I assumed these two operated similarly to an autonomous spell. I.e. they were force-based spells with effects independent of the object they were attached to. The only relationship was the attachment which let the spell move with the object from zone to zone.
so effects that happen to the object don't impact these enchantments and the would still provide a defense even if the object was restrained, incapacitated, etc.
My two cents...
If they were Autonomous it would be a simple question, however they are not. They are clearly worded in such a way as to be giving the creature a Defense which is then a part of it as much as any Defense printed directly on the creature card. This new Defense is special because it's not affected by Conditions. It then lists Incapacitate, Restrained, and Daze as example conditions, however two of those are not actually defined as Conditions in the rules and if they don't affect the defense then it is unclear what else it may be immune to as well.
The only thing that those three things have in common is that they are persistent effects, which could be said about the Defense Ring as well. So, while Borg is correct that it is clear that Defense Ring provides a +1 to every Defense of the Mage, it is not clear whether these particular Defesnes can legally benefit from it because we're not sure if this persistent +1 is considered a "Condition" by the Enchantments. It's definitely not defined as a Condition, but the Enchantments seem to have a broader definition than the rest of the game.
I think the default assumption though is to go as strictly by the card as possible and count Incapacitate and Restrained as the only non-conditions the defense is immune to since they are specifically mentioned. Do not try to interpret them as examples of some broader immunity. While if this is the correct meaning of the card it leaves me wishing that it had been worded clearer, doing anything else would be utter guess work.
