Conseil du Royaume

[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.

[OverKnight]

Chretien takes in the scene with hooded eyes.

It's odd that the issue of Prince Henri's ownership of Staufen was not questioned until he disposed of the land in a way that displeased his Majesty.

He briefly touches a locket hanging from his throat.

Of course none of this kills Germans, perhaps we should focus on the barbarians at the gate?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I hereby accept your Oath, Barthelemy de Soissons!

Charles nods to Barthelemy smile on his face..

[_Tristan_]

The King enters the Conseil, with a dark and brooding look.

My sons, my Lords,

Though I have been away to deal with some matters of state, your exact words have been reported to me.

First, let me state, Henri, that my silence was never an acceptance of your position but simply due to circumstances that kept me from these chambers.

You pretend to have the law in your favour but you simply twist it so. The main problem comes from the fact that your Duke died without a valid will. In doing so, he prevented you from inheriting his lands on his deathbed. For our Charter states that lands of a noble should go the the highest noble of his feudal chain but that only means that should one of his vassal had died in his stead, the Duke would have inherited those lands.

This rule has been made part of our charter so that our Duchies retain some structure with the passing of their lower members.

But this rule doesn't mean that on the death of the Duke, his lands pass on to its highest ranking vassal. This was not the intent of our Charter.

So though I gave you late Duke Thomas' title, his lands are forfeit to you, for lack of a stipulation in your favour. Hence these lands revert to the King's Demesne.

In the light of your good service for the Royaume, and with the fact that you made Frankfurt your capital, I hereby officially confirm its ownership to you and your Duchy.

As to the de facto holding of the Ducal lands and thus their de facto ownership, no such things exist in our charter. Neither do the men serving under your orders truly are yours : do you pay for their wages out of your pockets ? Doesn't our treasury provide for them ? Haven't I diverted large sums from the treasury to help you hold the border against the Reich ?

I see no ill-conduct in Lorraine's men being the stewards of lands that belong to the King. It is a sensible way of governing. And I do not see how the fact I'm reclaiming my rights to Staufen endangers your Duchy as you seem ready to part with it, so easily.

Furthermore, I do not see how giving Staufen to your brother would strengthen your southern border. The Duchy of Bourgogne is already doing its work in holding off the Germans at Bern and could also help deal with them at Staufen, should it prove necessary. Neither is the birth of another Duchy necessary.

Had Charles acted any other way but as a spoiled brat, I might have considered making him Duke of Albion so that I could leave this islands under his protection, but his blunt way of asking wohtout having once proven his valour almost had me sent back to his nanny for manner lessons.

Now, we finally come to the adoption. I do not see the point in bringing Sieur de la Salle into our family. Though the man clearly has merits, he is not the only one so deserving. He's not even truly willing to be part of us, as he stated clearly before this body.

So, not being the rightful owner of Staufen, you have no right to give it to your brother. So will your brother now accept to accept your vassal into the family ?

I'll see what your brother has to say to this.

(OOC : This post should come before the adoption. Hence, we'll go back to the previous save or go on with the current one depending on whether Ibn confirms it or not).