Dwilight University/Political Studies/Relationships Between Landowners and Nations

Relationships Between Landowners and Nations

This is a text that will explore the political nature that forms the very basis of our noble society. Land ownership and allegiance to one nation or another. Within I will attempt to clarify this relationship, and explain why things are they way they are for some of our younger, misguided nobles.

But I am the King, shouldn't I own everything in my Kingdom?

No. An actual monarch as opposed to an elected ruler is expected (but not required) to own lands (and thus is required to hold a Duchy, as one cannot hold lands outside of a Duchy, and no monarch should owe allegiance to a Duke) to supplement the Royal income, they do not in fact own the lands within their Kingdom. The reasons for this are varied, and I will cover them:

1.) The regions willfully pledged allegiance to your realm. A landowner took it upon himself to change the banners his land flies, and has pledged his allegiance to you and your nation. He has not, however signed his lands away. You may tax him, demand he levy armies, but in return he will expect his lands to be protected, and will expect the chance to buy and sell food, locally at the very least. The region is without a doubt his. If a noble changes realms, he doesn't suddenly cede his sword, which is unarguably as much his property as a Lord's lands.

2.) You appointed the Duke/Lord personally. Congratulations, you gave a most kingly gift: Land ownership. You have given the lands to the person. They own them now. You're not borrowing them, and that is why Kings and other rulers cannot simply unappoint a Lord. Whatever your misguided intentions may be, you cannot temporarily give someone lands. Once given, the lands are theirs for life, unless forcibly removed (or they willingly give up their claim). Mind you, seeing as soldiers won't fight others of their own nation, this will require you to either starve the region and force the peasants into revolt, march a foreign army into your own lands (good luck pulling that off without triggering rebellion), or have the individual in question assassinated. Seeing as hereditary claims are very weak in the current age, you can then feel free to appoint someone else.

3.) A Duke of your realm appointed the Lord. Congratulations, that person owns the lands. You gave the Duchy to the Duke, and he's breaking down the administration of his fief into more manageable pieces to reward those loyal to him. That Lord owns the lands. End of story.

But I'm a Republic! The lands belong to the people!

No, your style of governance has no effect on land ownership. Lords own lands, and if anything, you as an elected official, who serves at the whim of the masses (the masses that count anyway, which includes Lords and those hoping to be Lords), are less suited to tell someone who owns something to give it up. Because in doing so, you just lost votes. Don't worry though, what you lost in approval, you just gained in scorn from every lord who is not a personal lackey of yours. Once you attempt to seize one Lord's lands, what is to stop you from taking an others? But we're different, you cry? Your laws are written differently? Then you'll find that the ruling classes of the world are very jealous of their possessions, and you'll end up caving or being destroyed. The state is not a being capable of possessing lands, people own them, not organizations.

Why bother with Lords then?

Dealing with Lords and rewarding your nobles with lands is government. When you become a ruler you accepted this responsibility. Finding people to trust with the ownership of vacant lands in your nation is your job. They've pledged allegiance to you, it is your job to hold up your end of the bargain. Allegiance is a two way street. They're offering resources to you in return for protection, and for other resources they may be lacking. A city offers lots of gold production, but cannot feed itself, and in turn a rural farmland produces little gold, but much food. A landowner pays his taxes, raises armies, and fights for you, the ruler, because he expects that you will in turn ensure he is taken care of. When you attempt to seize his property though, don't expect that Baron who lost an eye in a battle he fought on your behalf to be grateful. Odds are he will take his Barony and leave, finding a new sovereign who will respect his ownership. He would be right to do so.

Why is it I can appoint nobles to vacant Lordships?

Because the lands are still apart of your nation, and since there is no living owner, they defer to the next highest authority to give the lands to someone else, after all the previous owner must have seen some benefit in swearing allegiance to you. Dukes will give the lands to someone else, and monarchs will give the duchies to another (or themselves). This is only possible because no one at present owns the lands, and has been said, hereditary claims in this day and age are weak at best.

Other methods of the distribution of unowned lands

While yes, it is common that Dukes appoint the Lords within their Duchy, other governments have different methods. Some allow all the nobility to vote, some allow only Lords, and some allow only Dukes. This is usually representative of the Ruler's personal power within the government system. A ruler with strong power usually has an appointment system, or in realms where the ruler is only an elected representative of the nation as a whole, the Lords or even all the nobles elect who is to be land owners. However, it does not change the status of a Lord. A Lord owns the lands which they possess. Allegiance does not equate ownership.