Wrapping my head around Noble Ranks

[Queshire]

So the reason I'm posting this here rather than in the Research forum is that I'm not particularly concerned about historical accuracy so much as wrapping my head around something "good enough" for me and my readers when it comes to noble ranks.

So, going from lowest to highest based off the wikipedia page on noble titles (LINK)

Gentleman/woman: People either from noble families or can trace their lineage to nobility but don't have a title and might not be the heir to the title. I'll probably use it also for non-nobles with a certain level of prestige such as for merchants or the masters of crafting guilds.

Esquire: Basically the same as Gentleman though for someone higher on the social totem pole than the speaker.

Knight: I think we all and our readers are familiar enough with Knights. It says that Knights are also granted some land, but since for the modern day reader the idea of not being able to own land isn't something they consider I'll probably not include that perk.

Baronet: I'll be honest, I never heard about these guys before I started looking up this stuff. It looks like they started out as nobles who lost the right to take part in parliament somehow, but the interesting thing is that it looks like later it became a hereditary title that could be basically sold, though this later version still couldn't take part in parliament unlike higher ranked nobility. One incident talks about a king making 200 guys baronets but they had to either provide a large lump of money or soldiers for the war, another says about a king who made people baronets in exchange for helping fund a colonization effort or provided settlers for colonization. Now, I still don't like the term Baronet and probably won't use it, but the idea of the king selling noble titles interests me.

Baron: Huh, so it seems that any land owner with noble blood could call themselves a Baron if they didn't have a higher ranked title, but as a writer that seems lame. I think I'll have it where a Baron is in charge of a town or village sized area, though not all towns or villages would have a direct noble overseer like that.

Viscount: Says that a Viscount would often assist a Count, serving in an administrative or judicial role. I think I like that. Instead of being defined by the land they're in charge of, they would be more defined by being in charge of a specific industry. Hmmm.... I might also have them be more urban than Barons, so maybe instead of being in charge of a town or village they'd be in charge of a large town or small city?

Count: So, I only recently realized it, but the word County comes from Count. Might not be historically accurate, but that seems like a good enough rule of thumb to follow for them. Say roughly between 5 and 12 towns ranging from villages to cities? Along with the countryside around them.

Earl: Technically an Earl is the same as a Count, differing only in what country they're used in, but I don't like that. I think I'll have Earls be in charge of more developed equivalents to counties, so maybe like a county sized chunk of suburbs or a neighborhood/district/borough in a metropolis.

Marquess: I like the story behind Marquesses. Basically the same as a Count turf-wise but while a count's turf would be closer to the center of the country a Marquess' would be near the edge. As the first to get attacked in case of an invasion and the furthest away from the king's eye if they decide to scheme against him it was important that the Marquess could be trusted. So, with that I'll have them be in charge of land equivalent to a count's but have their lands be the most distant, isolated, or exotic ones. So, like if there was a Fairy's Forest a Marquess would be in charge of the land around it even if it isn't that distant.

Prince: Well, naturally there's the kids of of the king and queen, but it looks like in the Holy Roman Empire it was also used for the guys in charge of one of the principalities regardless of whether they were part of the monarch's immediate family. I like that. I think I'll use Prince or Princess for the guys in charge of places that operate outside of the standard town-county-duchy system.

Duke: So the Duchy would be made up of various counties, earldoms, whatever a Marquess' turf would be called and could be thought of as one of the provinces or regions that make up the country. To put it in modern day terms, it'd be like one of the states of the US, though I imagine most readers would think of something much smaller when it comes to a Duchy. Say equate a state to a kingdom when it comes to fantasy writing then a duchy would be one of the regions of the state? In either case, seems simple enough.

Prince v2: The wikipedia article ranks Prince and Princess' in the form of members of the royal family here, but considering the type of shenanigans a prince or princess can get away with in fantasy land, I think I prefer them ranked back their with the first version of Prince / Princesses.

Grand Duke: Hmmmm.... says that grand duke came about when rank inflation eventually meant that being a regular duke wasn't worth as much. For territories too small to be a Kingdom, but too big to be a single Duchy. Hmmm.... I figure it would mostly come up on an Empire scale? While a Kingdom might be made up of various Duchies, an Empire would be made up of various Grand Duchies which would be made up of regular Duchies in turn?

Archduke:Higher than Duke or Prince but lower than King or Emperor? Only used for Austria? 0.o Hmmm.... In my story I'd probably have an Archduchy be someplace that's managed to retain a decent amount of independence within the Empire. Yeah, that sounds good to me.

King: The person in charge of a country naturally. Made up of various Duchies.

Emperor: If the King is in charge of a single country and emperor would be in charge of land equal to multiple countries. However, I feel that it would strain willing suspension of disbelief among the readers (regardless of potential accuracy or inaccuracy) for an Emperor to have Kings underneath him since King suggests a level of political independence which would be a threat to an Emperor. So for my story I think I'd have the Emperor get rid of Kings and instead of Grand Dukes or Archdukes underneath him.

Anyways, a large part of this was just me getting my thoughts down on paper, but any thoughts, questions, or comments about this would be welcome.

 

[Erudite]

The Romans had _________ that ruled a "country" under the Emperor. Can't remember the word.

 

[Gurkhal]

This is of course what was used in Medieval Europe, and thus it is correct that it is a setting like Medieval Europe? Because I could throw nobles titles from other cultures and ages at you, but I don't think that would help you.

In regards to you supposed use of the words "Prince" I would advice caution. Most people associate princes and princesses with the royal family and if these titles appear outside of that circle you might want to give some explination for it or use some way to differentiate between these Princes and the Princes who are children of the king.

 

[Ban]

The Romans had _________ that ruled a "country" under the Emperor. Can't remember the word.

You mean Governor?

 

[FifthView]

Emperor: If the King is in charge of a single country and emperor would be in charge of land equal to multiple countries. However, I feel that it would strain willing suspension of disbelief among the readers (regardless of potential accuracy or inaccuracy) for an Emperor to have Kings underneath him since King suggests a level of political independence which would be a threat to an Emperor.

In antiquity, it wasn't uncommon for kings to exist under an emperor; an empire could have client states. For instance, Herod under Rome. Even in more modern times, cases like India have existed, where locally used titles might translate to "king" although the British Empire referred to the highest ranked Indians as "princes" (can't have more than one king in the Empire!)

 

[TheKillerBs]

If you want to avoid having multiple kings under an emperor straining disbelief among readers, perhaps use petty kings instead?

 

[ThinkerX]

Solaria, main nation of my main world, is sort of a three way collision modified by local history.

Avar (Western Empire) :

Lord, Lady, Knight: boss of a village or estate - though there are many 'unlanded' knights and plenty of very small estates.

Baron: Overlord of several villages, possibly a town or city. Can have several lords answering to him or her.

'Du' or 'Duke:' provincial governor. Some can claim a blood relationship with the imperial family.

Eastern/southeastern Empire:

Equestrian/Lord: Middle class, might rule small estate or village.

Lord Mayor: Ruler, elected in places of a town or city.

Count*: overlord of multiple estates/villages, frequently a close relative of the Governor.

Governor/Patriarch: Overlord of a province. A couple of these families can claim descent from past imperial families.

Also abundant vassal kings, military governors, and a couple provinces ruled directly by the Church.

Imperial Ranks:

Clerks: Bottom level petty officials. Can negotiate disputes between low rank lords, hear complaints, present edicts.

Count*: Rules lands under direct imperial control, which can be anything from a minor estate to a major city or even an entire province. Position is not hereditary, but frequently includes minor offices that are.

Road Warden: A network of stone paved highways under direct imperial control binds the empire together. Road Wardens are charged with their protection and upkeep. The mile wide right-of-ways usually include villages and towns also under direct imperial control. Road Warden position is not hereditary, but a hereditary estate or two comes with the job.

The Imperial family, in theory, is a sort of 'first among equals.' A legal mechanism for them to be deposed/replaced exists, but is chancy, and their successors must have a direct blood link to a past or present imperial family.

In other words, a bit of a mess, just like reality. Enough of a mess to where I had to put a few genealogies together.

 

[skip.knox]

Noble titles varied greatly by time and place, at least in regard to medieval Europe. I'm immediately suspicious of any listing of titles that does not take account of these variations. Usually, it winds up being a list of English titles, and late or even post-medieval. Even when the list tiptoes beyond England, it rarely gets further than France and maybe Germany. Spanish titles tend to get ignored, while Hungarian or Polish titles don't even peek over the horizon. Which is too bad because there are wonderful variations there.

Besides the error of time and place, another common error is to project our modern obsession with hierarchy into the past. We want a clear top dog, with a clean chain of command down to the local level. That ain't how things worked. To speak *very* broadly, in each kingdom (or empire) there was a chain or rather multiple chains of command in theory. In practice, local lords showed a strong tendency toward going their own way with gleeful disregard for central authority and any sort of realistic politics.

Another important difference, concealed beneath any list regardless of how detailed or extensive, is that medieval politics (this is true in other pre-modern cultures as well) was intensely personal. It wasn't an alliance between Duchy A and County B, it was an alliance between Duke Jimmy and Count Bob, which alliance entailed not so much mutual agreement as mutual obligation. These lines of obligation could get extraordinarily complex. A much-cited example is that of the Count of Champagne, who in the 12thc had something like twenty-six feudal overlords, yet was himself one of the most important lords in the French kingdom. Depending on who went to war with whom, you might find him on this side of the battlefield or on that side; or even, and there are examples of this, find the lord on one side with one set of men, while other of his men were fighting on the other side. This makes zero sense to the modern political scientist.

Personally, I find real medieval politics to be way more interesting that the ladders and pyramids of the political scientist. It's messy, it's human, and it has tons of room for story. It's soap opera.

Do with the above as you will, including ignoring it.

 

[skip.knox]

The Romans had _________ that ruled a "country" under the Emperor. Can't remember the word.

Were you thinking of a proconsul? They ruled over a province, though "administer" would be a better choice of verb.

 

[X Equestris]

The Romans had _________ that ruled a "country" under the Emperor. Can't remember the word.

There were a rather wide range of Roman governor titles, and they varied based on era and location.

Roman governor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WooHooMan]

I went with Chinese titles of nobility.
Because of how Chinese culture was (bureaucratic with a single nation), their titles are very well-defined and often straight forward. Plus, you get some neat titles (Princess of the First Rank, Commoner Duke and Knight Commandant of the Cloud), some simple titles (field marshal and prince) and some weirdly modern titles (Assistant Director of the Board and President of the Court).

 

[Russ]

Emperor: If the King is in charge of a single country and emperor would be in charge of land equal to multiple countries. However, I feel that it would strain willing suspension of disbelief among the readers (regardless of potential accuracy or inaccuracy) for an Emperor to have Kings underneath him since King suggests a level of political independence which would be a threat to an Emperor. So for my story I think I'd have the Emperor get rid of Kings and instead of Grand Dukes or Archdukes underneath him.

Couple of things.

Have no idea why you think having kinds under emperors would strain anyone's disbelief as it has happened many times in history in many different places and at many different times. Don't confuse "that's odd I have never heard of that" with "my readers won't believe that."

Titles in history have always been fluid and flexible. There have been many long periods when Archdukes, Dukes or even Counts and Barons had more political, economic and military power than the king.

There are arguments for and against the use of anglicized and/or English noble titles in any particular fantasy novel. I think it would help you to ask yourself why you need these titles and why this particular organization of titles works for your story or world. I think our readers deserve more than just throwing a set of titles at them.

 

[DeathtoTrite]

Like Russ mentioned, nobility titles were hardly a definite idea for who had the most power-- powerful counts or baron coalitions could have the king at their mercy.

For emperor, it bears mentioning what this title really means. In Europe, it always has denoted some kind of inheritance of the Roman legacy-- whether it be Charlemagne, Justinian, or Peter the Great. An empire tends to imply a multi-cultural aspect as well. Emperors had king vassals, but they tended to be highly autonomous outskirts of the empire. Most didn't even use feudal ranks but instead had an aristocratic/ bureaucratic class which managed the empire.