fancy. Hantonne and Silchester (because of the proximity to Salisbury & later Camelot) would likely be most useful for people playing the default GPC.

My GPC has really pivoted West. Because my players really hate Silchester. Thanks to the Suspicious Silchester trait and a rival who accosted them for years. So, I probably would have done Jagent, Dorset, Ascalon, and Rydychan.

 

Edit:

Thanks for all of the help. @Morien

Edited January 23, 2020 by Username
Wrote East meant West

[Atgxtg]

12 hours ago, Morien said:

Bit up to the GM, as 4th edition states outright that Guinevere inherits the kingdom once Leodegrance snuffs it, but some stories do introduce a brother ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinevere#Origins_and_family ). The way I GMed it, Leodegrance did not have a son, and Cameliard was ruled by Queen Guinevere with her King Consort, Arthur. I.e. a personal union via Guinevere, rather than subsuming the kingdom into Logres.

Hmm, if a GM decides to use the False Guinevere this could get very interesting, as it would give her half a kingdom to rule.

[Username]

31 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Hmm, if a GM decides to use the False Guinevere this could get very interesting, as it would give her half a kingdom to rule.

Doing just this actually. I'm wondering what my players will do about this still actually since they met her. I believe they forgot about her though.

[Morien]

55 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Hmm, if a GM decides to use the False Guinevere this could get very interesting, as it would give her half a kingdom to rule.

Nope. False Guinevere is a bastard and hence not inheriting.

[Atgxtg]

1 minute ago, Morien said:

Nope. False Guinevere is a bastard and hence not inheriting.

I know you've said that before for other characters, but historically bastards did inherit. Look at William the Conqueror. If Leodegrance decided to set something aside for her, she would probably get it. 

If a Gm wants to use the False Gwen idea, she becomes much more powerful and significant if she has part of Camelard under her control.

[Username]

I'm not sure I'll go half of the kingdom, but Leodegrance seems like a doting father in my mind, (not sure why). So,  she'll get something at minimum an equivalent to a banneret. We'll probably do whatever is the most dramatic. Haha

[Morien]

18 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I know you've said that before for other characters, but historically bastards did inherit. Look at William the Conqueror. If Leodegrance decided to set something aside for her, she would probably get it. 

William the Bastard was the only son (there was another bastard daughter with another mistress) and while a bastard, he was an acknowledged heir of his father, raised to that role, and had the backing of the King of France and numerous other powerful men. Despite all of that, he spent his youth putting down rebellions, partly fueled by his illegitimate birth.

By contrast, the False Guinevere is a bastard of Leodegrance, who already has a legitimate daughter, who in turn is married to the frigging High King of Britain. Granted, if you go with the Welsh sources and make her a full sister, then by the rules of inheritance, they ought to split the kingdom between them. And if you go by Welsh inheritance rules, acknowledged bastards inherit equally there anyway, but as a feudal state, I would expect Cameliard to follow the Anglo-Norman style of inheritance that bars the bastards from inheriting, especially when there are legitimate offspring.

If you keep her as illegitimate but acknowledged, it is very likely that Leodegrance would have given her something (possibly by marrying her to one of his barons) to help her ahead in life. Such things would be common for royal bastards, used to create marriage alliances or loyal barons to their royal half-siblings (Joan of Wales and Robert of Gloucester as examples of those). But I hardly expect him to give his bastard with the steward's wife half of the whole kingdom.

 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Morien said:

William the Bastard was the only son (there was another bastard daughter with another mistress) and while a bastard, he was an acknowledged heir of his father, raised to that role, and had the backing of the King of France and numerous other powerful men. Despite all of that, he spent his youth putting down rebellions, partly fueled by his illegitimate birth.

That kinda goes with the territory. Few kings rose to and kept power easily.  Legitimacy of birth was really just one more reason to side one way or the other.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

By contrast, the False Guinevere is a bastard of Leodegrance, who already has a legitimate daughter, who in turn is married to the frigging High King of Britain. Granted, if you go with the Welsh sources and make her a full sister, then by the rules of inheritance, they ought to split the kingdom between them. And if you go by Welsh inheritance rules, acknowledged bastards inherit equally there anyway,

Yup, and if a GM were to go with the false Gwen stroy, there are a lot of reasons to go with the Welsh sources over the Vulgate.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

but as a feudal state, I would expect Cameliard to follow the Anglo-Norman style of inheritance that bars the bastards from inheriting, especially when there are legitimate offspring.

Is it a feudal state? it is in Cambria (or border it) a territory that remains at least partially pre-feudal in Arthur's time. It seems somewhat odd that Cameliard's transition to full on feudalism while the lands around it do not.  Again, this is just another way of looking at it -nothing definitive. 

 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

If you keep her as illegitimate but acknowledged, it is very likely that Leodegrance would have given her something (possibly by marrying her to one of his barons) to help her ahead in life. Such things would be common for royal bastards, used to create marriage alliances or loyal barons to their royal half-siblings (Joan of Wales and Robert of Gloucester as examples of those). But I hardly expect him to give his bastard with the steward's wife half of the whole kingdom.

Yes, I imagine that Leodegrance did something with her. Probably gave her something and married her off to someone important, but considering the plot to substitute her for the real Gwen on Arthur's wedding night, it seems that she might have been disowned. Still, it opens the door for all sorts of Man in the Iron Mask type of stories. 

[Morien]

Speaking of False Guinevere, while I do not like that storyline, I could see an opportunity to throw a real twist into the laps of the PKs...

Imagine if the two girls have been parent trapping their respective parents on a lark while kids, changing clothing and so forth. The PKs might visit Cameliard in mid-500s (maybe to negotiate with Nanteleod about Salisbury's allegiance) and see the two girls playing together, with the girl in the less fancy dress reacting first to Leodegrance's call and then giggling and nudging the girl in the fancy dress. A switcheroo or the bastard girl being more observant?

Then in 510, after Carohaise, you could have a situation of 'the bastard' making a scene, barging to the victory feast and claiming to be the princess. But everyone just explains that she is not right in the head poor girl and she is dragged away and locked up in a nunnery. Perhaps the PKs spot a little smile on the lips of 'the princess', who goes on to marry Arthur in 514.

Maybe the PKs do something about it. Maybe they meet the woman later when she tries to escape the nunnery and prove she is who she says she is. At least they might rescue her from her pursuers and perhaps there might even be a romance kindling there.

This would work very well with the Evil Guinevere angle: she is actually the False Guinevere from the start and she is a conniving so and so, willing to use and abuse people to get her way.

Granted, it would distract some from the Majesty of Camelot, when there is this rot and deceit at the center of it. But this might pave the way for a more sympathetic Mordred, too.

Another Guinevere storyline I dislike is Mordred marrying her (or trying to) after she is a convicted adulteress. But having him marry the wronged, real Guinevere might work very nicely in this twist.