Hereditary Stewardship

[Kevlar]

As I was outlining the hierarchy of the country I'm writing in this morning I realized I screwed up: my knights all had surnames. Now this was a rather unfortunate thing for me because this country is at a technological and cultural similarity with twelfth-century Europe. In it only the lords have surnames, as the commonfolk have no need for them at this time.

I was wondering, however, if there is any precendence for other non-noble titles to be hereditary and involve a surname. In specific a stewardship, though it is to a lesser house, one that holds one title and that being among the lowest. The man can not be the lord of some outlying village either, as his lord rules a village only.

Also, in the middle ages, was there any examples of a city or town being ruled by a lord but being subdivided to lesser lords as well?

I'll be Googling in the meantime.

 

[Ravana]

Short answers: yes to the first; probably no to the second.

Surnames were a fairly late development in Medieval Europe, even among the nobility… but there's no reason for that to constrain you: for one, your culture could simply have adapted them earlier; for another, surnames did exist in Europe prior to Medieval times–they were common during the Roman period.

Anything can be made hereditary: all it takes is for the monarch to decide it is, or for tradition to make it so whether it is encoded legally or not. Many "offices" tended to descend along hereditary lines, and often led to the creation of new noble titles when some later monarch forced the issue by trying to change this. Sometimes, they led to new monarchs: this is how the Merovingian dynasty got replaced by the Carolingian one in what eventually became France: the "Mayor of the Palace," or majordomo, while technically an office, had become hereditary in nature as well as becoming the true power behind increasingly symbolic monarchs; eventually, they decided to do away with the symbol and become monarchs themselves. Similar examples can be found scattered through the history of the Byzantine Empire, though I won't try to reproduce any here: there's a reason that name became a byword for inordinately complex administration.

Knighthoods may or may not be hereditary: in the feudal system, they generally were–that was the main thing that made it function, really; in the area I'm most familiar with, the Holy Roman Empire, this gradually led to the realm consisting of close to two thousand component states, each subordinate only to the emperor, though this reflects a somewhat later period than you're looking at. As far as I'm aware, the non-hereditary knighthood was the later development, not the other way around. (Knighthood, too, dates back to the Roman period, in the sense of "landholder capable of providing his own horse and armor": see equites.)

As far as the second goes: I'm not aware of any instances of an urban area being subdivided into lower-level "lordships." Indeed, the development of urban areas tended to eliminate noble control, not to propagate it: in the feudal system, the nobles were interested in owning land, and thus controlling the bases of resource production, not administering population centers. By the time it became apparent that population centers might be worth hanging onto–as concentrated industries began to develop–it was generally too late for them to impose such control. That being said… there's no reason it has to work that way in your world. Urban areas could be divided into wards, districts, boroughs, or other subdivisions–a great many were–and these could be administered by lesser nobles, assuming the urban area was administered by a noble in the first place.

Things to look at: London (which had a Lord Mayor of London, in charge of the overall urban area, in addition to a Mayor of London in charge of the "City" proper); arrondissements of Paris (which were, however, a late development: not sure if there were earlier precedents); wards in oriental cities: feudal Japan, at least, had these… not sure about other nations. The first was not administered by a "lord"–it was elective; I suspect the last would have been administered by someone of "noble" rank (samurai), as I can't see feudal Japanese culture putting this in the hands of a "civilian," but I may be wrong on this.

For a contrast, look at the Free Imperial Cities of the HRE: these were originally under the rule of a "prince" (in this context, equivalent to "noble": "prince" in the HRE generally referred to any autonomous noble, regardless of actual title), in many cases a "prince-bishop" (a bishop who was specifically given the unpleasant task of coping with a population center); these gradually obtained political independence and municipal rather than noble administration, beginning in the 11th Century. (Which, interestingly, proceeded in parallel with the gradual increase of ecclesiastical territories in general, as the bishops accumulated lands like any other noble.) More generally, look for "chartered city"–basically, any city that has received special privileges from a monarch: London falls into this category.

 

[Kevlar]

One site I found indicates that custom was variable on knighthood's hereditary status. That is, until the 13th century, when the sons of knights were born squires and so eligible to become knights without performing any notable action throughout Europe. This site also says this never happened in England until the point when 'knights' became 'gentry.'

I'm not sure if this is entirely true but I believe I may decide on two seperate forms of knighthood: hereditary, semi-nobles; and the title granted to an esteemed individual for military accomplishment.

What opinions do you guys have on this, if you care to share?

 

[Ravana]

Well, it isn't exactly "historical," but in Machiavel: Ambition I'm using multiple forms of knighthood–an amalgamation of several historical practices, really. Some of the uses I'm putting the actual titles to are very ahistorical, but you can check for their real-world uses. They are:

Knight of [Order]: this comes in as many as five different ranks, largely reflecting late-period/modern British practices; which ranks are actually used are determined by the Order (typically Knight (member), Knight Officer, Knight Companion, Knight Commander and Grand Master). The Orders themselves are mostly functional in nature, and are inspired primarily by the crusading orders (though only one of mine has a religious base), apart from one inspired by the janissaries. With one exception, the Orders determine their own membership (the exception is bestowed by the emperor, and is a parallel to the Order of the Garter). Never heritable.

Knight Banneret: reflects actual usage: a knight who is authorized to lead troops under his own banner, as opposed to under the banner of another noble (a knight bachelor). Whether or not it is heritable depends on how it was bestowed.

Knight Bachelor: also reflects actual usage: what we normally think of as just plain "knights"; may or may not be heritable as above.

Knight Errant: completely non-historical; in my setting, these are "knights" created by a duke, marquis or count rather than by the emperor (because I wanted them to be able to, and wanted to call it something that distinguished it from "real" knights); often honorary, never heritable, doesn't even bestow the status of "nobility." To the best of my knowledge, this title never existed in reality: it was a literary contrivance, and even then no one would have addressed such a person as "knight-errant"–it was a description of their activity, not their rank.

Cavalier: the most basic thing that might be considered "knighthood," in the oldest sense (Roman equites): someone who can afford to arm himself and maintain a horse. Heritable only in the sense that the title is essentially automatic if you meet the qualifications, so if your dad gives you (or leaves you) a horse and a sword (and maybe even some armor if you're lucky), you've got it. In my setting, they are regarded as borderline nobility, in the sense that they don't actually work for a living.

Note that these are placed in descending order of rank; and for the first three cases, this does reflect "real" practices (at least in Britain).

In point of fact, your intended usage is much closer to what would normally been seen, so I'd say you're good to go.