> >Correct. All holdings are considered fortified, yes. However, when
> a
> >Castle is built, the owning regents holdings are all inside the same
> >fortification. They are not considered to be fortified individually
> >(although this can be done).
> Ahh now I understand. It's just in this case the castle was built to
> protect a road into the province where as the law holdings (courts and
> watchhouses etc) are in the largest town and the temple is a monastry
> in the country.
> So in this case the castle does not actually fortify the associated
> holdings. I just didn't understand the logic behind the rule. thanks