About oaths...

[William E. Cole]

Burke McCrory wrote:
> One thought here.  William Marshell refused his King's order for him to go
> to war with France because he had sworn fealty for his French lands to the
> French King.  He did this with the complete permission of his King
> (English) to whom he was in fealty.  This is a case where one oath took
> precidence over another.
> 
True, but this was a special case. In my own opinion, this is a
completely difference situation than the example of a previous oath
taking precedence over a later oath. This is a case where the person to
whom an oath had been made released (i.e. gave permission) the oathmaker
to make another oath that might be in conflict with the first. In
effect, the person to whom the first oath had been made 'gave up' his
right of precedence. I guess you could argue for or against either side
in this case, but for myself, I agree with William Marshall's choice. I
think he made the most honorable choice possible in his situation. (In
all honesty, and without knowing more detail than just what was posted,
I would even accept the arguement (although with extreme reluctance)
that the SECOND oath took precedence, since it was made with permission
from the english king... unless it was understood between William and
his king that the oath to the french king would NOT take precedence -
which I am sure was probably the case.)

-William FitzBane