I would expect that it would be a fairly simple task to set up some sort of pious foundation to care for orphans, provided one had money or lands to endow it with. It's the sort of thing noblemen and rich town dwellers did regularly. It's a matter of working with the local Church rather than against it.
It's good that you tried to find sources, but I'd note that this paper is 25 years old, so it predates modern methods of scholarship. You might as well just use Boswell (who did the seminal work on this, way, way back in the 1980s.)
So, I'd remind you of three things here:
The article you've cited is about the wardship of heirs, which, as it states, means children who have lost their father, but not necessarily their mother, and who have property. That's not much related ot foundlings.
The article clearly states the wardship of heirs is a right held by the king, and is won from the king during the C14th. So, no, it says heirs belogn to the king. In England in particular, no man is free. Every man owes duty to the King, through some mechanism. When you say "No-one claims the child as a matter of law." you are mistaken, I believe. Again, though, wardship of heirs doesn't seem relevant to foundlings.
I'd further note that the first private orphanage in Britain is still running. It has changed names and locations several times, and is now the charity Coram. It took the founder 17 years to get his royal charter to permit operation, and opened in 1739. There are no private orphanages in Britain before this.
So, England's a bit of a wash.
There are some French foundling homes set up late in the century by the Order of the Holy Spirit, and then far later Saint Vincent De Paul sets some up, but again, these are run by the Church.
Where was your saga set again?
This paper doesn't prove your point, it just says sources are scarce and tangential, and the author repeatedly says she has no idea what happens to these children. This is a two page note, which is a preliminary study of documents, published eight years ago, which does little but praise up "The Kindness of Strangers" by Boswell (which you'd hate because it says that the Church was the prime regulator of what happened to exposed children.)
That being noted, Boswell's work has some more modern critics, for basically doing what we are doing here, which is talking as Europe as a whole.
I'm aware there are some things that look like founding homes in Northern Italy during the Middle Ages, although they are run by the commune, not by private people. One of the other people in thread has mentioned something in Constantinople I'd like to know more about because I'm not familiar with it. So, depending on where you are...
Then again, I'm not sure why you are defending this on historical grounds...just do what you want, the same way you do with the religious structure of the world.
The point is that- so far as we can tell- there was very little done officially at this era unless the person was an heir- presumably to a title, and the church probably did have a lot to do with what did exist because they were a primary outlet for charity, which is what someone taking children in off the streets would generally be seen as.
As to why, first this is not my campaign we are discussing, but someone else's question, and secondly the last post crossed quite decidedly into ad hominem without cause and it seems to me you are simply taking this as an opportunity to be an ass. Just because I do not accept your word as any kind of authority on anything does not mean I am not interested in the historical aspects. Given the wide range of topics and points I have made on religion I'm not sure what the heck you even mean by that comment aside from apparently feeling the need to bring it up as a nasty personal aside.
I came into this conversation to try and bring something productive to a question raised by someone else. Please take your nasty tendency, or need, to bully others in forums elsewhere.
Being wrong ain't the end of the world. Please accept facts when they are brought to your attention.
I'm certainly no specialist but I'm pretty sure that material from either the 1980's or 1990's is still quite acceptable for citation unless specifically replaced by more recent work. There's no reason to condemn either source out of hand.
However, from the OP:
Given that we're talking about the 9th century Near East and Rome, I don't think any of the material mentioned, discussing England and France in the 13th and later centuries, is relevant.
Still, since we're now discussing orphanages in general...
An heir worth bothering to take wardship of was an asset in terms of property and or connections. This is entirely different from a foundling, who was a liability for the community to care for out of Christian duty. Theoretical arguments about feudal duty to the King notwithstanding, foundlings were not treated as some sort of resource to be fed and raised up to do work, as if they were plantation slaves.
Generally the parish was the body responsible for this care in England, at least in the later middle ages. The article cited discusses a similar situation in France somewhat earlier, and I suspect (but have not actually researched) that it is the same in 13th century England.
If the experience of English parishes in later times is anything to go by, the local bodies loved nothing more than to find ways to have others pick up the costs of taking care of orphans and the poor in general. I have no trouble believing that player characters with the money to endow a foundation to perform this function would be greeted positively by the authorities. The OP's characters can claim to be inspired directly by a saint, surely making this a pious action. Of course, if the characters have a particularly bad reputation, that could be different.
This is the body that was originally called the Foundling Hospital. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundling_Hospital
It was actually an enormous, for the time, public-private partnership that ended up consuming a significant part of England's annual budget during its peak years. The long process of obtaining the charter was due to the need to persuade Parliament to provide funds, not because the parish workhouses were opposed to giving up orphans.
This is true for as long as the charitable organisation in question operates without generating any form of real or imagined profit that the local bodies rightly consider theirs, be it monetary profit or reputation or whatever.
While there's no direct historical context for this, it's something that plays out anywhere there are humans time and time again. This is when such an operation can become problematic; it is worth taking the effort to establish oneself as the rightful and ordained provider of such a charity before anyone notices any direct benefit that arises from it.
Even if all you're producing is effective and talented workers. After all, why pay for something when you can use a position of authority to get them for free?
Those in power love nothing more than finding ways to have others pick up the costs while they reap the benefits. It's often why they're in power, after all.
That however would occur well after you establish the orphanage, and can probably be dealt with by sharing the (hopefully real) assets with those in charge while taking on the burden of generating them yourself. For example, if your orphanage is producing educated clerks and scribes as well as apprentice magi, why not share the wealth of a trained workforce with authorities? But this really gets to questions of later stories rather than the question of how to found an orphanage.
@Tugdal- my comment that you quoted to Timothy Ferguson was not about being right or wrong, but about the fact his post was taking a personal and insulting tone, where he has previously confessed to pushing arguments into the realm of the nasty and personal because he enjoys getting a rise out of people.
Err, what? I don't recall even reading anything like that (that he enjoys or regularly pushes arguments to the personal and nasty areas) from Timothy Ferguson. I've never seen him get personal.
You, on the other hand, have a decided bent for making it personal whenever someone doesn't agree with you. I certainly know this well. You claimed in the last post he made in this thread that he made an ad hominem attack. In point of fact, you made it personal, when Timothy didn't do any such thing. Timothy deconstructed your argument, examined your evidence, and demonstrated its weakness. That isn't personal.
The most personal "attack" I saw was the Good for your comment in the City & Guild travel times thread. Good for you.
Wait a minute: is my "nasty" personal attack meant to be this?
"Then again, I'm not sure why you are defending this on historical grounds...just do what you want, the same way you do with the religious structure of the world."
Is that it?
You've previously described how in your games, the Church has a far weaker position that historically because you are a pagan and prefer a setting in which your religion is given greater respect. I didn't realise that noting this was your prefered play style would be seen as an attack on you, and I don't really understand how that works.
Was it "which you'd hate because it says that the Church was the prime regulator of what happened to exposed children."
Is that what you mean by me bullying you?
I may have misunderstood your position, but I thought from previous threads that it was that the Church was, by and large, an oppressive force?
I do not recall ever saying that, because I don't enjoy getting a rise out of people. I find online arguments fatiguing, mostly, and they take up time I should be doing other more productive things in. In that sense, they are kind of a vice because they waste time, but no, I don't argue just to get a rise out of people.
I've tried to check this: the site offers keyword searching, and "rise", at least only has two pages of results going back to 2006, none of which are me saying anything about arguing with people.
If you aren't putting words in my mouth here, I'd like to know where I said this, please.
I was quite flamy in my very early years in the fandom, back in the 1990s...are you referring to that? That's going back a long way, and I have apologised to virtually everyone from back then, so, if this is from way back there: sure, I was quite tedious back then.
I calmed down a lot in my thirties, IMO.
I'd also like to report this thread to the Admins. I think it's gone toxic.
no, actually I haven't, I have objected repeatedly to the underlying assumptions of a theological bent which govern the RAW, but dening the social power of the church would be silly. I do however note historical conflicts such as the Irish monastic system and other 'cracks' which are not exactly outside of RAW either which do occur in my games. Others have suggested I should change the realm interactions in my games to something I am more comfortable with, but that is not the same as me saying I have done so.
As for the message about enjoying getting a rise out of people I must apologize- this was an old conversation and in my irritation I was confused- it was Johnathon Link who sent me that message (in PM on another board). I do tend to see red when I see what appears to be a personal attack, which frankly the implication of that statement was, being both false and directed to myself personally instead of the topic at hand.
Oh, sorry I misunderstood the discussion about paganism in Russia/Scandinavia/places between. I thought you had active pagans in all those places in your game? My bad. Sorry for the offence.
No, I was pointing out that there were active pagans in the real world at that time, which Ars Magica sweeps under the rug (along with Irish Monasticism, which was a form of Christianity opposed by the Catholic church which worked cooperatively with druids, and was considered a source of academic excellence before the Catholic Church sponsored England taking over Ireland to exert its own dominance in theology, but that is getting back into another discussion).
In any case it was still irrelevant to the discussion and directed as a personal remark rather than being on topic and was delivered in at minimum a dismissive tone, so even if it had been accurate, it was still inappropriate.
I know you won't find me to the voice of calm and reason, silveroak. I'll say it anyway.
When one often finds that people are antagonistic with him, the problem is very likely with person seeing everyone as being antagonistic (ask me how I know this). Timothy Ferguson saying to you, "[J]ust do what you want, the same way you do with the religious structure of the world." is not a personal attack. That you find it to be a personal attack says way more about you than it does about him. Saying good for you to fighting to the last ditch might be a bit of a dig, but honestly, it's a demonstrated personality trait of yours as evidinced on the forums. Should you like it I'll provide links, those links will also show you calling others names or rejecting people's arguments because of personal reasons, rather than evidentiary ones. My experience with you, when confronted with a factual argument that you don't like, is that you go on the attack and make things ad hominem, before anyone else.
When Tugdual said accept facts when brought to your attention, and you responded to it with an assertion (an incorrect one, no less) that Timothy's post was taking a personal/insulting tone, and that he also allegedly confessed to pushing arguments into the realm of the personal and nasty because he enjoys getting a rise out of people. Not only did I call you out on that, but so did Timothy, and yet you haven't apologized to mis-attributing something to Timothy that was never the case. His posts and responses to you were not personal or insulting, unless you find deconstructing your arguments and demonstrating the weakness of your supporting sources to be personal and insulting. And again, as I said in the beginning, that's on you, not on him, or anyone else.
read much? I apologized a few posts above your 'observation'.
As to it being an ad hominem, it was technically an ad hominem (to the man) in that it was directed towards me (the fact I took it to be dismissive is secondary) as an argument instead of to the subject. That isn't about my perception, it is about the definition of the word. The fact that this seems to happen so often on these forums that nobody even seems to recognize it... well that is what it is I guess.
And no, I did not take the "good for you" as an insult. It was the implication that I toss the rules aside to suit my whim when I have not done that, though others have suggested I should instead of arguing over what I see as flaws in the rules.
You never said the words I apologize or I'm sorry, that's kinda/sorta how people tell that it's an apology. You explained your behavior. And then you attempted to justify or rationalize that by blaming me for something I said directly to you (see more below), but keep in mind that your accusation of Timothy happened even before I was in the conversation. So not only did you not apologize, you're providing a bullshit rationalization for having the brush you painted Timothy with, since I wasn't even involved, yet.
Addressing a speaker or writer does not an ad hominem make. I know the literal translation of ad hominem, but the meaning and your context of it was that you were being attacked on personal issues. Timothy merely addressed you directly, deconstructed your argument and demonstrated the weakness of your arguments. That isn't ad hominem. Your tendency to attack whenever this is done is an ad hominem attack. One for which you still haven't apologized for.
So yeah, I read. I read that you didn't apologize, merely rationalized. I read that you attributed something to Timothy that rightfully belongs to me. And your explanation for that was that you confused Timothy with me, but this was before I had entered the thread.
And to be accurate, as I recall the conversation where I said I like to get a rise, I think I said it directly to you. You take everything I say personally, no matter what. It's why I qualified my statement from yesterday at 9:33, but I probably should have done that upon my entry into the conversation.
silveroak did, actually, write the words "I must apologize":
My mistake. I looked at it several times and couldn't see it. I acknowledge my mistake in saying he didn't apologize. Still his explanation doesn't make any sense based on the timing of the messages and my involvement in the thread. Note, I'm not apologizing for being wrong, just acknowledging my mistake.
obviously not, an Ad hominem is where the argument specifically is addressed to the other person, not simply an address of the other person "Hello Jane" is not an Ad Hominem "Jane you ignorant slut" is. Utilizing a personal address to undermine the speaker instead of the argument (why don't you jut ignore the rules like you always do?) is Ad Hominem, in that it is directed at the character of the person in response to an argument made in a general sense.
So to your accusation that the problem lies with me being hypersensitive, I could respond that the issue here is perceptive, that you are simply insensitive when it comes to others, or I could continue to point out that by definition, yes, what was done was an Ad Hominem, and they have abounded in a number of conversations I have been in.
What would be far more useful however, would be to get back on topic if anyone has anything else to say about orphanages in the middle ages instead of turning it into a series of personal attacks which serve no purpose.
Only if one is extremely literal in their Latin translation can one come close to the view that addressing comments to the speaker ow writer is ad hominem. Indeed Wikipedia's definition even qualifies the meaning as statements that attack the character of an individual.
My assertion that the problem lies with you might be ad hominem, but the evidence supports my statement. You won't acknowledge when your wrong easily, as evidenced by the comment you directed (ad hominem in your parlance) to Tugdual.
Only now when your position is indefensible do you now appeal to get back on topic. I'm much reminded of the thread that I said I enjoyed yanking your chain. You are a funny guy. And yeah. That's ad hominem.