Imperial Citizens

[Condottiere]

As I recall, only the earl's first born daughter is addressed as lady.

The wives get that title as well, from duke to knight.

Also, I'm pretty sure that if the earl has a baronial title as the next senior one, his heir can take it as a courtesy.

 

[TamsinP]

As I recall, only the earl's first born daughter is addressed as lady.

The wives get that title as well, from duke to knight.

Not according to Wikipedia:

Also, I'm pretty sure that if the earl has a baronial title as the next senior one, his heir can take it as a courtesy.

We are in agreement on that, if you scroll back to my earlier replies on this thread. My last reply was mentioning the specific case where an Earl (or higher peer, although it's rare) doesn't have a subsidiary title for the heir to adopt as a courtesy.

 

[Condottiere]

1. I'd say that marquess and viscount overcomplicate the hierarchy; I'm guessing French adoptions, since administratively you only need earls and barons.

2. Had to check it up, but I misremembered the earl's daughters courtesy titles.

3. The heir's courtesy title appears to be based more on family tradition, rather than strict etiquette, and could be the previous title before the upgrade, whereas the one inbetween might be acquired by inheritance, or earned, later on.

 

[TamsinP]

I've just checked:
Marquess (or Marquis) - first used in the English peerage in 1385 (Robert de Vere, 9th Earl of Oxford was made Marquess of Dublin, for life) and has been rarely used. It was mostly used to create titles for retiring Viceroys of India, but several German relatives of King George V were given the title when they renounced their German princely titles. It wasn't until 1551 that the first hereditary marquesate was created.
Viscount - first introduced as a hereditary title in 1440; prior to that it had been an honorific given to county sheriffs. Most are subsidiary titles of Earls, Marquesses and Dukes.

As for why England has Earls rather than Counts, that was mostly due to William I wanting to bring the newly-conquered English nobility onside after 1066 - he let them keep their titles and created new Earldoms for his strongest Norman backers (or gave them the titles of Earls who had died during the conquest?).

 

[Condottiere]

Earls are regional managers, and he probably didn't want to change the hierarchy.

However, barons are floor supervisors, and the job title probably expresses the exact expectations, whereas thane might be somewhat unclear.

The rest seem more an expression of seniority.

 

[TamsinP]

Originally, Counts and Marquesses were nominally of equivalent rank. However, Marquesses were meant to be the local leader of a border region ("marches"), whereas Counts led more peaceable internal counties; thus, Marquesses tended to be awarded to nobles the King trusted and favoured most, and informally took precedence over Counts.

But please, please, please - let's not get onto the messiness of the different types of heirs.

 

[Condottiere]

It's obvious from the German translations. And the Carolingians would know from their own history about letting positions/titles become hereditary.

In England, the Marcher lords congregated near the borders of Wales and Scotland, neither of which, before the Industrial Revolution, struck me as particularly appetizing.

But, you particularly see a Norman power projection into Wales and Ireland, which would, or could, get you an earldom.

I don't see Imperium Marcher Lords predict any profit using their own forces to expand into Imperium border regions, since they're mostly supervisors and representatives.

 

[TamsinP]

Unappetising, perhaps, but important for defence - the regions where you want your most loyal and trusted subordinates to be in charge.


I've just realised that I didn't respond to your point about the choice of courtesy title being more down to family tradition than strict protocol. That is true, but in the large majority of cases that tradition is "the heir will use the most senior subsidiary title" (with exceptions necessary to avoid two similar titles, eg if the Marquess of Birmingham is also the Viscount of Birmingham then his heir would need to take their courtesy title from any subsidiary earldoms or baronies).

 

[Condottiere]

Ireland as a base of operations for an invasion, or just nuisance raids, which I assume anyone occupying Albion would view the border regions with Wales and Scotland, hence Marcher Lords.

What I was told about Norman expansion into Ireland, was sheer opportunism by Norman lords, and in the familiar theme of the British Empire, the Crown needing to follow, in this case, to ensure that their nobility doesn't set up separate power bases that the English King couldn't exert pressure on.

In the modern age, we usually have megacorporations set up camp in areas that their home governments couldn't control or supervise them, but the nobility in the Imperium trying to do that would immediately send up red flags.

 

[aramis]

Wouldn’t it be more like the Holy Roman Empire electors?

Prince-elector - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

No, not really. The Conclave of the College of Cardinals, like the imperial nobles, have no direct local leadership... And sit on committees that supervise bureaucracies that actually do work.

If you think either of those two were anywhere near actual fighting I have a bridge to sell you...

I'll trust the superior officers interviewed by the BBC over you any day.

It's complex, and I think it's tied to primogeniture.

First of all, titles/nobility evolved over a millenia.

All children of a duke or marquess are addressed as lord or lady, as well as the first born son and daughter of an earl; everyone else is honourable.

And remember, in the Imperium, the count is above a marquess.

Canonically, Vilani do not use the same mode - the third child is the title heir; if there is no third, there is no heir. If their is a fourth, THEN there's a spare. This means fewer inheritors. It also means more generational distance and longer reigns.