Having an estate as Ruler

[Andrew]

As a landless ruler, it does not look like it. It may be intentional though, as the point of this system is to not have the Monarch have anyone above them, and them being part of an army would mean that someone is "above" them.

On the flipside, it also means I can't un-army myself.

[Foundation]

Hehe, we should add an "unarmy thyself" command, with that exact phrase.

[Zadar]

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.

So ,what about Royals. With this kind of system it would be quite funny to be Royal under a Lord or even a Duke.

[Foundation]

It may be funny, but Royals are not currently in power.  They already get a lot of benefits.

[Velax]

So a ruler without an estate/region cannot join an army? Is that a bug? Will it be fixed?

[Anaris]

So a ruler without an estate/region cannot join an army? Is that a bug? Will it be fixed?

Yes, it's a bug, and as such, will get fixed when we can get to it.

[De-Legro]

As a landless ruler, it does not look like it. It may be intentional though, as the point of this system is to not have the Monarch have anyone above them, and them being part of an army would mean that someone is "above" them.

On the flipside, it also means I can't un-army myself.

Yeah no. If we go to that extreme we run into issues with mixed power structures. For example should the General be able to be in an army unless he is the Marshal of that army? Should Marshal need to be of a higher rank then anyone within the army, thus "Knight" Marshal can only command a army made up of knights so has not to embarrass Lords and Dukes by placing them under the authority of a mere knight? It may make logical sense (or may not) but I seriously doubt that restrictions on this level are going to be fun.

[Foundation]

Indeed.  The current restrictions are only meant for the land hierarchy.

[Gabanus family]

This is odd, I thought that under the current system you could be lord and have an estate?

I just got elected as Senator of Nark, which falls under the Duchy of the Margrave of Twainville (both Duke of City and Duchy). I had an estate in Twainville before I got elected.

Both the lordship and the estate would have me swear fealthy to the same man, however I got this message upon my appointment (election):
"Estate Vacated   (3 hours, 13 minutes ago)
message to the lord and knights of Twainville
Asleon has vacated his estate due to his election as Lord of Nark. These 40 % of the region are now without a knight."

[vonGenf]

This is odd, I thought that under the current system you could be lord and have an estate?

You can have an estate in your own region only. Otherwise, this would allow you to have two estates.

[Gabanus family]

I see, I had read the hiearchy as a lord also being able to have an estate in the region of his Margrave. Thanks for the answer, then I better take up my estate as soon as we return.

[Draco Tanos]

Margrave has no power over the other region lords.  A Margrave (in BM) is just the lord of a City/Stronghold/Townsland.

Dukes are still over all other Lords.  But either way, it has to be your own region.

The tree is literally from Estate to Region Lord to Duke to Ruler.

[Chenier]

I gotta say, I really hate this strict system being applied to the ducal level.

Last month, I was ruler, duke of the only duchy, and lord of the old capital.

Then, !@#$ happened. Iato, having been blighted for a while, was transferred to the Netherworld. After a short while with nothing appearing on our realm list, suddenly there's a magical duchy created, the "duchy of Fheuvenem", and for no apparent reason (given that we've been repeated again and again these days that duchies are no longer tied to the city, that there's no "duchy capital anymore", the lord of Fheuvenem is made duke of this duchy. Shortly thereafter, due to various circumstances, 4-5 of the lords who could vote last month could not vote this month, so when the two lords who belong to the duke's family voted for him, it tied with the vote I got and the draw made the duke of Fheuvenem ruler.

Sure, I can accept that I didn't campaign enough, and that the circumstances were really !@#$ty for me. !@#$ happens. But now, I seek to re-establish the state of things to where they were prior to the magical duchy creation. To be able to vote, I campaigned for a region so that I may regain that privilege. And now I got it, so that's done.

But the ruler-duke-lord chain mustn't be broken. So how the hell do I return to being ruler-duke-lord? I could demand the ruler to step down from his illegitimate dukeship, but then wouldn't that break his own ruler-duke-lord chain, either forcing him out of his lordship over the capital (along with the right to vote and the financial power it grants)? And if I don't, and I get voted ruler, won't that break the ruler-duke-lord chain, forcing me out of my lordship?

Given how historical examples show how it would be perfectly normal for a king to have land in another's domain, why are we having this mind!@#$ restrictions that seriously screw over rulership transitions? Why do suddenly the whole feudal hierarchy need to break upon changing rulers?

This makes turnover complicated for no good reason whatsoever. I don't see why this was pushed, especially considering how incomplete the new code is and how poorly it handles allegiance changes.

[JPierreD]

The new system does create a problem for Lords wanting to run for Ruler, but that has some benefits. Only the most prestigious, aka the Dukes, can win without having to sacrifice their regions. The rest sacrifice whatever they  have, be it their region or just their estate.

[Foundation]

You can:

 - Get the duke to give you the duchy title and the ruler title, he would keep being Margrave of a city.
 - Get the current ruler to create a new duchy for you.
 - Live with being ruler and not lord.

As ruler you levy taxes directly on the dukes.