Can a Knight Who Was Stripped of His Title Regain it somehow, or at least become a soldier/man-at-arms etc.,

[Decidueye]

Yes I agree, Cochrane came from a different era. Of course an easy way out of this is for him to have been wrongly accused of something worthy of losing his knighthood for; a sub-plot could be him trying to prove his innocence to regain it.

That's a great idea! I thought about this in the early stages of plotting but I guess I was focusing on another MC, so I've just been trying to get back in tune with this one.

 

[Swank]

In the 11th century begat ye olde knight-reinstatement form. Once filled out in triplicate, you forward it to the exchequer with a
£14 processing fee and wait a fortnight. And it was good.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

In the 11th century begat ye olde knight-reinstatement form. Once filled out in triplicate, you forward it to the exchequer with a
£14 processing fee and wait a fortnight. And it was good.

That´s nonsense

ye olde knight-reinstatement form. Once filled out in triplicate,

However, royal pardons WERE somewhat routine exercise of chancery - for both felonies and treasons.
You could very well have your character be guilty of the accusation. Or you could have the accusation which is serious and true but whose wrongness is highly controversial.
I mentioned Sir Nicholas Brembre - a royal favourite who fell and was executed (but his king managed a comeback). Another royal favourite was Piers Gaveston.
Piers was accepted as a knight all right - he was son of a lesser noble - it was his promotion as leading noble of England and his conduct there that was objectionable. He was exiled from England thrice and returned each time. Then again, since he was an accepted knight, he was not stripped of knighthood when exiled.

 

[hitmouse]

When I find myself in this sort of historical quandary (which happens frequently on the first Tuesday after New Year) and I need cold hard facts about chivalry, I refer to those great documentaries The Black Shield of Falworth, Prince Valiant, and The Sword in the Stone, and if that does not answer my questions, I ask myself, "What would Genghis Khan do?"

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I refer to those great documentaries The Black Shield of Falworth, Prince Valiant, and The Sword in the Stone

Well, actually ... though hitmouse is of course kidding, Men of Iron, by Howard Pyle, (a fine old classic novel, before Hollywood got its hands on it and made "The Black Shield of Falworth") might be worth a look. It does perpetuate some inaccuracies (as you might expect in a historical novel written in 1891), but also some good information about the training of boys and young men into knights, and the knighting ceremony. It is also easily and cheaply available, and I remember enjoying it very much the two times I read it—many, many decades ago. Your local public library just might have it. Otherwise, there are some inexpensive editions available through Amazon, and no doubt other sources if you don't like Amazon.

edit: I see that it's also at Project Gutenberg.

And to answer one of your questions: Having been dubbed a knight and then having his knighthood taken away would have no effect on his desirability as a common soldier or man-at-arms. Those who commanded medieval armies were always looking for cannon fodder.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Yes, a knight was - armoured or horsed or not - a highly trained killing machine. The fact that he wasn't chivalrous or played by the rules wasn't important (in fact in combat it could be a benefit). Only his courage, skill at arms and loyalty mattered on the battlefield.

 

[Toby Frost]

That´s nonsense

I think he might be joking?

It sounds as if the answer to this depends on what you come up with. For one thing, I find the idea of a knight (stereotypically, a heavily-armoured, unsubtle warrior who at least is supposed to follow a code of "clean" fighting* and wears heraldry that identifies him) being also an assassin (stereotypically, a nimble, stealthy killer who goes unseen, doesn't wear armour and is fundamentally a "dirty" fighter) pretty odd unless these are just names that indicate being in a nobility or an organisation. It's like a vegan becoming a butcher - possible, but unlikely and asking for an explanation. (See also "samurai" and "ninja".)

Which means that you need an explanation that feels "right". This would suggest some kind of redemptive quest, the equivalent of a criminal joining the Foreign Legion. But the redemptive quest for a "knight" and for an "assassin" would feel very different and probably contradictory. Have you considered making up some new type of fighter, perhaps like a de-magicked Jedi, and calling him that?


*whatever that means.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I think he might be joking?

It sounds as if the answer to this depends on what you come up with. For one thing, I find the idea of a knight (stereotypically, a heavily-armoured, unsubtle warrior who at least is supposed to follow a code of "clean" fighting* and wears heraldry that identifies him) being also an assassin (stereotypically, a nimble, stealthy killer who goes unseen, doesn't wear armour and is fundamentally a "dirty" fighter) pretty odd unless these are just names that indicate being in a nobility or an organisation. It's like a vegan becoming a butcher - possible, but unlikely and asking for an explanation. (See also "samurai" and "ninja".)

Which means that you need an explanation that feels "right". This would suggest some kind of redemptive quest, the equivalent of a criminal joining the Foreign Legion. But the redemptive quest for a "knight" and for an "assassin" would feel very different and probably contradictory. Have you considered making up some new type of fighter, perhaps like a de-magicked Jedi, and calling him that?


*whatever that means.

I think it would depend on what you class as an assassin. We tend to think of them nowadays as ninja-types in black body suits, who can get in and out of anywhere undetected.

But back then, knights (or sometimes commoners) would be sent on a mission to kill someone, they would likely be heavily armoured and unsubtle. We see this happening with Thomas Beckett, when they literally burst into his place of worship and murdered him in cold blood.

 

[Swank]

I think that this sort of question assumes a sort of rigidity and codification in broad society during a historical period when it did not exist.

If a noble wanted to demote and then reinstate a knight - that's up to the noble. There wasn't some national review going on. The demotion would just have been swept under the rug like it didn't happen. You could make someone a virgin by decree, too.

If a noble asked a trusted knight to use his access to upper class society and skills with a blade to assassinate someone, how is that a problem? He's going to have an easier time getting into the castle than anyone below his station.



It's fiction. Write it how you want to write it. Exceptional events only make for better fiction, not angry readers.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

I think that this sort of question assumes a sort of rigidity and codification in broad society during a historical period when it did not exist.

Actually, it was a period when it did exist. Late medieval/renaissance. The rigidity was forming. Precedents counted. New precedents could be made... but could fall through.

If a noble wanted to demote and then reinstate a knight - that's up to the noble. There wasn't some national review going on.

Nope. Making knights (of otherwise unobjectionable characters) was a common thing traditionally accepted for mid-level nobles. Demoting knights while alive was unusual, and it was not going to be taken seriously by others unless the side purporting to demote was a recognized authority, like king. (Maybe popes or major republics could, not sure about their practice).

The demotion would just have been swept under the rug like it didn't happen. You could make someone a virgin by decree, too.

No. But reversing a demotion is far easier than making someone a virgin!
Counting a set easier to check: the English Knights of Garter who were degraded:

1. Jasper Tudor - Lancastrian. Elected 1459. After his side´s loss 1461, fled abroad. Briefly returned with Lancastrian side 1470-1471, permanently 1485. Previous attainders annulled, thus restored to Garter.
2. Thomas Grey - opponent of Richard III. Appointed 1476. Fled abroad 1483-1484, degraded. Also returned and restored 1485 with Bosworth
3. Lovell "our dog". Appointed 1483. After Bosworth, fled abroad and was degraded. Missing, presumed dead after 1487.
4. 1st Earl of Surrey. Appointed 1483. Captured alive at Bosworth, thrown to Tower, lands, titles and Garter knighthood taken away. After 4 years in Tower, pardoned, released, lands, titles and Garter returned.
5. 3rd duke of Suffolk. Appointed 1499, fled abroad 1501, declared attainted 1504
6. 3rd Duke of Buckingham. Appointed 1499. Arrested in April 1521, beheaded in May - attainder and degradation definitely posthumous
7. 1st baron Darcy. Appointed 1509. Captured for complicity in a revolt February 1537, beheaded June, degraded posthumously
8. 1st marquess of Exeter. Appointed 1521. Arrested November 1538 on accusation of treason, beheaded December, degraded posthumously
9. 1st Earl of Essex. Appointed 1537. Arrested June 1540 on accusation of treason, and in his case degraded in lifetime. Beheaded in July
10. Earl of Surrey, son of the next. Appointed 1541. Arrested with father in December 1546, beheaded in January, degraded posthumously.
11. 3rd Duke of Norfolk. Appointed 1510. Arrested December 1546 on accusation of treason, sentenced to death, reprieved but deprived of lands, titles and knighthood, spent 6 years in Tower, released and lands, titles and knighthood returned on accession of Broody Mary
12. 1st baron Paget. Appointed 1547. Thrown to Tower in 1551 as accomplice of Duke of Somerset, degraded and fined in 1552 - got titles back from Broody Mary.
13. 1st Duke of Northumberland. Appointed 1543. Tried making Jane Queen, captured in July 1553, beheaded August, degraded apparently posthumously
14. 1st marquess of Northampton. Appointed 1543. Sentenced to death with 1st duke of Northumberland (above), and titles taken away, but reprieved. After a few months in Tower released but without titles. Got titles back from Bess I in 1559
15. Duke of Suffolk. Appointed 1547. Beheaded and degraded in 1554 for Wyatt´s revolt
16. 7th earl of Northumberland. Appointed 1563. Fled abroad 1569, degraded, extradited and beheaded 1572
17. 4th Duke of Norfolk. Appointed 1559. Arrested September 1571 for a treason plot, beheaded June 1572, degraded at some point
18. 2nd earl of Essex. Appointed 1588. Captured in revolt 1601, beheaded 17 days after capture, degraded at some point.
19. 11th baron Cobham. Appointed 1599. Arrested for treason plot 1603, degraded, imprisoned in Tower for 15 years, released when old and ill and died soon after
20. 1st duke of Monmouth. Appointed 1663. Captured in revolt 1685, beheaded 7 days later, attainted in lifetime
21. 2nd duke of Ormonde. Appointed 1688. Fled abroad 1715, degraded 1716

No Englishmen before or since - not counting alien enemies, who several times returned Garters of their own initiative.
So when you have a political revolution, it is not unlikely that some knights would flee abroad and be degraded in absentia - you have a list of 6 knights who fled abroad and were degraded in absentia. Degradation in absentia was not sure to stick - 2 of the fugitives managed to return (both with victorious Henry VII). When knights are thrown to Tower, they might be soon executed, or released without formal dishonour, but formal degradation while leaving the knight alive in Tower was not unknown - 5 ex-KGs lived to get out of Tower. One was restored by the monarch who degraded him (Surrey, after 4 years captivity), 3 by next rulers soon after accession (Mary restored 2 ex-knights, Bess I one), one was released but without titles or wealth.

 

[Swank]

Actually, it was a period when it did exist. Late medieval/renaissance. The rigidity was forming. Precedents counted. New precedents could be made... but could fall through.

Nope. Making knights (of otherwise unobjectionable characters) was a common thing traditionally accepted for mid-level nobles. Demoting knights while alive was unusual, and it was not going to be taken seriously by others unless the side purporting to demote was a recognized authority, like king. (Maybe popes or major republics could, not sure about their practice).

No. But reversing a demotion is far easier than making someone a virgin!
Counting a set easier to check: the English Knights of Garter who were degraded:

1. Jasper Tudor - Lancastrian. Elected 1459. After his side´s loss 1461, fled abroad. Briefly returned with Lancastrian side 1470-1471, permanently 1485. Previous attainders annulled, thus restored to Garter.
2. Thomas Grey - opponent of Richard III. Appointed 1476. Fled abroad 1483-1484, degraded. Also returned and restored 1485 with Bosworth
3. Lovell "our dog". Appointed 1483. After Bosworth, fled abroad and was degraded. Missing, presumed dead after 1487.
4. 1st Earl of Surrey. Appointed 1483. Captured alive at Bosworth, thrown to Tower, lands, titles and Garter knighthood taken away. After 4 years in Tower, pardoned, released, lands, titles and Garter returned.
5. 3rd duke of Suffolk. Appointed 1499, fled abroad 1501, declared attainted 1504
6. 3rd Duke of Buckingham. Appointed 1499. Arrested in April 1521, beheaded in May - attainder and degradation definitely posthumous
7. 1st baron Darcy. Appointed 1509. Captured for complicity in a revolt February 1537, beheaded June, degraded posthumously
8. 1st marquess of Exeter. Appointed 1521. Arrested November 1538 on accusation of treason, beheaded December, degraded posthumously
9. 1st Earl of Essex. Appointed 1537. Arrested June 1540 on accusation of treason, and in his case degraded in lifetime. Beheaded in July
10. Earl of Surrey, son of the next. Appointed 1541. Arrested with father in December 1546, beheaded in January, degraded posthumously.
11. 3rd Duke of Norfolk. Appointed 1510. Arrested December 1546 on accusation of treason, sentenced to death, reprieved but deprived of lands, titles and knighthood, spent 6 years in Tower, released and lands, titles and knighthood returned on accession of Broody Mary
12. 1st baron Paget. Appointed 1547. Thrown to Tower in 1551 as accomplice of Duke of Somerset, degraded and fined in 1552 - got titles back from Broody Mary.
13. 1st Duke of Northumberland. Appointed 1543. Tried making Jane Queen, captured in July 1553, beheaded August, degraded apparently posthumously
14. 1st marquess of Northampton. Appointed 1543. Sentenced to death with 1st duke of Northumberland (above), and titles taken away, but reprieved. After a few months in Tower released but without titles. Got titles back from Bess I in 1559
15. Duke of Suffolk. Appointed 1547. Beheaded and degraded in 1554 for Wyatt´s revolt
16. 7th earl of Northumberland. Appointed 1563. Fled abroad 1569, degraded, extradited and beheaded 1572
17. 4th Duke of Norfolk. Appointed 1559. Arrested September 1571 for a treason plot, beheaded June 1572, degraded at some point
18. 2nd earl of Essex. Appointed 1588. Captured in revolt 1601, beheaded 17 days after capture, degraded at some point.
19. 11th baron Cobham. Appointed 1599. Arrested for treason plot 1603, degraded, imprisoned in Tower for 15 years, released when old and ill and died soon after
20. 1st duke of Monmouth. Appointed 1663. Captured in revolt 1685, beheaded 7 days later, attainted in lifetime
21. 2nd duke of Ormonde. Appointed 1688. Fled abroad 1715, degraded 1716

No Englishmen before or since - not counting alien enemies, who several times returned Garters of their own initiative.
So when you have a political revolution, it is not unlikely that some knights would flee abroad and be degraded in absentia - you have a list of 6 knights who fled abroad and were degraded in absentia. Degradation in absentia was not sure to stick - 2 of the fugitives managed to return (both with victorious Henry VII). When knights are thrown to Tower, they might be soon executed, or released without formal dishonour, but formal degradation while leaving the knight alive in Tower was not unknown - 5 ex-KGs lived to get out of Tower. One was restored by the monarch who degraded him (Surrey, after 4 years captivity), 3 by next rulers soon after accession (Mary restored 2 ex-knights, Bess I one), one was released but without titles or wealth.

So you aren't writing fantasy but incredibly accurate historical fiction?

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Everything that actually happened is plausible by definition - because it actually happened. However, things that actually happened did so for reasons, and some did for an unusual combination of reasons.
Questions like "Would/could a genuine mage be knighted"? Wizards were never well confirmed, so it has no accurate historical answer. However, kings went around knighting merchants, lawyers, scholars... St. Thomas More was a knight, and never had any military training. He was not the first lawyer with no military training to be knighted in England. As it happened, St. Thomas More was never outlawed (because he did not manage to escape) nor degraded (Henry VIII did not bother, unlike with Thomas Cromwell).

If St. Thomas More had managed to escape abroad, would he have got asylum anywhere? Plausibly so. He was a scholar of some renown abroad (he invented Utopia!).
Would St. Thomas More have got employment as a man-at-arms? No. He was untrained as a warrior, and past 40 when knighted. Political public knew that.
Would Emperor or King of France or King of Scotland have called Thomas More a "knight" when fugitive from England? Not sure about that.
As for actual wizards, we have a well-known one but not confirmed as having genuine powers. Georg Faust. Half of Emperor Charles V-s victories in Italy were thanks to him... as recounted by himself. He wasn´t reported as hanging around Emperor´s court by the many and attentive contemporary observers. Either the association was highly secretive... or else boasted of by Faust alone.
The titular dignity of "knight" ("Ritter") seems, by 16th century, in Germany by contrast to England to have evolved into a hereditary honour, not conferred by an authority. If Charles V had actually wanted to publicly associate with and confer honour on Dr. Faust, how would he have gone about doing that?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Everything that actually happened is plausible by definition - because it actually happened. However, things that actually happened did so for reasons, and some did for an unusual combination of reasons.
Questions like "Would/could a genuine mage be knighted"? Wizards were never well confirmed, so it has no accurate historical answer. However, kings went around knighting merchants, lawyers, scholars... St. Thomas More was a knight, and never had any military training. He was not the first lawyer with no military training to be knighted in England. As it happened, St. Thomas More was never outlawed (because he did not manage to escape) nor degraded (Henry VIII did not bother, unlike with Thomas Cromwell).

If St. Thomas More had managed to escape abroad, would he have got asylum anywhere? Plausibly so. He was a scholar of some renown abroad (he invented Utopia!).
Would St. Thomas More have got employment as a man-at-arms? No. He was untrained as a warrior, and past 40 when knighted. Political public knew that.
Would Emperor or King of France or King of Scotland have called Thomas More a "knight" when fugitive from England? Not sure about that.
As for actual wizards, we have a well-known one but not confirmed as having genuine powers. Georg Faust. Half of Emperor Charles V-s victories in Italy were thanks to him... as recounted by himself. He wasn´t reported as hanging around Emperor´s court by the many and attentive contemporary observers. Either the association was highly secretive... or else boasted of by Faust alone.
The titular dignity of "knight" ("Ritter") seems, by 16th century, in Germany by contrast to England to have evolved into a hereditary honour, not conferred by an authority. If Charles V had actually wanted to publicly associate with and confer honour on Dr. Faust, how would he have gone about doing that?

By the era of Henry VIII, the mounted knight and castles as fortifications was over.

But as already discussed, what it meant to be a knight varied from era to era and country to country.

 

[The Big Peat]

I have to say that based on what I've read, we're going sufficiently off piste from the historical record that just doing whatever fits the story best is the right move.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

By the era of Henry VIII, the mounted knight and castles as fortifications was over.

Depends on the definition. The men he played war with included a lot of cavalry. And they could be and were knighted for services.

But as already discussed, what it meant to be a knight varied from era to era and country to country.

I have to say that based on what I've read, we're going sufficiently off piste from the historical record that just doing whatever fits the story best is the right move.

The contemporaries went off-piste a lot. Including off-continent.
But it was only sometimes that they did it on the spur of the moments. A lot of time they gave their action a lot of thought. And when they had friends who to trust for counsel, talked about it.
Like "If I knight a wizard who is possibly a charlatan, will the rest of my nobles and other kings laugh at me? If I proclaim a fugitive degraded from knighthood, will it demonstrate that I mean business, or will I be simply laughed at for empty threats?".

 

[Decidueye]

I think he might be joking?

It sounds as if the answer to this depends on what you come up with. For one thing, I find the idea of a knight (stereotypically, a heavily-armoured, unsubtle warrior who at least is supposed to follow a code of "clean" fighting* and wears heraldry that identifies him) being also an assassin (stereotypically, a nimble, stealthy killer who goes unseen, doesn't wear armour and is fundamentally a "dirty" fighter) pretty odd unless these are just names that indicate being in a nobility or an organisation. It's like a vegan becoming a butcher - possible, but unlikely and asking for an explanation. (See also "samurai" and "ninja".)

Which means that you need an explanation that feels "right". This would suggest some kind of redemptive quest, the equivalent of a criminal joining the Foreign Legion. But the redemptive quest for a "knight" and for an "assassin" would feel very different and probably contradictory. Have you considered making up some new type of fighter, perhaps like a de-magicked Jedi, and calling him that?


*whatever that means.

Oh yes I am familiar with the weirdness of the combination, as I am actually pretty familiar with the differences between ninja and samurai, (they are QUITE different,) but trying not to give too much of the plot I have ideas in how this can make more sense. Nevertheless I should definitely see how this sits with readers once I have the first draft ready.

 

[Decidueye]

I think it would depend on what you class as an assassin. We tend to think of them nowadays as ninja-types in black body suits, who can get in and out of anywhere undetected.

But back then, knights (or sometimes commoners) would be sent on a mission to kill someone, they would likely be heavily armoured and unsubtle. We see this happening with Thomas Beckett, when they literally burst into his place of worship and murdered him in cold blood.

Yeah I thought the reason why people compare Hashashin to Knights Templar aside from being around the same time period, is because Hashashin DID covertly kill, whereas Knights Templar HAS once or twice, but not enough to say they really 'have' if that make sense; and I thought that that carries into general knighthood, occasionally once in a blue moon someone would have to 'play the assassin' but it was by no means a common thing, and likely many k nights haven't even heard of the possibility of having to do that.
But I don't know how true that is.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

and I thought that that carries into general knighthood, occasionally once in a blue moon someone would have to 'play the assassin' but it was by no means a common thing, and likely many knights haven't even heard of the possibility of having to do that.

They clearly had heard of it. Their opinions about it... varied. Generally negative, but how unconditionally or what the legitimate excuses might be did vary.
Renaissance Italy had quite a lot of "assassinations". So did Scotland of 16th century civil wars.
Earl of Moray, Regent of Scotland was assassinated by gun in 1570 by one James Hamilton... a gentleman (but not a knight). James Hamilton was supported by his kin in the action. They lost the resulting civil war, though (James Hamilton´s uncle, who was an Archbishop - an Archbishop´s nephew is not a nobody or a lowly thug! - was captured and promptly executed 14 months after the assassination) and James Hamilton went to France in exile with his side´s allies the Guises. While there, he was asked to assassinate Guises´ political opponent Coligny... and refused. On grounds that "a man of honour was entitled to settle his own quarrels, but not to murder for others".