Results 21 to 30 of 48
Thread: cultural titles
-
05-06-2004, 06:40 AM #21
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
tcharazazel said:
> nobility: Sheriff? (or is the title just added on to a count or baron?),
> Count, Baron, Earl
>
> Peerage: Marquis/Margrave, Prince, Duke, Archduke, and King (then emperor
> if you take it the next level)
In the British Isles a Baron *is* a Peer.
The British system is, for the most part, fairly straightforward (provided
one notes that a British `earl` is the rough equivalent of a Continental
`count`). A person can add in archdukes (persons with the dignity equal to
that of the king, but who are not the king) and what-not if he so chooses.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
05-06-2004, 05:52 PM #22
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Location
- Victoria BC, Canada
- Posts
- 368
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Guildsmen, craftsmen and artisans are a bit of a misnomer. You certainly had craftsmen and artisans, but you could also have the same peoiple as members of a guild. It all depended if there was an active guild in the region or not. A Master was a ranking within the Guild system -- and was one who took on apprentices who learned their craft from him. In a Guild there was also the Guildmaster, who may or may not have been the berst craftsperson or artisan that th region had to offer, depending on how political the Guild's internal structure was.
"It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."
- R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long
-
05-07-2004, 02:17 PM #23
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 61
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 6 2004, 05:29 AM
townfolk: Common laberors <= yeoman, guildsmen, craftsmen, artisans, masters (crafts & guildsmen), merchants, burghers
are these 3 equal in rank? guildsmen, craftsmen, artisans
gentry: Baliff, Knight, Viscount, Baronette (or are these last 2 inbetween gentry and nobility?)
nobility: Sheriff? (or is the title just added on to a count or baron?), Count, Baron, Earl
Peerage: Marquis/Margrave, Prince, Duke, Archduke, and King (then emperor if you take it the next level)
Reeve may or may not be a yeoman (could be a serf) ... it was a temporary job position (general 1 seaon, perhaps 3) and could either be elected by the village or appointed by the lord. Very common is for a previous reeve to be hit with more/larger fines the year after he was in office (the next reeve getting even or the prior reeve gotten used to being able to somewhat ignore the laws of autumn).
I seperated guildsmen from craftsmen as some guild members were not true craftsmen. The "ranks" in a guild could be laborer, apprentice, journeyman, master and finally guildmaster. Laborers may or may not be actual members of the guild, but they were generally free townsmen about equivalent to a yeoman. Masters (guild masters or master masons) were often awarded a fur-trimmed robe per year of service on a special project. This robe marked them as members of the upper middle class. When I used the word "master" as different from guildsman I was refering to guildmasters and master masons.
Sheriff is a non-inhertable title. It could be bestowed on a knight or a baron (depending on what a baron was in that society).
Barons are peerage in some cultures. Marquis/Margrave/March Lord can be another name for Baron, depending on the society and culture.
Peerage could mean Baron, Count, Earl, Margrave, etc.
There was a difference between Royalty and other Nobility. FWIR, in England, Earl was the highest rank one could obtain if not of Royal blood. Just some clarifications on a confusing subject.
-
05-07-2004, 06:27 PM #24
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- aberdeen, scotland
- Posts
- 282
- Downloads
- 131
- Uploads
- 0
As some one else said things vary a lot .
There is no position that could not be obtained or inhereted. The royal lines changed more than once but meny people retained thier lands and titles threw these changes. Most knights atleast in britian were not gentry and served in groups such as the kings bodyguard, army , the templers etc.
Just because someone has a high ranking title does not meen that his lands are large or rich. Houses go through ups and downs , lands are sold or confiscated by the king as well as lost in wars. Houses if they become to poor may suffer a loss of status though.
A number of titles such as sheriff were inheritable and were passed down through familys usualy for some service to the king. Saving his life in a battle etc. Some of these titles still exist in britain and are still passed down in familys.MORNINGSTAR
-
05-08-2004, 12:20 AM #25
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 61
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by graham anderson@May 7 2004, 07:27 PM
Most knights atleast in britian were not gentry and served in groups such as the kings bodyguard, army , the templers etc.
A.k.a. a knight, squire, or even an elevated commoner could be gentry, patents of nobility, abnd such, but some controlled/ran manors and were l"landed gentry" whereas others held offices or positions and were ust considered gentry (or "knights", etc, depending if they had earned their spurs or not).
Just asking (I admit, there is still a lot I don't know and one way I learn is by asking )
-Dwarf
-
05-08-2004, 02:48 PM #26
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- aberdeen, scotland
- Posts
- 282
- Downloads
- 131
- Uploads
- 0
The whole problem is how much things vary from country to country and on when in history you look at things. There is too much variation with things becoming especially muddled during the larger wars. In some cases they were gentry especially towards the end of the period when knights were used. Its a bit of a cliché but the first son inherits the second becomes a priest and the third a soldier (knight if pos). There is so much variation that people should just choose what they want the titles to represent and go with it.
MORNINGSTAR
-
05-08-2004, 03:51 PM #27
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
And all of this just backs up the state of confusion in Cerilia (especially Anuire) since the fall of the empire - everyone is trying to jockey themselves into a better position to claim or be in the 'in crowd' for the Iron Throne. Titles have been inflated and renamed to give the impression of higher position, etc.
Duane Eggert
-
05-08-2004, 06:09 PM #28And all of this just backs up the state of confusion in Cerilia (especially Anuire) since the fall of the empire - everyone is trying to jockey themselves into a better position to claim or be in the 'in crowd' for the Iron Throne. Titles have been inflated and renamed to give the impression of higher position, etc.
-
05-08-2004, 07:17 PM #29Originally posted by Osprey@May 8 2004, 10:09 AM
In contrast, I'm surpised Gavin Tael hasn't named himself the Archduke of Ghoere, and what the heck is Aaron Vaumel's noble title anyways? If it's Count, he's got a rather large domain for such a small title...if I were him, I'd rename myself Baron or even Duke. Not hard to justify when a pitiful little realm like Brosengae has a Duchess...
As for Arron Vaumel, he only rules a colony, and one that's technically a vassal of Avanil. As a governor, it is likely that he can be hired and fired as the Prince of Avanil chooses. Brosengae, as I've always seen it, was one of the original twelve, and thus is properly accorded the title of duke/ duchess. I've also imagined that at one point in time, Brosengae was larger, claiming some territory up in Taeghas.
-
05-08-2004, 07:18 PM #30
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Location
- Victoria BC, Canada
- Posts
- 368
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
I believe that Gavin Tael was either pressured into maintaining the title of Baron, or the title of Duke was denied him by the Chamberlain.
Either that, or he maintained the title of Baron to both mock the self-styled 'Prince' of Avanil and to make people think that he is a lesser threat than he is."It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."
- R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks