Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Wanderer

Inheritance, widow's portion and such issues

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

- "Primer Seisin" = one year of Income 

- "Relief" = £10 for common manors or, for estate holders, £5 per supported knight in the Servititium Debitum.

Primer Seisin is not a tax, but a delay in the inheritance. Presumably the heir is doing whatever else he was doing at the time. Also, since the functional estate requires a certain number of people, I suspect that this simply means that the King sends someone to take charge, and to pocket the DF, while they are reassessing the estate.

The King can set any relief he wants, according to WARLORD, but I would imagine that there are some limits or he could use these rules to keep hold of the in principle inheritable grants in perpetuity: "Oh, the relief for this £10 manor is £1 000 000 000 000 000 000. Have fun." That would clearly be counter to the intent, so I'd actually say that the annual income would be the maximum that the King can justly demand, and anything more than that would make the barons grumble, realizing that their own sons' inheritances are under threat.

1 hour ago, Luca Cherstich said:

Will the Sheriff just take your holdings until you manage to get the money for the King?

You are never given your holdings in the first place so there is no need to take them away. I imagine whoever the King put in charge over Primer Seisin (implicitly the Sheriff) will stay in charge, or alternatively, a new person. The (County) Sheriff is a good option for both, since this gives plenty of interesting opportunities for villainous sheriffs in the mold of Sheriff of Nottingham. :)

1 hour ago, Luca Cherstich said:

And, furthermore, are these taxes also for ALL vassals (whether you are a vassal of Count Roderick or a direct Vassal of the King), right?

Since Warlord has been written explicitly from the King's standpoint with respective to his vassals, I actually read 'Liege' instead of the 'King' when dealing with vavasours. So in the case of the PKs who are likely vassals of the Count, it is the Count who collects relief from his own vassals and has the right of primer seisin. This makes sense to me more than the King swooping in to deal with matters internal to the Honour of the Count. Also, you can see that the stricter reading of the Wardship would mean that all heiresses become the King's wards, while KAP 5.2 is pretty clear that they are the liege lord's wards. So, in my mind, this section has been written with barons and baronial heirs in mind, direct vassals of the King, and you can then expand it to govern vavasour-liege relationships down one step in the hierarchy tree. There is also the note that the warden/guardian collects the relief from his ward, not the King.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2020 at 3:39 AM, Morien said:

For instance, I don't really use the rules for the relief: the tax you are supposed to pay when you inherit your holding, equal to the annual income of the holding. I am having hard time figuring out where the average NPC knight gets that money,

I think that's because  Pendragon  interprets Primer Seisin and Releif  using the least forgiving method.

Primer Seisin is typically defined as "one year's profits", but Pendragon takes that to be one year's income (£10), and not, say, one year's discretionary funds (£1). That would make a huge difference.

 

Also as far as Relief went:

(2) "If any earl, baron or other person who holds lands directly from the Crown for military service shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a Relief, the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of Relief. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight 100 shillings at most for the entire knight's fee and any man that owes less shall pay less in accordance with the ancient usage of fees".

(3) "But if the heir of such a person is under age (i.e. 21) and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without Relief or fine".

 

So Knights in Pendragon are paying much more than their historically counterparts.In fact, as as written no one except the King and money lenders would want to own land, as it would take 20+ years just to break even. Everyone would be better off being household knights. 

 

On 4/4/2020 at 3:39 AM, Morien said:

 

especially with the 2:1 transfer rate of render to treasure, and the need to find dowries for the younger daughters, etc.

I don't see anything that states that relief must be paid in coin. I assume the knight just sends cattle, chickens, eggs, horses, a cart or two of grain, whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

Since you have been speaking of relief ...

If I well understood Book of Warlord p. 29, if you want to inherit you must pay TWO different taxes, one added to the other:

- "Primer Seisin" = one year of Income 

Actually historically it was defined as one years profits.

5 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

- "Relief" = £10 for common manors or, for estate holders, £5 per supported knight in the Servititium Debitum.

Is highway robery. Historically it was capped at 100 shillings (£5) for a knight, and that was the upper limit, not the standard amount. Even Barons only paid £100.

5 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

It sounds like a LOT of money! What happens if one does not pay?

It is a LOT of money. Historically, what happened was that a knight was given some time to get his affairs in order and everyone ingored it for atime. If things went on for a long time the king would temporarily take control of the land until the knight paid up. Note that this wasn't the same as escheating as the land still technically beyonded to the knight, but was just being held until he paid up and swore homage.

 

One problem here for the king is that all those knights who do not pay up would not have sworn homage to him, and thus wouldn't be bound to him by an Homage passion. Now that means this whole  Primer Siesin and Relief thing would make all knight direct vassals of the King, which is contrary to what is stated under the Homage Passion. So something has to give.

 

 

5 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

And, furthermore, are these taxes also for ALL vassals (whether you are a vassal of Count Roderick or a direct Vassal of the King), right?

As written yes, but as I noted above that directly contradicts the Homage rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I don't see anything that states that relief must be paid in coin. I assume the knight just sends cattle, chickens, eggs, horses, a cart or two of grain, whatever.

My point was that the average NPC knight who is not adventuring, raiding or getting gonzo loot in battles, will need to save up. And I don't think the King would appreciate crates of 20 year old eggs. :PSo you need to transform your £1 extra render into Treasure, and that is where the 2:1 comes from: saving up so that your boy can pay relief and claim his inheritance.

As said, I do not use Relief, and as far as Primer Seisin goes, I tend to say 'OK, so your previous character died in July, so the Liege holds onto that manor until Christmas and you don't have to worry about it this Winter Phase'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morien said:

My point was that the average NPC knight who is not adventuring, raiding or getting gonzo loot in battles, will need to save up. And I don't think the King would appreciate crates of 20 year old eggs. :PSo you need to transform your £1 extra render into Treasure, and that is where the 2:1 comes from: saving up so that your boy can pay relief and claim his inheritance.

Except that per Raw the knight would just take out a loan and then pay it back over time. But overall the fines are a bit harsh. Frankly most of the taxes and tallages in the game don't fit with the economic system. I don't see how the serfs can afford to pay for the knighting of the eldest son, or wedding of the eldest daughter without starving to death.

Frankly I liked how KAP1 did the conversion. 1:1 under normal conversions, 2:1 when in a rush. In my games, if the PKs have time to let their wives work on it, I let then get 1:0:9 if she makes her Stewardship or Industry roll. So if a knight has an extra charger to sell, worth £20, he gets 10 if he sells it ASAP, and £18 if he can afford to let his wife take the time to find the right buyer-although that might take a year or two.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

 

As said, I do not use Relief, and as far as Primer Seisin goes, I tend to say 'OK, so your previous character died in July, so the Liege holds onto that manor until Christmas and you don't have to worry about it this Winter Phase'.

What I found interesting, and quoted above was that:

(3) "But if the heir of such a person is under age (i.e. 21) and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without Relief or fine".

 

That would essentially eliminate Relief for most heris under typical circumstances.A knight who is over 21 probably has a bit of treasure to pay the relief.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Except that per Raw the knight would just take out a loan and then pay it back over time.

Nope. As per ESTATE, p. 51, you can only borrow in chunks of £10 at a time, you have to have double that amount in land as collateral, and you pay 50% interest (non-compounded) per year. So even ignoring the interest thing which is murderous and the minimum of £10 loan (£20 in collateral), you can never raise more than 50% of your land value in loans.

Also: "Lending and borrowing are forbidden to Roman Christians". Luckily, most people in KAP 5.2 are British Christians, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Frankly I liked how KAP1 did the conversion. 1:1 under normal conversions, 2:1 when in a rush.

I generally use the 2:1 if people are wishing to get rid of their loot in a hurry, and then might tweak it upwards if they actually make an effort to find someone who might actually want to buy X. Like if they have an additional Charger looted from battle, they can get rid of it at 50% price right then and there, but if they hang onto it and ask around in the Spring Court, they might find someone who needs a horse and get a bit more for it. Usually the PKs just take the money and run, not wishing to risk the horse dying on them over the winter.

On the other hand, I let them use 1:1 conversion on any manorial surplus. It is easier for me when the £ in their treasury and the £ of their harvest are in the same units.

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Morien said:

I generally use the 2:1 if people are wishing to get rid of their loot in a hurry, and then might tweak it upwards if they actually make an effort to find someone who might actually want to buy X. Like if they have an additional Charger looted from battle, they can get rid of it at 50% price right then and there, but if they hang onto it and ask around in the Spring Court, they might find someone who needs a horse and get a bit more for it. Usually the PKs just take the money and run, not wishing to risk the horse dying on them over the winter.

On the other hand, I let them use 1:1 conversion on any manorial surplus. It is easier for me when the £ in their treasury and the £ of their harvest are in the same units.

That's pretty much what I do. If the knight needs cash fast, then the merchant makes a killing. If the knight isn't in a rush, his wife (or steward) can shop around for full market value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about if the manor hast improvements? Will it be reassessed before the widow portion is taken or after it? Let's say it is a manor (£10) with mellisarium (£1) and coneygarth (£2).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

What about if the manor hast improvements? Will it be reassessed before the widow portion is taken or after it? Let's say it is a manor (£10) with mellisarium (£1) and coneygarth (£2).

Reassessment first, then division to the widow and the heir (guardian of the heir).

Of course, it is possible that the original dower contract specifies a certain sum or lands, in which case, it would be based on that, no matter what the original land is doing in value, up or down. Like if the Dower states that the widow is entitled to £2 per year and the landholding's income has been halved by a Saxon raid, the widow is still in principle owed that full £2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the manor will then have a value of £13 instead of £10.

If the contract doesn't specifies, the widows portion (after reassessing) would be (rounded) £4.5 and her servitum debitum would be of (rounded) £2 (that is, 4 foot soldiers). And the rest of the servitum (£5) would correspond to the heir (or the guardian), equal to one knight (himself) and two foot soldier. And £0.8 DF (£1 rounded?). Right?

If the contract specifies that the dower if fixed at £3.5 (taken from the original manor value), then her servitum debitum would be the usual 3 foot soldiers (£1.5). And the rest (£5.5) for the knight (heir or guardian, whatever), that is the knight and 3 foot soldiers. And £0.9 DF (still £1 rounded??) Right?

 

What scenario if better for the PK??? How much DF will be left for him on each case? I'm having trouble dealing with this 🤕

Edited by The Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

What scenario if better for the PK??? How much DF will be left for him on each case? I'm having trouble dealing with this 🤕

Best scenario for the PK is £0 dower, but that is not how it works! No one would marry the PKs with such a deal, save for some desperate commoner willing to take a risk.

33 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Also... the personnel of the manor y calculated based on the new value (reassessed value minus widow's portion)? 😱😭

Yes.

Easiest option:

1. Reassess the manor, i.e. take the full income from investments and all.

2. The widow gets 1/3rd of that for her lifetime.

3. The heir (or his guardian) gets 2/3rds of that. Calculate the new Servitium Debitum and Discretionary Funds based on this 2/3rds value.

4. Continue playing.

Book of the Estate was never intended to become a millstone around the necks of the GMs. It was intended to be as deep as the GM wants to make it. Keep it simple in your campaign if you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding servitum debitum of reassessed manors... let's say a manor reassessed is worth £19, so it'd be one knight and 12 foot soldiers. But then the knight builds a mellisarium (+£1).

When he eventually dies and the manor is re-reassessed and then is worth £20, what happens with the army? is it one knight and 13 foot soldiers? or the usual 2 knights and 6 foot soldiers? and in that case, does it cost honor to dismiss the soldiers? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

When he eventually dies and the manor is re-reassessed and then is worth £20, what happens with the army? is it one knight and 13 foot soldiers? or the usual 2 knights and 6 foot soldiers? and in that case, does it cost honor to dismiss the soldiers? 🤔

Up to the liege lord; what does the new charter say that the heir swears to? (I generally make £9 = £10 - £1 = SD knight and 3-1=2 footsoldiers, so your £19 would be 2 knights + 5 foot soldiers anyway.) There is no cost in honor, since the guy who swore the oath to those foot soldiers is already dead! I think that personal responsibility for your own oaths is something you are missing here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2020 at 4:39 PM, Atgxtg said:

Primer Seisin is typically defined as "one year's profits", but Pendragon takes that to be one year's income (£10), and not, say, one year's discretionary funds (£1). That would make a huge difference.

So I was puttering around Book of Uther to check up a name, and happened to be on a page (p. 20) talking about that...

"Primer Seizin: An inheritance tax paid with a relief. When the escheat is done, the king receives from the heir, provided he is of full age, one whole year’s profits of the lands."

Full age here should be taken to mean that the heir is not subject to wardship and hence the Primer Seisin is limited to a year and not until the heir is of age. It should not be interpreted that an underaged heir would not be subject to Primer Seisin. Escheat is also used inaccurately here, since it refers to the fief escheating back to the King, which is not what happens in Primer Seisin. Nor is Primer Seisin AFTER the reassessment has been done, but during it, with the Relief as a separate tax.

So (IMHO):

1) Fief-holder dies.

2) The liege lord takes over the fief to reassess it. This takes a year during which the liege lord pockets any profits and the correct heir is determined.

3) The heir swears homage to the liege lord who answers with the liege lord's oath.

4) The heir needs to pay relief for the holding, before he gains control of it. If the heir does not pay the relief, then the liege remains in control of the fief and gets to pocket the profits until the heir coughs up the dough. However, the fief does not escheat to the liege during this time: the heir still has the legal right to it, but does not have the possession & use of it.

If the heir is underaged, then the liege lord remains in control of the fief until the heir is of age. If a guardian is appointed, then the guardian collects the relief. Magna Charta establishes that an heir who is underaged does not have to pay relief when they come of age, which seems like a rule Arthur would institute. However, I have a feeling that Uther would not be as charitable in most cases.

As Relief goes, it is somewhat more complicated since the £ in Magna Charta and £ in KAP do not line up perfectly, and of course the value of a knight's fee fluctuated with time and place, too. I have seen some estimates that a knight's fee was £20 per year. Which, depending the way it is calculated, is either twice what it is in KAP or the exact same (once you add £10 of Production to the Customary Revenue). Encyclopedia Britannica says that the customary value for the relief was the one year's revenue, same as Greg's definition, even though this is larger than what is in Magna Charta. Again, I would chalk this up to Arthur revising the more arbitrary determinations of Uther, and possibly even lowering the relief down some to reflect more what is actually left for the knight's upkeep (£4, if including the squire or the wife) and profit (£1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a manor is reassessed, is it possible to build (again) investments that require space?

Also, I'm thinking about letting my PKs to build on some of their scondary manors with some restrictions (for example they wouldn't benefit from the glory of a castle or the energic mark of a mellisarium built in Lonazep), what do you think?

Edited by The Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

After a manor is reassessed, is it possible to build (again) investments that require space?

Of course not. The space is gone. Reassessment doesn't magically increase the size of the landholding.

You can always sell the sheep herd or whatnot and build a new thing there, if you really wish.

8 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I'm thinking about letting my PKs to build on some of their scondary manors (with some restrictions (for example they wouldn't benefit from the glory of a castle or the energic mark of a mellisarium built in Lonazep), what do you think?

Sure, why not. WARLORD limits improvements to just caput major, but it is your game. It won't unbalance the game. But keep in mind that a lone manner somewhere might be raided quite easily, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Morien said:

Sure, why not. WARLORD limits improvements to just caput major, but it is your game. It won't unbalance the game. But keep in mind that a lone manner somewhere might be raided quite easily, too.

Yes, I find strange that there isn't any system in BotE/W for losing improvements when a manor is attacked 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Yes, I find strange that there isn't any system in BotE/W for losing improvements when a manor is attacked 🤔

That's what Permanent Damage represents. Destroyed/damaged assets. It is just that it is pretty difficult to destroy everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when there is PD, then some improvements could be destroyed and if it's repaired they will be automatically rebuilt? I find weird if there is PD that the coneygarth keeps giving the extra pounds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

So when there is PD, then some improvements could be destroyed and if it's repaired they will be automatically rebuilt? I find weird if there is PD that the coneygarth keeps giving the extra pounds!

Those were some tough rabbits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

So when there is PD, then some improvements could be destroyed and if it's repaired they will be automatically rebuilt? I find weird if there is PD that the coneygarth keeps giving the extra pounds!

Clearly the raid did not touch the rabbits, who were safely within their warren. Or rather, even if some rabbits got capture, one nice thing about rabbits is that they will breed like, well, rabbits. Destroying the warren itself would require serious spade-work, and who has time for that when there is looting and pillaging to be had?

But it is totally up to the GM. If you want to introduce a chance that a raid destroys an improvement, have at. I would have no problems believing that some of the herds (horse, cow, sheep) might get stolen during the raid, leading to reduced income from those sources, too.

You can recalculate the total value of the holding with all the new investments: Let's say £10 manor + £3 worth of investment (free) income. 3 Lots would normally be £3, but now we add in the investments, so 1 Lot = £13/10 = £1.3. Which makes 3 Lots = £3.9. Or to put it in other way, treat the investments as their own 'holding' that gets raided, too, and thus reduce the Free Income they provide by 3 Lots as well: 3*£0.3 = £0.9. So the Holding itself suffers -3 Lots, and the Free Income from investments is just £2.1 this year due to the raiding. This is consistent with how the old investment income is treated, as it gets added to the Assized Rent and the Lot value is recalculated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...