Imperial Noble Distribution

[Bloo]

There is a history of discussions about how to handle Imperial nobles, some recent. Hans has always been alert/sensitive to them, which I appreciate. After receiving my stuff and this thread, I thought I'd take a stab at something - relating system population to number and level of associated Imperial nobility.
(Note: I've misplaced my GT: Nobles).

An Imperial noble's mandate is to represent a system to the Imperium and to carry out the Imperium's desires. Knight is the lowest Imperial noble, so at some point, a Knight might be the sole representative of a system. And we know that each subsector has a representative Duke.

Some principles:
Very low population systems do not necessarily need a representative noble who is solely responsible for it - nobles with other responsibilities should be able to handle that (though exceptions are fine). This can be done by the Imperial bureaucracy (e.g., Starport Administration acting on authority of the relevant noble).

Each system should have a single highest representative, i.e., two knights should not share responsibility for a system as the highest nobles there.

Where there are multiple nobles in the same system, they have some responsibilities, fealty applies to some degree, etc.

Duke is the cap on population-based nobility (and can be ignored in subsectors with several very high population systems).

Each level of nobility has 5 nobles of the next level below:
For every Baronet, there are 5 Knights.
For every Baron, 5 Baronets.
For every Marquis, 5 Barons.
For every Viscount, 5 Marquises.
For every Count, 5 Viscounts.
For every Duke, 5 Counts.

This leads to the following breakdown by system population:
Population 0 - 2: No dedicated noble.
Population 3: No dedicated noble (however: 1 non-hereditary Knight would be fine IMTU).
Population 4: 1 Knight
Population 5: 1 Baronet, 5 Knights
Population 6: 1 Baron, 5 Baronets, 25 Knights
Population 7: 1 Marquis, 5 Barons, 25 Baronets, 125 Knights
Population 8: 1 Viscount, 5 Marquises, 25 Barons, 125 Baronets, 625 Knights
Population 9: 1 Count, 5 Viscounts, 25 Marquises, 125 Barons, 625 Baronets, 3125 Knights
Population A: 1 Duke, 5 Counts, 25 Viscounts, 125 Marquises, 625 Barons, 3125 Baronets, 15625 Knights
Population B+: should be treated as special cases. (There are no Pop B+ systems in the most recent Spinward Marches data).

For the Regina subsector, this results in:
38,378 Knights
7,675 Baronets
1,534 Barons
306 Marquises
60 Viscounts
11 Counts
1 Duke (not counting Subsector Duke)
Total: 47,965 nobles in a subsector with a total population between 16.6 Billion and 165.6 Billion.

Noble/Population Ratio:
Any Noble: 0.0003% (1 in 3,333) to 0.00003% (1 in 33,333)
Knight: 0.0002% (1 in 4,348) to 0.00002% (1 in 43,478)
Baronet: 0.00005% (1 in 20,000) to 0.00005% (1 in 200,000)
Baron: 0.000009% (1 in 100,000) to 0.0000009% (1 in 1 million)
Marquis: 0.000002% (1 in 500,000) to 0.0000002% (1 in 5 million)
Viscount: 0.0000004% (1 in 2.5 million) to 0.00000004% (1 in 25 million)
Count: 0.00000007% (1 in 14 million) to 0.000000007% (1 in 142 million)
Duke: 0.000000006% (1 in 166 million)to 0.0000000006% (1 in 1.6 billion)

Seems like a lot in absolute terms, but not so much in relative terms. Take out Retha (Pop A) and those numbers drop to between 1/2 and 2/3rds.

 

[Bloo]

I'd missed the Ranking Noble Table (T5, p.436). By that gauge, Regina would have the following as the Ranking Noble in its systems:
Dukes: 4 (not including Regina, which is Cp but not In).
Counts: 3
Viscounts: 4
Marquis: 3
Baron: 4
Baronet: 1
Knight: 12

There would be 26 Dukedoms in the Spinward Marches, not counting Subsector Dukes and above (which may have the Dukedom of an Industrial system in their subscector).

 

[rancke]

Oh bloody ****. Please tell me Marc Miller isn't going to retcon everything we know about the Imperial nobility!

I'd missed the Ranking Noble Table (T5, p.436). By that gauge, Regina would have the following as the Ranking Noble in its systems:
Dukes: 4 (not including Regina, which is Cp but not In).
Counts: 3
Viscounts: 4
Marquis: 3
Baron: 4
Baronet: 1
Knight: 12

I guess he is. What's a ranking noble? The highest Imperial noble associated with a system?

There would be 26 Dukedoms in the Spinward Marches, not counting Subsector Dukes and above (which may have the Dukedom of an Industrial system in their subscector).

Please! No no no no! Please no!!

Why? WHY?!?


Hans

 

[Vladika]

$$$ Kickstarter Swag...

 

[Murdoc]

That's how I take it, it's just the minimum rank for the noble in charge of that planet. There can still be plenty more nobles on the world, even ones of the same or higher rank. Not all nobles are in government, not all have fiefs. Maybe a higher ranking noble has a large fief on a world run by a lower ranking noble, making an interesting (if sometimes uncomfortable) political situation. I don't see the problem.

 

[rancke]

That's how I take it, it's just the minimum rank for the noble in charge of that planet. There can still be plenty more nobles on the world, even ones of the same or higher rank. Not all nobles are in government, not all have fiefs. Maybe a higher ranking noble has a large fief on a world run by a lower ranking noble, making an interesting (if sometimes uncomfortable) political situation. I don't see the problem.

Problem being, if that's so, that the Imperium does (did?) not have nobles in charge of a large number of the member worlds, and never (or almost never) in the capacity of being Imperial nobles. (That is to say, some planetary rulers are also Imperial nobles, but they are Imperial nobles because they are planetary rulers, not planetary rulers because they are Imperial nobles). Delphine of Mora, for example, is Matriarch of Mora because Moran law makes her that and Duchess of Mora because the Imperium gives that title to the Matriarch. And Norris is Marquis of Regina (System) and Duke of the Duchy of Regina but has nothing to do with governing Regina System.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

Nobles: lndividuals of the upper classes who perform little consistent function,
but often have large amounts of ready money.

Sounds about the same, the Imperium likes to hand out titles, not that they mean that much.

 

[rancke]

Nobles: lndividuals of the upper classes who perform little consistent function,
but often have large amounts of ready money.

Sounds about the same, the Imperium likes to hand out titles, not that they mean that much.

We've always been starved for information about honor and rank nobles, and the persistent failure to provide adequate space for planetary nobilities on the social status ladder combined with the silliness of the character generation rules in making one character in 36 an Imperial baron and two in 36 Imperial knights certainly don't help.

But high nobles we have pretty reliable general information about. Which is why I asked about just what a 'ranking noble' is. Because if they're the same as high nobles, there should be no knights and no baronets on Bloo's list but one baron or marquis per system (depends on how important the system is) and one count or viscount per 4-6 systems (count if there's a significant world in the county and viscount if there are no significant worlds in the viscounty). Granted, several of the titles would be doubled up on individual nobles (e.g. Norris is both Marquis of Regina, the high noble of Regina, and Baron of Yori, the high noble of Yori).


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

People could buy titles or have service entitlements, then bequeath them to their children, it seems the original intent wasn't to take the title for the meaning of office.

 

[rancke]

People could buy titles or have service entitlements, then bequeath them to their children, it seems the original intent wasn't to take the title for the meaning of office.

Huh?


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

That is to say, some planetary rulers are also Imperial nobles, but they are Imperial nobles because they are planetary rulers, not planetary rulers because they are Imperial nobles.

This. The title is irrelevant to the office, that explains why there are so many nobles, also the assigning of numerical values based on hierarchy is counter-factual.

 

[Bloo]

I guess he is. What's a ranking noble? The highest Imperial noble associated with a system?

I assume "Ranking" means the top noble responsible/associated with a system, but not nececessarily its only noble - that would be an ordinary definition. For example, if the ranking noble of is a Marquis, there are likely Imperial Basons, Baronets and Knights also associated with the system.

Problem being, if that's so, that the Imperium does (did?) not have nobles in charge of a large number of the member worlds, and never (or almost never) in the capacity of being Imperial nobles. (That is to say, some planetary rulers are also Imperial nobles, but they are Imperial nobles because they are planetary rulers, not planetary rulers because they are Imperial nobles). Delphine of Mora, for example, is Matriarch of Mora because Moran law makes her that and Duchess of Mora because the Imperium gives that title to the Matriarch. And Norris is Marquis of Regina (System) and Duke of the Duchy of Regina but has nothing to do with governing Regina System.

There's nothing but this table, so I don't think it necessarily contradicts that. The Imperium can assign Noble representatives that have no in-system authority at all. Although, maybe the noble land grants stuff work against that a bit (though giving an Imperial noble some land on your planet doesn't mean you have to listen to him), since every noble gets X hexes of land on a mainworld (determined by Noble rank).

Apparently, my GT: Nobles has taken a walk and I don't recall much canon on this stuff. I was just trying to think of a sensible distribution based on population, but trade classifications make sense too).

 

[rancke]

Apparently, my GT: Nobles has taken a walk and I don't recall much canon on this stuff. I was just trying to think of a sensible distribution based on population, but trade classifications make sense too).

Nobles gives a number of up to one Imperial baron per 250 million people. The 'up to' fortunately leaves open the possibility that the ratio can be less than that, since I, for one do not like to have 127 barons just for Rethe alone.

As I said before, the number of high nobles is pretty well established: one per member world. The only fudge factor is that some worlds may not have a high noble assigned for political reasons (e.g. interdicted worlds, empty worlds) and that some nobles 'double up' on high noble titles. Also, colony worlds may or may not have high nobles of their own.

The very scanty available evidence makes the number of rank nobles difficult to estimate, and the number of honor nobles even more so. But one thing to consider is that every peer has a seat in the Moot, which might encourage the Imperium to keep the numbers down. With 15 trillion inhabitants, one noble per 250 million would come to 60,000, and I suggest that the true figure would be somewhat less than that.

Baronets and knights could be considerably more numerous, but not, I think, 1 out of every 12 Imperial citizens.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

Nobles 1 out of every 12 Imperial citizens.
Hans

A serious shortage of peasants! Next thing you know there will be Droyne "guest workers".

 

[rancke]

A serious shortage of peasants! Next thing you know there will be Droyne "guest workers".

Not just peasants. The entire middle class too. Soc 10 is supposed to be gentry. Depending a bit on what you include in that category that should be about 1 person in 1000. You might argue it up or down by perhaps a factor 3 either way, but somewhere between 1 in 300 and 1 in 3000. Not the 1 in 12 you get from the character generation system. Between the country squire at level 10 and the Imperial baron at level 12, you have to squeeze in the social ranks that European nobility used 7 or 8 or 9 to cover (baronet, baron, viscount, earl, marquis, duke, archduke, royalty, emperor). And that's in a system that use 9 ranks to cover the lower and middle classes (usually covered by 5 or 6 ranks by present-day sociographers), mind you. Just what IS the difference between Soc 5 and Soc 6? And while we're at it, can we please get an explanation for how the social pyramid, or rather, social diamond, works?

Nothing I haven't said before, I know, but I hope I've been quiet on the topic long enough not to exasperate my fellow grognards.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

Could be like Tzarist Russia where whole cavalry regiments were made up of Counts...

I'm with you Hans, what is the point of such a top-heavy system?

But, perhaps, the character generation tables are such that all the Munchkins can be a "somebody". Then again, I bought my Barony for $21.00...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/letter_fromlondon/2006/03/so_you_want_to_be_a_lord_.html

 

[rancke]

But, perhaps, the character generation tables are such that all the Munchkins can be a "somebody".

That's not really a problem unless one treats character generation as ineptly as Traveller writers have done for three decades. There's nothing wrong with a system that tends to make player characters special. The problem arises when you use the system to assign random social levels to NPCs instead of saying "This guys is a shoe salesman; that would be Soc 4 or 5... I'll roll a die: 1 means Soc 3, 2-3 Soc 4, 4-5 Soc 5, and a 6 means Soc 6... <rattle, rattle> There we go: Soc 5." Or "Military officer, so minimum Soc 8... 38 years old and still only a lieutenant; probably not gentry and definitely not nobility. <rattle, rattle> Let's call it Soc 8." Or "Chief Surgeon at prestigious hospital. That's gentry. Soc 10, maybe even more. <rattle, rattle> No, 10 it is."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/letter_fromlondon/2006/03/so_you_want_to_be_a_lord_.html

Love the bit about Jimmy Buchanan. But the problem with that explanation is that in a realistic society, people who can afford to buy Imperial knighthoods and baronys would be fewer than 1 in 12. Those 1 in 1000 that I guesstimate for the gentry? They would already include billionaires with bought Imperial honors.

(My totally non-canonical view is that the Emperor doesn't need to sell honors to raise money. On the other hand, I see him (or rather, the Imperial Office of Arms) evaluating titles and offices of planetary societies and assigning appropriate Imperial knighthoods to the holders. Thus you Russian Cossack counts wouldn't get any knighthoods at all; the dukes of Argel-bargle who get their dukedoms with their colonetcies, would get knighthoods in the (relatively) lowly Order of the 3rd Imperium[*]; the squires of Glub-Gryf, who control more land than old-style European dukes ever did, get knighthoods in the Order of the Golden Sun[*]; and the President of the Industrial world Megalaria becomes a Companion of the Star of Sylea[*]. And if ever the Duke of Scumble, the Squire of Green Meadow, and the President of Megalaria visit the court of their Imperial duke at the same time, the chamberlain will know which one precedes the other from their respective knighthoods.)

[*] All the orders mentioned are non-canonical.​

Hans

 

[GypsyComet]

T5 does appear to alter the system put forth in GT:Nobles. Instead of a Baron on every world you have a Knight on every world, (Pages 52 and 436 (which disagree on the assignment of Dukes)), and higher titles assigned based on Trade codes and overall Importance (p435). There is also a note on p428.

What is unclear is whether these titles stack on one person or get spread around (or both, depending on situation?)

Some thought suggests that while higher Nobles of a world are usually Knights, they aren't *that* Knight. A world's Knight strikes me as being focused on the world. He or she is the Imperium's face for the inhabitants. In contrast, any higher Titles are also Moot dwellers, and as such represent the world (or worlds, apparently) to the Imperium. Very different job descriptions.

Hans makes a point about Orders of Knighthood. Would these Knights Tenant (for lack of a more precise term) be part of a specific Order, part of none (which seems odd) or have no established pattern?

 

[rancke]

T5 does appear to alter the system put forth in GT:Nobles.

Elaborated upon in GT:Nobles but put forth in Library Data N-Z, actually.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Some thought suggests that while higher Nobles of a world are usually Knights, they aren't *that* Knight. A world's Knight strikes me as being focused on the world. He or she is the Imperium's face for the inhabitants. In contrast, any higher Titles are also Moot dwellers, and as such represent the world (or worlds, apparently) to the Imperium. Very different job descriptions.

High nobles appear to represent the Imperium to their respective member worlds more than the other way around, acting as a sort of ombudsman and emergency backup to the Imperial legates who are the official "ambassadors" to the member worlds. Of course, all that is GT information; before GT: Nobles, there was practically no job description at all, allowing for any interpretation, including yours. But accepting that for purposes of argument, what would be the job description of these 'Knights Tenant'?


Hans