Having an estate as Ruler

[Ironsun]

Unfortunately this doesn't look like a bug, so I'm posting it here.

Lord Removed   (6 hours, 45 minutes ago)
message to all nobles of Corsanctum
Scribes find out that due to confusion about the political (or feudal) hierarchy, Conan Ironsun, Regent of Corsanctum, Margrave of Well of Mimer is forced to relinquish his lordship. He, as Regent, cannot hold allegiance to a Duchess.

Estate Vacated   (6 hours, 45 minutes ago)
message to the knights of Well of Mimer
Scribes find out that due to confusion about the political (or feudal) hierarchy, Conan Ironsun, Regent of Corsanctum, Margrave of Well of Mimer is forced to relinquish his estate. He, as Regent, cannot hold allegiance to a Margrave. These 50 % of the region are now without a knight.


What exactly is this? Can I be appointed as Lord again?

[Velax]

The ruler cannot have anyone above him in the hierarchy (the hierarchy being Ruler > Duke > Region Lord > Knight). A ruler cannot be a Region Lord unless he's a duke as well. A Duke can't have an estate unless he's also a Region Lord.

[vonGenf]

As Ruler, you should now be able to receive revenues as taxes.

You cannot be appointed as Lord by another Duke. No monarch would ever lower himself to swear fealty to one of his own Duke. He can force the Dukes and Lords to send him a portion of their revenues. He can also own his own duchy and region, if he wishes too, but not through allegiance to anyone else.

[Anaris]

Under the New Estate System, you cannot be a Lord and Ruler, but not a Duke. You must hold an unbroken chain in the hierarchy:

Ruler - Duke - Lord - Estate

If you have more than one of these, they must be linked by an unbroken chain.

Therefore, to be a Ruler with an Estate, you must be both a Lord and a Duke as well.

[Telrunya]

Can you still join an Army as Ruler? I can't find a button anywhere to appoint myself to an Army, since I don't have anyone above me to do so.

[Scarlett]

As a game balance thing this is well and good, but this is simply false:

>

No monarch would ever lower himself to swear fealty to one of his own Duke.

It was not unusual for monarchs to hold fiefs that owed nominal allegiance to a person who held a title lower than that of the monarch.  This could cause problems but generally was OK because you'd take care to avoid really problematic arrangements, and the fiefs involved could be quite small.

In your "ordinary" case of an unbroken line of Kings, it wasn't really an issue, because princes were given "clean" titles already controlled by their families. But anytime you had a King who had been something else first -- Richard III and Henry IV come to mind -- they had pre-existing titles. Even if they handed out those titles to someone else (as would appear to be smart) they probably still held minor fiefs on the Baronial level since those were tied to real-world geography rather than more malleable political boundaries you'd get with Duchies and Kingdoms.

In fact, this is one of the things that makes feudalism so ripe for a game. If the Count of Blunderwyne serves the Duke of Scarlett but suddenly becomes King of Genfland, he is not going to give up his old fief and he is also not going to automatically usurp his former liege lord's Duchy (or whatever was over him but under the King). The county of Blunderwyne still owes fealty to the Duchy of Scarlett, even if the new King isn't going to bend the knee to somebody who in turn owes him fealty. Might be a smart move to hand the county title to your son and avoid the problem entirely (Henry IV did this with Northampton) but assuming everybody was on good terms, you could get around it just by appointing a seneschal to handle the county for you and avoid any awkward bowing of higher-ranked nobles ot lower-ranked ones.

But rulers most certainly did hang on to pre-existing titles, because the low titles (Baron, BM's 'lord') are the ones that actually have direct revenues rather than relying on middlemen.

[vonGenf]

It was not unusual for monarchs to hold fiefs that owed nominal allegiance to a person who held a title lower than that of the monarch.  This could cause problems but generally was OK because you'd take care to avoid really problematic arrangements, and the fiefs involved could be quite small.

This is certainly historically true. Historically, nobles would also sometime hold fiefs in different realms. I wish BM could simulate such complexity, but I understand it doesn't.

[Radigand]

Need the following clarifications:

1) Is Duke considered a Lord of his city?
2) If not, does it mean, a Duke can rule his city AND one additional region to become a Lord?

[Velax]

Your question doesn't really make sense under the new system. The duke is duke of the duchy, not the city. A duke can be the lord of the city, but doesn't have to be.

[Telrunya]

In the past the Lord of the City and the Duke of the Duchy were the same. In the new system, those two positions are separate. Lord of City does NOT have to mean Duke of Duchy. The Lord of a City (or any region, Cities don't have a special status any more in this context) can be a different Noble then the Duke of the Duchy. Should the Duke decide he appoints himself as Lord of that City (or any other region), then he's also the Lord yes, but you can be a Duke without directly controlling a region. You can't own more then one region.

[Foundation]

+1 for Telrunya and Velax.  You gots the new system.

[Anaris]

Furthermore, a Duchy does not have to have a city. Or it can have more than one.

[Radigand]

Telrunya, Anaris,

As a noble who plays only on stable servers, the intricacies of testing systems are not apparent to me until they make to my worlds. Thanks for answering my perhaps a bit silly questions, for I lack the veteran's foresight as some of forum members have.

[Foundation]

No one can predict the future, your questions were perfectly legitimate.

[Telrunya]

So is there a way to join an Army as a landless Ruler? Does anyone know?