Conseil du Royaume

[Braden]

Council,

My scribes have discovered the exact time and period where Frankfurt was confirmed as part of Lorraine and therefore was then officially handed to Thomas before his demise by the then Duc of Lorraine.

Sorry father but I feel your silence means you have accepted that I am correct and always have been.

[Cecil XIX]

Duc Raymond rises to speak.

Prince Henri, I hope you will forgive this ignorant man, for I cannot see how the fact that Franconia is a part of the Duchy of Lorraine undermines the Kings arguement.

For the benefit of discussion, allow me to quote Rule 3(d).

Raymond recites the rule, placing emphasis on certain parts.

3(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land goes to the highest member of his feudal chain. If he is independent the land goes to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. Duke's can pass on their rank to a House member of their choosing, by naming a successor in a valid will. Wills must be PMed to Zim before the Avatar’s death to be considered valid. If a Duke dies without naming a successor, the King picks the successor from among the highest ranked Nobles in their House.

Given this rule, I would say the King's argument is that both Franconia and Swabia defaulting to himself, due to the fact that they were in Duke Thomas's personal desmense at the time as his death. As such, the fact that Franconia was under Duke Thomas's suzerainity at the of his death seems to be consistent with the Kings actions.

[Ituralde]

But doesn't the land only fall to the King if the deceased noble is indepedent? Duc Thomas wasn't independent, he was a member of the Hosue of Lorraine, as was Prince Henri at the time of death. So Prince Henri was the only member of Duc Thomas feudal chain, making him the highest ranking one he would have gained all that land.

Really these matters of bureaucracy are tedious affairs for lawyers and paper pushers. I'll hope we can resolve this quickly!

[shlin28]

The Baron entered the Conseil, ignoring those why eyed him with either admiration or distrust.

Apologies, my King, I was delayed by some drunken revellers at the notorious Tavern, the reputation of which I am sure everyone here is aware of. It seemed that some patrons of that establishment found me quite fascinating - forcing me to recount my mundane exploits in battle a dozen times.

As for the matter at hand, allow me to first state that I, Villain de la Salle, did not contact either the noble Prince Charles, or my own Duc, Prince Henri, to discuss the… adoption of myself into the Royal family. Nor did I use bribery or blackmail to achieve that – those who insinuated that I, a minor noble of fine reputation, or either of the two Princes, would sink that low to deal with mere familial matters, are sadly mistaken.

Secondly, I do not dispute the King’s objection. Legally, according to the laws of the land, he did and still owns the lands around the settlements of Frankfurt and Staufen. I have only one minor quibble regarding this matter, a minute observation which the King will no doubt refute in his infinite wisdom, for his knowledge of the law is immeasurable, unlike mine.

It has come to my attention that although the King owned the two settlements named, they were and are still under the de facto control of the Duchy of Lorraine. They are justly governed by men under Lorraine’s employ, and are garrisoned by troops of Lorraine who would have been in better use on the battlefield against the Germans.

How can this be? These lands should be rightfully governed by the King’s men – to place troops under the control of a mere Duchy in a settlement under the King’s rule, as well deciding on matters of buildings and recruitment when they have no right to, is a travesty and an insult against our wise King; as such, the entire Duchy of Lorraine must be punished! Their armies must be disbanded, their leaders sent to Paris to await the dispensation of the King’s justice!

Villain smiled broadly at the various states of shock on the faces of nobles around him.

Of course, I was perhaps taking it a bit too far. Yes, my Duchy was quite wrong in taking control of the two settlements; but surely, our wise King, who manages all of the various military and domestic affairs of the Realm from distant Albion, was able to send a message to my Duc informing us of the situation? If his Majesty could direct the recruitment of troops from England to Iberia, it should be simple to give us a warning over our misconduct over two whole settlements, which is far more important than recruiting a company of peasants in Metz, I am sure everyone here would agree.

His Royal Majesty, in his infinite wisdom, did not do so. Hence, he tacitly consented to my Duchy ruling the two settlements. So the King must have in the past somewhat agreed to Lorraine taking control of the two settlements, to revoke such a decision when Lorraine is at a time of crisis, when a slight mistake on our part would bring ruination to the efforts of the previous Ducs, is and would be catastrophic to France. Unless of course, I had misinterpreted the King’s actions? Perhaps his Majesty would enlighten me, and the rest of the Conseil, as to why my King sought to undo Lorraine’s hard work at this critical juncture and why he sought to revoke his previous decisions?

Do note that, I do not argue this because it would benefit me; rather, I argue this because by taking lands that are ruled for all intents and purposes by Lorraine away from my Duchy, I believe it would fundamentally weaken it, leading to further German transgression on our soils.

Furthermore, if it would satisfy everyone here… I am willing to refuse the adoption offer. This issue, which I did not even create, had brought much strife to the Realm, and if this one action could undo them, I would gladly make such a choice.

Villain returns to sit with his brothers from the Duchy of Lorraine, his face impassive.

[Cecil XIX]

Sir Simon, as a Duke myself I dearly want you to be correct. But after scanning the rules for where the word 'independent is mentioned, I find nothing to define the term. I have always assumed it meant one who swears allegiance directly to the King, regardless of rank.

Perhaps at the next session we can solve this by adding one simple sentence defining the term. It seems to me the issue is whether it does or does not include dukes, correct?

[Braden]

Henri smiles at Villains words before rising

It gladdens me that Simon de Montpierre has put into more coherant words my own reasoning behind this matter.

The young Duc of Lorraine was not "independant" as I was his vassal and Baron. It was my assumption, which was upheld by a good number of fellow nobles that such lands that the Duchy controlled would fall to the next Duc. By fate alone that was myself and it was the King himself who confirmed my rise to such a lofty title.

However, should the Law Givers of our lands believe otherwise I will uphold there opinions and I notice that Baron de Metz raises also a very valid point about the continuation of the Duchy's occupation and unilateral control of the provinces in question.

Henri sighs

Honestly my lords, this whole affair tires me. I continue to fail to see the Kings position or his objections to my brothers adoption of the Baron, a man who continues to serve his nation well and his Duchy even more. All this nonsense detracts me from my real task...defending our borders against a renewed and aggressive Germany.

As far as I can tell, all these wranglings achieve nothing and only delay and confuse those hoping to defend us from our enemies. I would have thought my father happy to have Charles granted a province by me, Charles stands to defend our Southern frontier and I have every faith in him for that task.

As for the Baron, again, he seems...like me somehow...been a victim of unfounded and deflamatory rumour. The fact that such "rumour", without proof, even found itself to the ears of my father is perhaps testiment enough that further action by me might be in order. One does not sully the name of a Prince of the Realm and expect him to accept that which is said without justice being sort?

Again though, this is another DISTRACTION and one I can ill-afford. I have an enemy to defeat, a frontier to secure and a future for my Duchy to confirm. If anyone wants me I am returning to MY Capital Frankfurt to help defend it from the Germans for there is no-one else who has thought it prudent to do so OTHER than the Duchy of Lorraine.

Henri raises both his hands, shakes his head, turns and just walks out

[Tamur]

Barthelemy scrambles aside as Henry sweeps past him going through the doors of the Conseil. He then ducks in and, noting a momentary silence, steps just into sight. His clothes show travel stains from the city streets.

My... my lords, I am honoured to be here and I...

He catches Louis' eye momentarily and gulps.

I hereby swear an oath of fealty to Charles of the Royal House, if he will have me.

[Ituralde]

You are correct Duc Raymond that the term independent is not defined. Nor is the term feudal chain or for that matter the term King or Duke. They are used however throughout our Charter in a certain way.

For example here:

(e) - Oaths of Fealty: Any Independent Noble may swear an oath of fealty to any Noble whenever he wishes.

or here:

(b). - RGBs: Recruitable generals start off in the game as independent Knights, excepting the first two as per rule 2 (a). From this position they are free to remain independent or join any of the existing Houses.

So you are independent until you swear an Oath of Fealty. After which you are a member of a House and of the feudal chain of that House. Take for example myself, who has only sworn an Oath of Chivalry and follows the Oder of the Fleur de Lys. This would make me independent, but at the same time I follow our King. Without an explicit Oath as is written in our Charter.

King:
Requirements: Must be the in-game faction leader.
Influence: equal to authority stat.
Powers:
[...]
Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold any other feudal rank except that of Chancellor.
(2) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another Senator and cannot have any Vassals.
Inheritance: On the death of a King, all Oaths of Fealty pertaining to the Noble who is now King are instantly broken, with no penalties. The new King takes control of any provinces in the King's Demesne, as well as retaining those under his control at the time of his ascension. If he was Duke of his House, his named heir for that post attains the rank. In the absence of a named heir, the second in charge of the House becomes Duke.

OOC:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is truly as far as I want to take the argument IC. Once we start discussing whether all the nobles of the Realm are vassals of the King it gets absurd. Yes we are vassals of the King in the historical IC sense, but we are not vassals of the King when it comes to the OOC game rules of Houses and feudal chains.