(HFAF Spoiler) Punishment for the treasonous nobles

Harold made a point of informing his second cousin that his ducal title of Tirian was not being removed by attainder.

Sharlayan made a point of informing Tomas Syman that his Grand Ducal title was being removed by attainder, but when she pronounced Crown judgment on the Corisande sextet of nobles, she did not make similar statements.

Were their titles and lands forfeit? Or did they pass to surviving heirs whom were not involved in their activities?

Brom O'Berin wrote:Harold made a point of informing his second cousin that his ducal title of Tirian was not being removed by attainder.

Sharlayan made a point of informing Tomas Syman that his Grand Ducal title was being removed by attainder, but when she pronounced Crown judgment on the Corisande sextet of nobles, she did not make similar statements.

Were their titles and lands forfeit? Or did they pass to surviving heirs whom were not involved in their activities?

.
That's a really good question !!

My guess is that the lands and titles should go back to the Crown.

Then it's up to the crown to bestow them on whoever is worthy.

Maybe the original heirs get some or all the original titles and lands and maybe not depending on circumstances.

?? Comments ??

R
.

n English criminal law, attainder or attinctura is the metaphorical 'stain' or 'corruption of blood' which arises from being condemned for a serious capital crime (felony or treason). It entails losing not only one's property and hereditary titles, but typically also the right to pass them on to one's heirs. Both men and women condemned of capital crimes could be attainted.

Once attainted, nobles were considered commoners, and as such, could be subjected to the same treatments, including torture and methods of execution. For example, commoners could be burned at the stake, whereas nobles could not.

Often, nobles would refer to the act of being attainted (and then executed) as the person's "destruction."

It appears to me that Cayleb and Sharleyan are handling the 'attainder' of noble titles and lands in these situations on a case-by-case basis. What specific parameters they are using (or will use) to make their decisions we don't know yet (and they might never be explained).

Bumping this thread, as I had a similar question.

If Grand Duke Zebediah's titls and properties were forfeit because of his treason, then why weren't Earl Swayle's?

It would seem that Swayle's treason would be even more egregious as a EoC Army officer, and it would have quashed a lot of Chisholmian nobility rebellion on the spot. People can be brave in facing their own deaths, but knowing that their own actions would condemn their families to be thrown onto the street with only the clothes on their backs would give even the bravest person pause.

=2014/06/27=
D*** good question !!

R
.

Hank Plantagenet wrote:Bumping this thread, as I had a similar question.

If Grand Duke Zebediah's titls and properties were forfeit because of his treason, then why weren't Earl Swayle's?

It would seem that Swayle's treason would be even more egregious as a EoC Army officer, and it would have quashed a lot of Chisholmian nobility rebellion on the spot. People can be brave in facing their own deaths, but knowing that their own actions would condemn their families to be thrown onto the street with only the clothes on their backs would give even the bravest person pause.

Hank Plantagenet wrote:If Grand Duke Zebediah's titls and properties were forfeit because of his treason, then why weren't Earl Swayle's?

At first glance, there is a difference in scale between the two treasons. Zebdiah raised an army and planned for a full scale war. Swayle planned a coup de etat and acted essentially alone.

It possibly has something to do with the fact that the Grand Duke was the ruling noble of one of the Empire's subject territorial components, with all the power and influence his office gave him. Any outright rebellion by the holder of that office could tie up major resources in terms of not only manpower and equipment, but also time, in any effort to suppress such a rebellion. That could prove deadly, because the Empire would have been forced to divert both men and equipment from where they were desperately needed against external foes, for as long as it would have taken to ensure that no other Zebediahan nobles were tempted to follow his example.

Swayle was not nearly close to holding such a critical office, and neither were the six Corisandian rebels. Yes, some of them sat on Corisande's Regency Council, but none of them were included among the real powerbrokers of that Council.

IMO Grand Duke Tohmas of Zebediah's treason might been seen as the greater treason as he had willingly joined the Empire and breaking his oath to Prince Hektor.

In addition, there's evidence that Tohmas and most of the other nobles of Zebediah were not liked by their subjects for good reasons.

Cayleb and Sharleyan likely believed that Zebediah needed a "house cleaning".

Politically they couldn't just remove Tohmas and the other nobles without good reasons.

Tohmas's treason gave them good reasons to replace Tohmas and replace him with a new Grand Duke.

Swayle's treason is another matter. First, if his heir was loyal and had no knowledge of Swayle's treason, then Cayleb and Sharleyan would be in the position of punishing an innocent.

In addition, the Chisholmian nobility wasn't as nasty as the Zebediahian nobility so there wasn't a need for a house cleaning in Chisholm.

Finally, attainderment is likely a weapon to used carefully. Use it too often and you may get nobles who fear that they have nothing to lose by rebelling.

There was a story told about a Chinese rebellion that started when soldiers rightly believed that they faced death even if they weren't in rebellion.

Hank Plantagenet wrote:Bumping this thread, as I had a similar question.

If Grand Duke Zebediah's titls and properties were forfeit because of his treason, then why weren't Earl Swayle's?

It would seem that Swayle's treason would be even more egregious as a EoC Army officer, and it would have quashed a lot of Chisholmian nobility rebellion on the spot. People can be brave in facing their own deaths, but knowing that their own actions would condemn their families to be thrown onto the street with only the clothes on their backs would give even the bravest person pause.

DrakBibliophile wrote:IMO Grand Duke Tohmas of Zebediah's treason might been seen as the greater treason as he had willingly joined the Empire and breaking his oath to Prince Hektor.

In addition, there's evidence that Tohmas and most of the other nobles of Zebediah were not liked by their subjects for good reasons.

Cayleb and Sharleyan likely believed that Zebediah needed a "house cleaning".

Politically they couldn't just remove Tohmas and the other nobles without good reasons.

Tohmas's treason gave them good reasons to replace Tohmas and replace him with a new Grand Duke.

Swayle's treason is another matter. First, if his heir was loyal and had no knowledge of Swayle's treason, then Cayleb and Sharleyan would be in the position of punishing an innocent.

In addition, the Chisholmian nobility wasn't as nasty as the Zebediahian nobility so there wasn't a need for a house cleaning in Chisholm.

Finally, attainderment is likely a weapon to used carefully. Use it too often and you may get nobles who fear that they have nothing to lose by rebelling.

There was a story told about a Chinese rebellion that started when soldiers rightly believed that they faced death even if they weren't in rebellion.

Why would Tohmas' breaking of his oath to Prince Hektor motivate Cayleb and Sharleyan to punish him harsher for his treason against them? Could you expand on that point, please?

You make an interesting point about his lack of popularity among the Zebediahan commoners. Unlike Corisande, where Hektor ruled directly as an 'enlightened despot' and his nobles would have followed his example, it's clear that he allowed the Zebediahan Grand Duke quite a bit of freedom to do as they wanted - as long as they refrained from challenging his supremacy, of course. Clearly, they thought his restraint allowed them to exploit Zebediah's commoners as much as they wanted. Such shortsightedness is simply foolish, as Tohmas learned in the end, when the Zebediahan commoners refused to protest his removal as their ruling nobleman.