# Royal titles and viceroys - please help



## Jess A (Feb 4, 2012)

I have a Kingdom in my (roughly-planned) book which will likely be based on the feudal system. 

Kings in the past have conquered several new 'lands' to add to the Kingdom and have given these new 'duchies' to close royal brothers or sisters or relatives - there are currently three duchies. The King lords over the ruling Dukes (and they have their own lords/vassals). He has recently conquered a new patch of lovely - and valuable - land. He is going to send his only son, who is also the Crown Prince, to rule over and defend the new land (and its new lords and people) and get it set up - as a hard learning process. 

The son won't be the lord of the new land forever. He will become King and another will be chosen to take over the new duchy. I don't know who yet. There are contenders of course.

What will the son's title be whilst he governs this new land? He won't really be the new Duke as it is temporary. Would he be termed 'viceroy' of the King's new territory, but generally referred to as the Crown Prince? 

I have only given the bare basics here. I hope it is enough as I do not want to go into all the complexities. 

Thank you for your help.


----------



## myrddin173 (Feb 4, 2012)

Well he would be the Duke.  Historically many, if not most, nobles held more than one title.  Baron of this, Earl of that.  Usually though they would be refered to by their highest title.  For example, Charles, Prince of Wales is also the Duke of Cornwall and a number of other titles, but Prince trumps them all.  Then again there is no reason your world can't have rules of its own...


----------



## Jess A (Feb 4, 2012)

myrddin173 said:


> Well he would be the Duke.  Historically many, if not most, nobles held more than one title.  Baron of this, Earl of that.  Usually though they would be refered to by their highest title.  For example, Charles, Prince of Wales is also the Duke of Cornwall and a number of other titles, but Prince trumps them all.  Then again there is no reason your world can't have rules of its own...



Ah I see. I wondered about that as well, but I wasn't sure. I suppose that even if his position is temporary, he would still be Duke. Sounds good to me, thank you. 

Regarding 'world rules' - I always like to understand real world examples first before messing around and making my own rules. Just to be safe.


----------



## Ravana (Feb 5, 2012)

Pretty much whatever the king wants to call him–who's gonna argue, eh? 

myrddin's got it right: if he's ruling a duchy, he's most likely going to be considered a duke–in addition to whatever else he is. Whether or not it's proper to _refer_ to him as a duke is a matter of your society's practices: it may be quite proper (at least when the person doing so is a subject of the duchy and is addressing him on duchy matters), or it might be considered an unacceptable demotion. Or even a promotion… depends on how the society views royal heirs vis-a-vis landed nobility. There were more than a few times and places in European history where being a duke counted for a _lot_ more than being the monarch's offspring–were, in essence (and sometimes in fact) rulers of independent nations. In addition to my usual example of the Holy [sic] Roman [sic] Empire [sic]'s bewildering system [really sic], you can check out what happened to the title "Duc d'Orleans" in France, or how the Dukes of Burgundy nearly succeeded in totally altering the past five centuries of European history. (One of these days, I'm going to have to write an althistory in which Charles lives another two decades.) And, of course, a certain bastard Duke of Normandy didn't do too poorly for himself, either… though the argument over where _he_ fell relative to the French monarchy fueled much of the five centuries of European history _prior_ to that.

Viceroy would also be perfectly appropriate, especially if the understanding is that the position is temporary (and, presumably, non-hereditary), and that a "real" duke would be substituted in the long run. Likewise, "regent." Or, alternately, the prince might receive the responsibility but no additional title, under the same understanding–an alternative that might even be considered preferable, as this won't require him to give the title back when the new duke is named… which he may decide he doesn't want to.


----------



## Jess A (Feb 5, 2012)

*Ravana*:

Fantastic, thank you! I will most certainly dig into your examples. I am taking an elective European history unit this semester in Uni. Hopefully I will have space for other history units over the course of the degree. I hope to come across your examples in my studies, but I will look them up myself beforehand. 



> Or, alternately, the prince might receive the responsibility but no additional title, under the same understanding—an alternative that might even be considered preferable, as this won't require him to give the title back when the new duke is named… which he may decide he doesn't want to.



This is certainly a thought. The prince in question is going to give the land and title to his sister a little later into the novel, but the society in general might avoid handing out temporary titles for the reason you have stated. However, there might be an alternative 'take' on 'Duke' or 'Viceroy' which means 'temporary title'. On the other hand, this might be an extremely rare occasion. In the Kingdom's past, titles have always been given permanently to the person and their heirs. 

It seems that I have several choices to go with here. That is what I love to hear! 

Thank you again, guys. This is exactly the reason why I signed up to this message board.


----------

