Magnum xl's
The nobility. They were a little more than a slave, so if the lord sold the land or estate that the serf was attached to the serf was sold too as part of the estate.
If a lord gave a knight land with serfs on it the serfs would take care of it and if the knight moved the serfs wouldn't. Once you are a serf you can't go back neither can your family. So your children and their children and their children and so on have to be a serf. So to answer your question: A serf stayed with the land. I also gave you a definition on a serf. And there is a bunch of sentences with serfs in them above.
An agricultural laborer bound under the feudal system to work on his lord's estate.
A slave was owned by his master. He had no wages, no freedom and was bound to serve him for life. A serf was tied to the land held by his lord. He could farm but he could not share in the profits and could never leave his lord for a new one. A peasant would farm for his lord and did share to some extend in the profit but he could also sell his labour or anything like vegetables he grew aside from what he grew for his lord. He had a better chance of actually becoming more than what he was than either a slave or a serf.
No, the masters of serfs provided neither food nor clothes. They provide farming fields and homes. The serfs grew their own food and made much of their own clothes.
A freeman was a person who was not bound to the land or obligated to provide labor to a lord, while a serf was a person who was bound to the land and required to provide labor to a lord in exchange for protection. Freemen had more freedom and autonomy compared to serfs who had limited rights and mobility.
Peasant
A serf was a person below the lord who was tied to the fief, or piece of land, that they worked on. In other words, a serf was every class below the lords who worked for the lord.
It depends whether you were a serf or a lord. If you were a lord it was generally good. If you were a serf it wasn't a very good system
Your question is not entirely correct in its premise; a serf is not a slave and does not have an owner. A serf is a subject of a land owner whom the serf would address as lord.
If his Lord sold the land, the serf would be passed onto the new owner.
peasant or serf, or lady
a vassal or a serf google them
To work for the lord or manor and fight when there was a war. A vassal was a serf and the word "serf" is Greek for slave.
A legal conflict between a serf living on a manor with another serf is resolved by the Lord of the Manor or by a court system of sherriffs and bailiffs. Before this, conflicts were settled through parties beating each other.
The diet of a serf was mainly porridge, cheese, black bread, and a few home-grown vegetables. Although not technically a slave, a serf was bound to a lord for life. He could own no property and needed the lord's permission to marry.
A serf was a peasant, or farmer, who was "bound to the soil." He was not legally permitted to move off the manor on which he lived. The binding went both ways, however, and was rather more like a contract than like bondage. He could not break the attachment without the consent of the lord, but the lord could not break it without agreement of the serf. A serf had a right to live on the manor, and could not legally be evicted without cause. A serf had a right to farm land according to local custom. This usually meant that he farmed the lord's land one or two days each week, farmed common land a couple of days each week, and had one or two days to farm land assigned to him and his family for their private use. A serf had a right to protection from trouble. This protection was for times of war, social unrest, banditry, and famine. Theoretically, if the serfs could not provide for themselves, their lord had to provide for them. Aside from obligations, which had to be fulfilled according to supervision, a serf was pretty much free.