# what do you call the son of a duke?



## Particle_Man (Dec 1, 2004)

I got prince for son of a king, baronet for son of a baron, what about the son of a duke?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 1, 2004)

sure there is more to this:

_"The idea that a duke is a royal title, however, is strong in Germany, perhaps stronger than it ever was in Britain, where all the children of the head of some ruling houses are automatically a Herzog or Herzogin, much as imperial offspring were archdukes or archduchesses."_

Link goes here: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm


----------



## CapNorge (Dec 1, 2004)

There's actaully a nice primer on the British peerage system at:

http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles02.html

See the section on courtesy titles.  It dives right into an example with a duke.

I've used it my game as well for info.


----------



## Samothdm (Dec 1, 2004)

A baronet is a separate title and not automatically awarded to the son of a baron (at least, AFAIK).  There's a section about barons and baronets at the bottom of the same page that Hand of Evil linked for you.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 1, 2004)

Samothdm said:
			
		

> A baronet is a separate title and not automatically awarded to the son of a baron (at least, AFAIK).



I believe you're right, *Samothdm*.

Of course, if it was, then you could call the son of a duke a dukie...


----------



## Eolin (Dec 1, 2004)

I call 'em dukeal heir

and the baron's heir is the na-baron.

So says Dune.


----------



## Imperialus (Dec 1, 2004)

For the most part I belive that any son of a baron, duke ect irrigardless of wether or not he stood in direct line to inherit was typically called either Lord or Sir.  They wouldn't actually inherit a specific title untill pappy kicked it.

IE: Lord Byron was the son of a Baron


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 1, 2004)

I can address the British peerage system; others may vary. 

The basic concept is called a 'Courtesy Title'. 

A peer of the rank of Earl, Marquess, or Duke frequently has secondary (lesser) titles; for example, one could be the Duke of A and also the Earl of B and Viscount of C. Typically, the eldest son is granted the 'courtesy title' of address by one of the lesser titles; the eldest son of the eldest son might be granted the next 'courtesy title'. In our example, then, we'd have the Duke of A, his eldest son would be the Earl of B, and the eldest grandson might be addressed as the Viscount of C. 

All other sons, daughters, grandsons, or granddaughters of the peer would receive the courtesy title 'Lord' or 'Lady', so, for example the youngest son of our Duke above would by called 'Lord'. This title would also apply to the eldest son of a peer with only a single title (as in the case of Lord Byron.)

In conversation, 'the dukal heir' is correct, but it is not a formal title.


----------



## tarchon (Dec 1, 2004)

In British peerage, the next lesser title is most commonly a rank below the father's title, so eldest son of a duke is usually a marquis, and for an earl it's usually a viscount, for example.  The traditional usage for each peerage is different though, see http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Courtesy title for a table.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 1, 2004)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I believe you're right, *Samothdm*.
> 
> Of course, if it was, then you could call the son of a duke a dukie...



Funny, I was thinking of calling him a "Dukling."


----------



## The_Universe (Dec 1, 2004)

I believe that in a system of hereditary nobility, the eldest son of a Duke is given the courtesy title of Marquis (or March Count, or Margrave, which are the same thing). 

For my campaign, I use the following rules: 

*King* 
*Female equivalent: Queen*
Eldest Child: Prince or Princess
Other Children: Prince or Princess, usually also a Duke or Duchess. 
Naming convention: King Something I of Somewhere
Honorific: His or Her Majesty, His or Her Royal Highness.

If marrying a common, the spouse is referred to as the “Royal Consort” and is generally elevated to the rank of Grand Duke or Grand Duchess.

Kings and Queens rule Kingdoms, and are always considered the highest rank of nobility. The title is hereditary in the Falcon Kingdom. The Nobles’ Council must approve the succession of a new King or Queen, however. The succession’s approval or disapproval is based on the Council’s judgment of the legitimacy of the claimant’s descent from King Maelwys I.  

Equivalent titles: Emperor, Empress, Grand Duke, Grand Duchess

*Duke*
Female equivalent: Duchess
Eldest Child: Marquis or Marquise
Other Children: Lord or Lady
Naming convention: Duke Firstname Lastname, Lord Someplace (Alternatively, they may be referred to as The Duke of Someplace)
Honorific: His or Her Grace

A duke or duchess marrying a common generally elevates the spouse to the equivalent rank.

Dukes and Duchesses rule Duchies (singular: Duchy). A Duchy is a distinct subordinate district of a Kingdom, and a Duke or Duchess serves as a King or Queen’s direct representative in the rulership of a duchy. Duchies tend to be large tracts of land in the settled interior of a kingdom. However, some duchies may be no larger than a single city. 

Equivalent titles: n/a

*Marquis*
*Female Equivalent: Marquise*
Eldest Child: Viscount or Viscountess
Other Children: Lord or Lady
Naming convention: Marquis Firstname Lastname, Lord Someplace. 
Honorific: His Lord the or Her Lady the 

A Marquis or Marquise marrying a common generally elevates the spouse to the equivalent rank. 

A Marquis or Marquise rules a March. A March is a distinct subordinate district of a Kingdom, and a Marquis or Marquess serves as a King or Queen’s direct representative in the rulership of a March. Marches tend to be large tracts of lands on or near the borders of a kingdom. Some Marquis may rule no more than a single city, however, depending on the relative importance and power of a city. Marquis rank below Dukes, but they tend to control equivalent or larger amounts of land. However, because they control only border provinces, they are still firmly ranked below those of the ducal rank. 

Equivalent titles: Marquess, Marchioness, Margrave, Margravine, March Count, March Countess

*Count*
Female equivalent: Countess
Eldest Child: Viscount or Viscountess
Other Children: Lord or Lady
Naming Convention: Count Firstname Lastname, Lord of Someplace
Honorific: His Lord the or Her Lady the

A Count or Countess marrying a common generally elevates the spouse to the equivalent rank.

A Count rules a county. A county is a distinct subordinate geographic district of a March or Duchy. Usually centered on larger villages or important passes and crossroads, Counts arose as military leaders for Dukes and Marquis. In the present, they simply represent a lower rank of nobility, with correspondingly less power. 

Equivalent titles: Earl, Jarl. 

*Viscount*
Female equivalent: Viscountess
Eldest Child: The eldest male child ranks as a Knight, female children hold no rank, until or unless their parents are elevated. 
Other Children: No rank until or unless their parents are elevated. 
Naming Convention: Viscount Firstname Lastname of Someplace
Honorific: His Lord the or Her Lady the 
Race: Any 

A Viscount marrying a common elevates the spouse to the equivalent rank.

A Viscount rules a Shire or Viscounty. A Viscounty is a distinct subordinate geographic district of a County. Viscounts typically serve as enforcers of the law of the land on behalf of a Count, who are themselves representative of higher nobles. 

Equivalent titles: Shire Reeve, Sheriff, Vice Count, Vice Countess. 

*Baron*
*Female equivalent: Baroness*
Eldest Child: The eldest male child of a Baron or Baroness ranks as a Knight. Female children hold no rank, until or unless their parents are elevated. 
Other Children: No rank unless their parents are elevated. 
Naming Convention: Baron Firstname Lastname of Someplace 
Honorific: His Lord the or Her Lady the

A Baron marrying a common elevates the spouse the equivalent rank. 

A Baron rules a Barony. A Barony is generally a very small subordinate geographic district of a County. Originally a title given to landowners who owed direct military tribute to the Kingdom, Barons have largely split into two groups in the present: landless nobles who nonetheless may claim hereditary titles, and small landowners in districts once militarily important to the kingdom. Barons are generally responsible for the collection of tax and tithe from the tenants of their baronies, if they have them. If they do not, this responsibility falls to the reigning Viscount. 

Equivalent titles: Baronet. 

* * * ​


Succession

In matters of succession, titles pass along the paternal line of a family, unless no male heir exists. For example, if His Lord the Marquis Archonus Arendorr, Lord Sylvannus has a daughter, she would be the Lady Viscountess Helga Arendorr of Sylvannus. However, should he then have a son, that son would become the Lord Viscount Biff Arendorr of Sylvannus, and Helga would be reduced in rank to simply The Lady Helga Arendorr. 

Yet, if the Marquis’ wife were to pass away, the eldest daughter would be elevated in rank to Her Lady the Marquise Helga Arendorr, Lady Sylvannus, until or unless her father remarried, at which point she would revert to her lower rank.

If a noble dies, and no heir is apparent to claim the lands and/or title of his or her family, the reigning liege has the right to appoint or “create” a common (or another noble) to the position in question. Thus, a Duke may appoint nobles in his or her own Duchy, and Marquis may do so in his March. A King’s right to create nobility supercedes the rights of all lower nobility, and he has free reign to create nobles within his realm.


----------



## Impeesa (Dec 1, 2004)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> Funny, I was thinking of calling him a "Dukling."




Heh, beaten to the punch. I wanted to say "the ugly Dukeling" too. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Vuron (Dec 1, 2004)

Personally when I design a campaign world that uses western nobility I try to go with a more simplistic version of the peerage system that gets rid of some of the less useful intermediate titles.

Thus a sample system would be as follows

King
Crown Prince (Direct named heir to the crown)
Duke (Major Land-holding Royalty- the rare title of Archduke would be reserved for Palatine Dukes)
Prince (Non land-holding Royalty)
Count (Major land holding nobles - generally centralized provinces)
Marchion (Landholding Noble - generally nonhereditary and outlying or contested provinces)
Baron (Minor Land Holding Nobles - Base hereditary noble holding)
Sir (Landholding Knights generally awarded a manor holding by the Baron)
Sir (Non-landholding Knights)

The Eldest son of a hereditary noble is generally given a subinfuedated property examples - Son of a Count is given a Barony held directly by his father;  Son of baron would be awarded a Manor from his property


----------



## Mercule (Dec 1, 2004)

Dukey?


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Dec 1, 2004)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Dukey?




Yes your "Dookeyness"

Anyone else watch the Gummi Bears when they were a kid?
I think it was the goblin?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Campbell (Dec 1, 2004)

Thanks be to the Universe for some stealworthy material.


----------



## Emiricol (Dec 1, 2004)

I wouldn't give the children any title except Lord (or Prince in the case of the eldest child of the king/queen). However, powerful nobles might well have multiple titles, and pass one on to a favored child (probably the heir apparent). Or, they might make their children Barons and hand them smaller fiefdoms out of their personal holdings.

 If I were homebrewing a setting, I'd have King (and Prince), but the Dukes would be Counts who had an honorary title for being immediate family to the current King (siblings in particular). Counts would be all the other major nobles. Barons would still be the bottom rung of nobility, any number of them under a particular noble. I might add another title for Counts who had their territory on the frontiers and therefore had different social, economic and martial obligations to the King than Counts closer to the capital.

 EDIT: What Vuron said!


----------



## The_Universe (Dec 1, 2004)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks be to the Universe for some stealworthy material.



 You're very welcome!


----------



## Turjan (Dec 1, 2004)

Well, I don't use the modern British system for the "nobility" as detailed above, because I'm going with an earlier feudal model for one of the central countries IMC. There's the king (queen), whose position is not explicitly hereditary, although the heirs try to get the job, of course. Dukes are the leaders of the tribal duchies and the main leaders of the king's army. A new king may usually be elected from the ranks of the dukes, if it's not the son (daughter) of the previous king (who often inherits the father's duchy and, therefore, has a good chance ). The whole country, including all duchies, is divided into counties (shires) that are ruled by earls as judges and war leaders. The positions of earls are not necessarily hereditary, either. Their rank is clearly below dukes, but they are more of the "king's men" than the dukes, who might follow their own interests. 

The earls of newly colonized land at the borders of the kingdom (= margraves) are special in two ways: they don't have dukes above them, plus they have some kind of standing army for border protection. Both explains their somewhat higher position as compared to earls. There are no other noble ranks. I go with a period before the advent of serfdom and petty nobles, when the bulk of the people consisted of free men, who had to follow their earl into war or pay for someone else to go. There are a few examples of these "knights", who are more or less fulltime warriors, but they are very rare.

Larger cities, which are very rare, may rule themselves, if they fulfill their duty regarding the army. A reeve might see that they do so, although he has much less power than a shire-reeve (= earl).

That's enough of this noble stuff for me .


----------



## Pyrex (Dec 2, 2004)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Yes your "Dookeyness"
> 
> Anyone else watch the Gummi Bears when they were a kid?
> I think it was the goblin?
> ...




Not a goblin, just a really small ogre. 

*now has Gummi Bears theme song stuck in head*


----------



## Agback (Dec 2, 2004)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I got prince for son of a king, baronet for son of a baron, what about the son of a duke?




Whoa there!

My uncle was a baron (life peerage). That made his eldest son "The honourable Dr. Jonathan Hunt", not a baronet. Baronetcies are independent hereditary titles, so far as I know never used as courtesy titles for eldest sons. By the way, baronetcies were invented in the late 17th century, they are not a mediaeval thing at all.

The rule is that the eldest son of a duke, marquis, or earl uses one of his father's lesser titles as a courtesy title, and the other children are (by courtesy) "Lord <firstname> <lastname>" or "Lady <firstname> <lastname>". All the children of viscounts and barons are "the honourable <firstname> <lastname>".

There isn't an actual English word meaning specifically "son of a duke" or "son of a baron", and those sons don't in the English system have titles either.


----------



## Turjan (Dec 2, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> By the way, baronetcies were invented in the late 17th century, they are not a mediaeval thing at all.




That's a good point. And if it wasn't clear, that was also the point of my post; much too modern, these problems .


----------



## Agback (Dec 2, 2004)

Imperialus said:
			
		

> For the most part I belive that any son of a baron, duke ect irrigardless of wether or not he stood in direct line to inherit was typically called either Lord or Sir.  They wouldn't actually inherit a specific title untill pappy kicked it.




In mediaeval times, yes. For example, until Henry III died, the future Edward I was called "Lord Edward", not "prince Edward". In those times there was the king, earls, lords, and knights. All this rococco profusion of dukes, marquesses, viscounts, and baronets is late and post-mediaeval.



> Lord Byron was the son of a Baron




If you mean the poet (who was the 6th Baron Byron of Rochdale) no he wasn't. He was the son of Captain John "Mad Jack" Byron, a naval officer. He did not become Lord Byron until the age of ten (1798), when he inherited the title (a barony) upon the death of his great-uncle.


----------



## Agback (Dec 2, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> There's the king (queen), whose position is not explicitly hereditary…. Dukes are the leaders of the tribal duchies…. A new king may usually be elected from the ranks of the dukes…. The whole country, including all duchies, is divided into counties (shires) that are ruled by earls…. The positions of earls are not necessarily hereditary, either. Their rank is clearly below dukes, but they are more of the "king's men" than the dukes, who might follow their own interests.
> 
> The earls of newly colonized land at the borders of the kingdom (= margraves) are special in two ways: they don't have dukes above them, plus they have some kind of standing army for border protection…. I go with a period before the advent of serfdom and petty nobles, when the bulk of the people consisted of free men, who had to follow their earl into war or pay for someone else to go….




Nice model! Strongly reminiscent of the early Carolingian kingdoms.

I find it very refreshing that someone is dodging the Hollywood version of the 18th Century academic version of the late feudal version of the feudal system for once.


----------



## D+1 (Dec 2, 2004)

As it happens I've been polishing up peerage for my City-State of the Invincible Overlord campaign.  I've got it working thusly:

The titled nobility ranges from Knight to Baron, Count, Viscount, Earl, Marquess, Duke and Archduke.  Male nobles below Knight status may use "Esquire" after their name.  Knights, Barons and Counts are addressed in conversation as "Sir/Dame".  A Viscount, Earl or Marquess is addressed "Lord/Lady".  The ELDEST SON of an Earl, or ANY son of a Marquess or Duke is also entitled to be addressed as "Lord".  A Duke or Archduke is addressed as "Grace".

A noble with additional lesser titles is allowed to surrender a title (permenantly) and give it to someone else, traditionally children, but occasionally other family members, and theoretically ANYONE the noble wishes to give it to.  The Overlord of course can (and has) stripped people of titles for any reason or none at all.

A Senator is equal in social level to a Duke; a Royal Minister to an Archduke.  The primary differences being that Senators and Royal Ministers are not associated with land ownership as other nobles are, and are thus not beholden to the Overlord in the same way.


----------



## Agback (Dec 2, 2004)

D+1 said:
			
		

> As it happens I've been polishing up peerage for my City-State of the Invincible Overlord campaign.  I've got it working thusly:
> 
> The titled nobility ranges from Knight to Baron, Count, Viscount, Earl, Marquess, Duke and Archduke.




Well, that's the full Busby Berkeley late-mediaeval profusion in its full development, with reduplication for extra redundancy (ie. you list both 'count' and its English equivalent, 'earl).

One question: why did you decide to put a viscount (vice-count) above a count?

You are of course free to design your campaign how you want, but I would have thought that this inversion would be confusing.


----------



## jaerdaph (Dec 2, 2004)

So is the son of the Duke of Earl the Earl of Duke?


----------



## Turjan (Dec 2, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> Well, that's the full Busby Berkeley late-mediaeval profusion in its full development, with reduplication for extra redundancy (ie. you list both 'count' and its English equivalent, 'earl).
> 
> One question: why did you decide to put a viscount (vice-count) above a count?




I know where this comes from. "City State of the Invincible Overlord" is a well developed fantasy city, but in the "social level" sector, it's a convoluted mess. They have both, count and earl, with viscount topping a count by far, but this is in turn balanced by the earl topping the duke . Each to his own, I say .



			
				Agback said:
			
		

> Nice model! Strongly reminiscent of the early Carolingian kingdoms.
> 
> I find it very refreshing that someone is dodging the Hollywood version of the 18th Century academic version of the late feudal version of the feudal system for once.




Thanks . It's more or less an idealized snapshot from the 10th century with a few anachronistic elements (the cities). This kind of order makes for interesting conflicts, and there's the possibility of including - again often anachronistic - elements, like the Wars of the Roses, the tribal rivalries in the kingdom of the East Franks (too many to list ), the role of the Dukes of Burgundy in France, or the Hundred Years' War,   .


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 2, 2004)

I like na-baron and heir apparant, and similar titles, m'self.


----------



## Arbiter of Wyrms (Dec 2, 2004)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks be to the Universe for some stealworthy material.



Seconded!  Great stuff.  Consider it stolen.


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 2, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> For my campaign, I use the following rules:




That is too good not to use.  Thanks!  For the rest of the comments, thanks too, but my campaign does not require a high level of realism.  (I mean, I even have there be only two languages (common, druidic secret tongue) in the entire universe of the game world because I wanted to keep things simple).  Interesting stuff, though.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 2, 2004)

May I just add that Baron and Baronet are not titles of Peerage - they are just aristocratic ones given to Knights

Anyway for an entirely different system of Peerage how about Ethiopain?

*Negusa Negust* - Emperor (lit King of Kings)

*Negus or Amir* - King (One had to be elevated to the the rank of negus by Imperial decree)

*Ras* is the highest noble rank, sometimes borne by minor princes of the Solomonic blood. (The word's origin is Indo European, hence Indias' raj, the Egyptian' ra,  Roman' rex.)

*Bitwoded * Literally "beloved" by the king, the highest non-royal title ranks after ras in precedence.

*Dejazmach* It originally referred to a "gate keeper." 

*Fitawrari*  is a noble title and was formerly a military one, meaning "leader of the vanguard." 

*Gerazmach* (abbreviated Geraz.) is translated literally "military commander of the left." This is one of the lower aristocratic titles 

*Kenyazmach* (abbreviated Kenyaz.) is equivalent in rank to gerazmach, to which it may be considered complementary. It means "military commander of the right."

*Balambaras* is a lower title of nobility of ancient origin, literally "castellan" or commander of a fortress. Similar in some respects to dejazmach but considered a lesser title.

*Ato*. Traditionally 'sir' for a gentleman. 

*Woizero* (abbreviated Woiz.) Traditionally an aristocratic lady

*Lij.* Literally "child," this is a title reserved to the children of the titled nobility.

Titled nobles collectively were the *makwanent*.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Dec 2, 2004)

In my worlds I would generally prefer for the inheritors and children of titled nobility to have heraldic titles.

So that the Duke of Sunil's heir might be the Bull of the Sun, as that's the symbol and regalia associated with that position for that title.

Though at times I have simply used Prince to refer to any member of the major aristocracy who does not have or does not yet have a seat.  Thus you would have a fairly wide community of Princes.

For further identification you might install a title in front of prince:
the ducal prince, the baronial prince, and so forth.


----------



## Dingleberry (Dec 2, 2004)

Bo or Luke, of course.


----------



## The_Universe (Dec 2, 2004)

> May I just add that Baron and Baronet are not titles of Peerage - they are just aristocratic ones given to Knights



In more modern systems that's true - but in a feudal system, barons and baronets were landholders, as were even the lowliest knight.  Honor and glory are great - but back in the day, honor and glory weren't nothin' compared to a section of dirt.  



> That is too good not to use. Thanks! For the rest of the comments, thanks too, but my campaign does not require a high level of realism. (I mean, I even have there be only two languages (common, druidic secret tongue) in the entire universe of the game world because I wanted to keep things simple). Interesting stuff, though.





> Seconded! Great stuff. Consider it stolen.



 You're both very welcome, as well.  I have half a mind to turn it into an article for somebody.  Anybody interested?



> Bo or Luke, of course.



 HAHAHAAH!  Awesome.  Although weren't they nephews...?


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 2, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> HAHAHAAH!  Awesome.  Although weren't they nephews...?




Nope Bo & Luke Duke - means their father must have been a Duke too
True they lived with Uncle Jessie and cousin Daisy though (mmmm short shorts!    )


----------



## Agback (Dec 2, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> In more modern systems that's true - but in a feudal system, barons and baronets were landholders, as were even the lowliest knight.




Um.

There were no baronets in any feudal system. The rank of baronet was created by King James I on 22 May 1611. http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-baronet.asp.

Also, the lowliest knights did not hold land. There were many landless knights who served in the households of  landowners (ie. as military retainers) in return for their keep and gifts of cash, horses, arms etc.. And there were some knights who had neither land nor household positions, who eked out their existence as mercenaries or professional athletes (eg. the early career of William Marshal). And of course from at latest 1118 and on past the end of the feudal period the various holy fighting orders included thousands of knights who had no property or had given it up, having taken vows of poverty.


----------



## D+1 (Dec 3, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> Well, that's the full Busby Berkeley late-mediaeval profusion in its full development, with reduplication for extra redundancy (ie. you list both 'count' and its English equivalent, 'earl).
> 
> One question: why did you decide to put a viscount (vice-count) above a count?
> 
> You are of course free to design your campaign how you want, but I would have thought that this inversion would be confusing.



Only to people who think that it all has to be real-world equivalent.  I can guarantee you that a large percentage of players won't know, or even if they do know they won't care if you mix the peerages of England, France, Prussia, and Arabia.

The listing did indeed have as its initial source the Social Level charts of the original City State of the Invincible Overlord.  Since I'm going to be using the CSIO social level, I'm going to be using the very same sort of slightly whacky progression it implies.  I know that a Viscount is lower in peerage than a Count but in all the time I've been working on this list I simply hadn't noticed the misplacement from the original material.  But you know what?  I think a campaign world becomes MORE interesting if Earls and Counts AREN'T equivalent (which I hadn't known or realized until you mentioned it) or that there's some _completely_ undetermined reason for a Viscount to have been strangely elevated above a Count.

Now part of that comes from the fact that Judges Guild has for nearly 30 years advocated just that sort of attitude - make it up and make it YOUR campaign, not someone elses.  The reason I'm using CSIO in the first place is that this is intended to be a very retro-feel campaign that uses such hopelessly antiquated game rules artifacts as having player characters keep a numerical Social Level.  So, even knowing that it IS wrong just makes me want to keep it in place all the more.  If anyone ELSE notices I can make up an explanation that adds interest to my campaign world rather than try to conform to anyone elses idea of How It Should Be, much less reality.

I could name them Snooks, Florgs and Whoozles and have them _elected_ to a _hereditary_ position every midsummers day in a flurry of ballot-box stuffing and street riots.  I probably would too if it weren't for the fact that "Florg" is meaningless (unlike Snook or Whoozle) and THAT would confuse people.  But I digress.

The point is that like fantasy-world physics nothing needs to be accurate - only consistent.  You are free of course to rigidly apply a strictly British or French peerage system if you like, but where's the fun in that?


----------



## Turjan (Dec 3, 2004)

D+1 said:
			
		

> The point is that like fantasy-world physics nothing needs to be accurate - only consistent.  You are free of course to rigidly apply a strictly British or French peerage system if you like, but where's the fun in that?




That's completely okay . The misplaced Viscount is kind of obvious, though. Why should the deputy of the Count (Vice-Count) have a higher rank than the Count himself ?


----------



## The_Universe (Dec 3, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> Um.
> 
> There were no baronets in any feudal system. The rank of baronet was created by King James I on 22 May 1611. http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-baronet.asp.
> 
> Also, the lowliest knights did not hold land. There were many landless knights who served in the households of  landowners (ie. as military retainers) in return for their keep and gifts of cash, horses, arms etc.. And there were some knights who had neither land nor household positions, who eked out their existence as mercenaries or professional athletes (eg. the early career of William Marshal). And of course from at latest 1118 and on past the end of the feudal period the various holy fighting orders included thousands of knights who had no property or had given it up, having taken vows of poverty.



 No disputing that nobility and aristocracy take on a different character past the feudal period.

Sorry about the Baronet - either an error in my source material, or a misread on my part as I went through it.

Anyway, if you look back at my original post, Barons and Baronets (and thus knights, as well) are noted as not always being landed.  However, higher ranking nobles (IMC, at least) certainly are.  

If that disagrees with how you would do it - go for it.  I was just trying to help.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 3, 2004)

was the son born in or out of wedlock?

i think hand and halfer covers most offspring for dukes in our D&D campaign.


----------



## ghrezdd (Dec 3, 2004)

*a vaguley related question*

Sir is the form of address for a male knight.  Is there an equivalant form of address for a female knight?


----------



## The_Universe (Dec 3, 2004)

ghrezdd said:
			
		

> Sir is the form of address for a male knight.  Is there an equivalant form of address for a female knight?



 Well, at the risk of angering someone with the sexism of the past, there weren't female knights.  In modern times, they're referred to as "Dame Firstname Lastname"


----------



## Agback (Dec 3, 2004)

ghrezdd said:
			
		

> Sir is the form of address for a male knight.  Is there an equivalant form of address for a female knight?




As The_Universe says, now that there _are_ women who hold knighthoods, 'Dame' is used in the same way as 'Sir'. But in mediaeval times women sometimes held the lands of a knight, but did not have the military training or go through the ceremonies, and were not considered knights.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Dec 4, 2004)

On the other hand, Queen Isabella was technically a King.  Masculine tense and everything.


----------



## Agback (Dec 4, 2004)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> On the other hand, Queen Isabella was technically a King.  Masculine tense and everything.




Gender. Tense is a quality of verbs.

Living things have sexes, such as male, female, neuter, and hermaphrodite.

Nouns have genders, such as masculine, feminine, and neuter, or animate and inanimate.

Verbs and verbal phrases have tenses, such as past, present, future, past perfect, past imperfect, pluperfect, present continuous, present perfect….


----------



## hong (Dec 4, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> Tense is a quality of verbs.




I tranquilised my verbs and now I can only speak in the passive voice.

OH HO HO HA HA OH HELL IS THAT THE TIME


----------



## Aesmael (Dec 4, 2004)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Not a goblin, just a really small ogre.
> 
> *now has Gummi Bears theme song stuck in head*




You had to go and mention the song. Sigh.
Maybe if I hum it will go away.

In related news, the Universe's system looks very useful. Not immediately so, but... ah, there it is. You have just provided the final piece of inspiration needed to turn a one-off D20 Future adventure into a full-blown campaign setting.

Thanks muchly (And now back to reading the thread)


----------



## The_Universe (Dec 4, 2004)

Aesmael said:
			
		

> You had to go and mention the song. Sigh.
> Maybe if I hum it will go away.
> 
> In related news, the Universe's system looks very useful. Not immediately so, but... ah, there it is. You have just provided the final piece of inspiration needed to turn a one-off D20 Future adventure into a full-blown campaign setting.
> ...



 Glad you like it!  It's been a boon to my own campaign!


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 4, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> I tranquilised my verbs and now I can only speak in the passive voice.




My verbs were tranquilised by me and now I can  speak only in the passive voice.


----------



## D+1 (Dec 4, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> The misplaced Viscount is kind of obvious, though. Why should the deputy of the Count (Vice-Count) have a higher rank than the Count himself ?



Who says that Viscount has to be a contraction of vice-count?  Maybe in my world it comes from Viceroy-count?

How about this: It actually stems from a time when a Count served as a Viceroy and was addressed as "The Viceroy, Count Monte Cristo".  The position of Viceroy-Count was passed to heirs for a generation or two and came to be shortened as Viscount.  Shortly after that the viceregal duties and priveleges of the office were removed and it was worked into the peerage/social standings at a level lower than a Viceroy but well above that of a Count.  I have now added a new, interesting point of history for my campaign because of the "mistake" of Viscount being listed as superior to Count in social level.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 5, 2004)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I got prince for son of a king, baronet for son of a baron, what about the son of a duke?




Bo or Luke.



Unless it's a girl. Then you call her Daisy.

Yee-HAAAAA!


----------



## Agback (Dec 5, 2004)

D+1 said:
			
		

> Who says that Viscount has to be a contraction of vice-count?




No-one says that it has to be. But a lot of people know that it _is_. And more just understand that a viscount is lowlier than a count then way they understand that a priest is lowlier than a bishop. Sure, you could dream up some 'why-not' rationalisation for 'archbishop' being lowlier than 'deacon', but all that would achieve would be to make players do a double-take every time the titles were used.



> Maybe in my world it comes from Viceroy-count?




And maybe in my campaign the common weapon with a two-edged metal blade about 75-90 centimetres long, designed for use in one hand, is called a 'mace', because it was invented by a smith called 'May'.

Why risk confusion? It only forces the artificiality of the game world into prominence, and inhibits players from suspending disbelief.


----------



## Agback (Dec 5, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Unless it's a girl.




Umm. Under what conditions is a son a girl?


----------



## Agback (Dec 5, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> Baronetcies are independent hereditary titles, so far as I know never used as courtesy titles for eldest sons.




I have confirmed this belief. Baronets rank in precedence after the sons of barons, so the barons' sons' courtesy title of "the honourable" is a higher rank than the baronets' "Sir". So even if some baron held a baronetcy as a minor title, his eldest son would not use it as a courtesy title.

This relates to an interesting piece of history. When James I ruled that a baronet ranked after the son of a baron, baron's sons stopped buying baronetcies, and a significant source of royal revenue dried up. So in 1616 the king introduced a rule that the eldest son of a baronet (being of age) had the right to be knighted on request. This rule was rescinded by George IV in 1827.


----------



## ydirbut (Dec 5, 2004)

> Unless it's a girl.
> 
> Umm. Under what conditions is a son a girl?



Well, you see there are certain operations...


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Dec 5, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> Gender. Tense is a quality of verbs.
> 
> Living things have sexes, such as male, female, neuter, and hermaphrodite.
> 
> ...




No offense, but tense probably works better as the word here.  Gender would indicate to most non-technical users not so much a linguistic as a social category.  To most speakers both nouns and living things have gender.  Though only living things should have sex.  At least according to the State of Texas.  

Tense, on the other hand, is a term that is only used to refer to linguistic constructs, and while I recognize that it most often refers in English to an indication of a verb clause's temporal reference and the speaker's focus on the event I also recognize that that broad capability makes it far more effective word for describing any form of linguistice aspect than the term aspect itself.

Sure, I'm playing fast and loose with grammar, but it's a game played by everyone but the grammarians.  I have to admit I'm still not happy with trusting them with actual language.  I mean they can protest all they want that the 'Nazi' connection came from Latin grammar and now they're all happy and accomodating, but I won't buy it till I see some actual recognition of the  real presence of technological context in grammatic propriety.  I will go to my grave before I can believe that written French grammar has anything to do with the spoken form.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Dec 5, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> Umm. Under what conditions is a son a girl?




There are a number of situations under which son is used simply as the term of descent.  Under some of those it is convenient to classify a daughter as a son.

Sometimes you just need a woman to do a man's job.

Would you suggest that when a man or woman speaks of the sons of liberty he or she discounts all the daughters?


----------



## Turjan (Dec 5, 2004)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> No offense, but tense probably works better as the word here.
> 
> Tense, on the other hand, is a term that is only used to refer to linguistic constructs, and while I recognize that it most often refers in English to an indication of a verb clause's temporal reference and the speaker's focus on the event I also recognize that that broad capability makes it far more effective word for describing any form of linguistice aspect than the term aspect itself.




Sorry, but tense is only applicable to verbs. Tense is Old English for "time". Where do you see the applicability of "time" to nouns?



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I will go to my grave before I can believe that written French grammar has anything to do with the spoken form.




Well, of course there are differences. But keep in mind that France has laws to enforce the use of proper language on radio and TV, which keeps the language - somewhat - in check .

Edit: I didn't quite get though what you meant with the 'Nazi' connection?


----------



## JackGiantkiller (Dec 9, 2004)

The son of a Duke is a Prince. The son of a King is a Royal Prince. Dukes are very nearly kings, after all. There were plenty of Duke's in the Dark Ages with no feudal overlord. Doge (an italian title) means Duke, and the Doge' of venice (though elected) was a monarch.


----------



## Agback (Dec 9, 2004)

JackGiantkiller said:
			
		

> The son of a Duke is a Prince.




In Germany, perhaps. But in Western Europe a prince outranks a duke, and the eldest sons of dukes are [by courtesy, not law] marquesses.



> The son of a King is a Royal Prince.




An over-generalisation. In France and England the sons of the kings were simply princes, and that only comparatively late. Edward I was known as "Lord Edward" until his father died. Edward II was the first prince in the English peerage (created Prince of Wales at the age of two, about 1300).



> Dukes are very nearly kings, after all.




Some were. For example the Dukes of Burgundy, with their independent foreign policy in the Hundred Years War. Or the Dukes of Aquitaine before the marriage of Elanor of Aquitaine (about 1137). The German dukes were practically sovereign after the steam went out of the Empire, but so were hundreds of landgraves, (counts), bishops, archbishops, and princes ruling domains barely the size of a decent farm. Legally the German dukes were a distinct cut below kings, and they used to scheme for the kingdoms of (for example) Moravia, Bohemia, Poland, Prussia and so forth that were outside the Empire and therefore not forbidden a sovereign title. This to my mind clearly shows that even wealthy and powerful dukes (such as the Duke of Saxony) felt at a disadvantage without a royal title, even of some tin-pot place like Moravia. The Germany duchies were all upgraded to kingdoms in 1806.



> There were plenty of Duke's in the Dark Ages with no feudal overlord.




There were also counts with no feudal overlord, such as the Count of Toulouse, the Count of Barcelona, the Count of Savoy, and the Count of Provence. And at least one simple 'lord' with no feudal overlord (the Lord of the Isles until Scottish conquest).



> Doge (an italian title) means Duke, and the Doge' of venice (though elected) was a monarch.




And a subject of the Emperor, at least in theory.


----------



## hong (Dec 9, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> There were also counts with no feudal overlord, such as the Count of Toulouse, the Count of Barcelona, the Count of Savoy, and the Count of Provence.




Bow down before the Count of Post!


----------



## Klaus (Dec 9, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Bow down before the Count of Post!



 You mean Crothian?


----------

