[Discuss] Oaths of fealty and their confliction with other orders

[Kylie]

Timothy Collett wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2008, at 4:53 AM, Kylie wrote:
>> I think once the Lord has committed his knight to an army, he has given
>> control to the Marshal.  Basically his knight repairs and training is
>> being funded by the army (sponsor) and the Lord has committed his CS to
>> the army.  Sure, the Lords orders would supersede the Marshal's if he
>> felt fit to override them, but I think this would be completely frowned
>> upon.
> 
> Frowned upon?

IC and IG of course.  Because he has committed his knight into the 
Marshal's care and for the armies cause, and then interfering and 
negating the commitment his made.  I think its dishonourable at the 
least for a Lord to not fulfil the obligation on his commitment.

Its like me saying to a friend, I'll send over my son to help you with 
your gardening this weekend, my friend saying 'great, I'll give him 
lunch and drinks of lemonade while he's here'.  Then me telling my son, 
go over there, eat all their food, but don't do any work because I want 
you to be able to do work in my garden when you come home for me.