Feudal baron Puns

Let's say that John Doe buys the Barony of Sampleton and becomes The Most Honourable John Doe of Sampleton, Baron of Sampleton after convincing Lord Lyon to revise his 2018 decision to not make mention of baronies in letters patent.

Now, the fact that Doe of Sampleton acquired the title through purchase shows that Baronies can be freely traded, and that his son could sell the title if he was in need of money.

This is not what the new Baron wants, however. Having bought not only the Barony but also its historical caput and lands surrounding it, he wants the Barony to become an inseparable part of his family and to prevent his heirs from selling it.

What can The Most Honourable John Doe of Sampleton, Baron of Sampleton, do to lock his title in the family forever?

I am aware that at least one Barony is owned by a trust, but I'm not sure if said Trust's statutes can designate a person to use the style of the title.

Is there a way for Doe of Sampleton to set the following rules for the future?

• That the Barony of Sampleton shall always pass upon death from the holder to his eldest son
• That in lack of sons, the Barony shall pass to the closest and most senior male relative
• That in lack of such, the Barony shall pass to the eldest daughter
• That the title may not be sold or transferred to anybody but the Heir Apparent, and that adoption does not change the order of succession

My main question is if I set baron-Feudal to max levy giving me 80% levy and I set city-Burgher tax to max will feudal vassals lets say like a count, will he give me the a percentage of the city burgher tax he collects? I hope my question isn't too confusing thanks in advanced guys.

Free until 3/3: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0854B8C4W

The only thing I can think of is you wouldn't have vassals. I would love to be able to play as a baron, it would make climbing the power ladder even more impressing if you could start with next to nothing.

Can't find any video of it but he was saying that he is not a citizen of another country but was hypothetically wondering what would happen if Sweden passed a law to assign citizenship to all nobles.

His feudal relationship to the king instantly popped into my mind. Is he breaking the constitution with allegiance to a foreign power?

If my question is confusing to read, I will try to explain it in a longer way here:

So in feudalism, a duchy would have land that he/she had direct control over and he/she would also have land that he would grant to barons. The barons would have land that they had direct control over and they would also have land that they would grant land to knights. (I know the rank above Duchies is kingdom, but thats not relevant to the question). Thats my understanding of Feudalism anyway.

Was it common or were there any cases of Duchies granting very small amounts of land to knights in zones of land that the Duchy directly controlled, so a knight would be directly overlooked by a Duchy?

>!(Moved from original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/fantasywriters/comments/s8w9fw/why_dont_we_dream_in_democracy/ reference for original comment chain)!<

I've loved and been reading Fantasy for my whole life. Stories are important to me, just like I know they're important to you too.

Fantasy(& SciFi) gives us a chance to examine the impossible, to explore people and situations from angles that reality can't provide. Sure, the escapism can be nice in moderation, but at its best Fantasy reveals things about ourselves which the clutter of the real world can obscure. That's my opinion anyway.

But one of the things I've always been aware about the genre in the back of my mind, something that's always nettled me, is the type of society which our fantasy worlds seem to overwhelmingly fall back into.

Why is it that our stories are littered with Lords and Monarchs? There's always a duke or prince or baron or hierarch. A secret princess, or a destined king. And sure, the feudal age was hugely important for the history of our culture, and we carry the memory of a thousand years of crowns and serfdom in our bones, so it's perfectly natural that we want to read a story or two about a time come past. What's strange to me is how overwhelming the body of fiction skews towards hereditary autocracy, that for a hundred years of English language publishing and by such an overwhelming majority that I can't help but ask why.

You and I live in the modern, post Enlightenment world. For the majority of us, the story of our nation was written in the 20th century, which arguably was defined by the end of kings. European monarchy collapsed to make way for Parliamentary-style Democratic Republics, as well as the brief horror of Fascism. In the East, we saw two massive, dynastic semi-deified Imperial thrones fall to the Communist experiment, while others (rightly or wrongly influenced by our ordinance) chose to join us in the spirit of Republic. Womens' suffrage was realized on a global scale, and Apartheids were shaken globally in the spirit of racial justice.

It was the century of ideas. A turning point which promised that the common citizen might no longer be a prisoner of their own blood, or the property of another man.

Let's be real though, this is not a transition which went over smoothly, nor is it by any means fully realized. It's been a sh**show sometimes, and we're all still fighting one another to make sense of what i

Like not the start obviously, magna Carta wasn't until 1215(?), but like there should be an option to form one right?

I think the way it should work is like an inverse of the crown power system, like a liberty system where you with all the other dukes could fight together to increase power in your kingdom

There is a crisis in Ukraine.

On the one hand, there is a buildup of arms and mobilization of troops on the nations eastern border by the rightwing capitalist oligarchy that is Russia, that currently sits atop the long dead corpse of the Soviet Union. From the western border we have the medley of capitalists and reactionaries of NATO pouring arms and ammunition into Ukraine both to its government and to an assortment of various militias, several of them Ukrainian fascist groups that oppose other Russian fascists.

What we have here is two sets of imperialist camps vying for power over a poor Eastern European nation. Not power for the people, not power to build socialism, but merely power to enforce different flavors of subjugation under capitalist autocrat boots.

Comrades, the position of the worldwide Internationalist Socialist movement is not to side with the capitalists of our own or any particular nation in such reactionary and imperialist affairs. It is to not pick the lesser of two imperialist evils. The position of all Socialists is to stand with the proletarians of all nations and declare that we will not stand for war. We must have solidarity with the proletarians of the NATO nations, the proletarians of Ukraine, and the proletarians of Russia who all will be the ones dying in war rather than the wealthy plutocrats of the NATO or Russian war industries and all their other fellow capitalist cronies.

Some sentiments from some of our intellectual predecessors:

“Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another’s throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the b

I'm trying to create a realistic nobility for a feudal settinf and I've got a king, the dukes beneath him, the barons beneath them and the Knights and lord's beneath them. Would other noble families exist? What makes them noble? Is it being a baron or a duke? It's all so confusing.

All in good fun (mostly)

Historiographic VS Historical:

Historiography is the study of how we make historical narratives, aka modeling history and the study of the study of history. When you make a game like CK, you make historiographical claims. If you want to represent crime in a city simulator, for example, you have to say why it happens, how it works, it’s effects, etc. The inaccuracies with CK 3 here are meant to be about the underlying systems, not the events. I don’t want the game to be railroaded into the course of actual history, and I bring this up because the defense “this is a sandbox game and I want to replace Catholicism with Adamism or whatever” is sometimes thrown around, and is irrelevant to the points here. I’m also only looking at the things I think would be interesting to implement in a game, not things that basically can’t be represented in a fun or approachable way.

Secular Kings:

• Your standing with the Church has no bearing on your legitimacy, unless excommunicated there’s no real problem in terms of your relationship with your subjects for conflict with the church/pious posturing. (contrast with needing coronation in CKII, not saying we need that mechanic, or even that that was the best way to do it, just an example of how to think about things)
• Tenets of the various faiths do not fully represent their differences/structure/impact on society. Before, expecting CKII levels of bespoke mechanics for a modular new system was perhaps too much, but in light of the new Culture system, where even the most droll Traditions still do so much and bespoke mechanics are represented, this sticks out.
• Court Priests are wholly passive, they don’t try to represent the desires of the church (or exploit their positions). As a result, though they are meant to remove diplomacy with tons of Baron level characters, they instead remove diplomacy and management of religious characters in general.
• There are no religious “end-goals”, so to speak, outside of reforming a faith. Unless you want to replace your religion it is only a means to gain levies, gold, and potentially claims. Things like getting religious relics to make your city into a minor pilgrimage site, patronizing monastic orders and religious scholars, etc. are not represented, despite being actual motivators for medieval rulers. (more on that at the end)

States and Clans:

• Obviously Byzantium is not meant to be Feudal, they’ve talked about representing it better in DL

MINOR SPOILERS FOR DUNE BOOKS (only worldbuilding, no story)

So for those who don't know, Dune universe is about a bunch of noble aristocratic houses, in a spacefaring interstellar empire, fighting among themselves, often for the control of a dessert planet Arrakis. Now, the story is awesome and all, one of the greatest works ever written and all that...blah blah bla......

But here I am to illuminate your day with HOW they fight. Most of the time....they fight with swords. Yes, an interstellar empire, with FTL travel capabilities...and the people mostly cut each other with sharp metal sticks.

Now why? Obviously melee combat is cool as F#%K, and Frank Herbert had storytelling and philisophy reasons for wanting to make it that way. But I hear you: that's a justification for the uneducated masses, we're better than that, we're here for the IN-UNIVERSE explanation! I am glad you asked:

PART 0 - NO ROBOTS

Now, before we even get to how people fight, it needs to be said that it is always people fighting. Flesh and bone. There are no robots or artificial intelligence in the imperium, in fact there is nothing as advanced as even a simple calculator. No drones, no computers, no guided missiles, no smartphones. In-universe, long ago robots and AI did exist, until there was...wait for it: an uprising. A shocker I know. But here's the first twist: it wasn't the AI rebelling against humans, its was humans rebelling against other humans who used AI and robots to control the rest of mankind. You see humanity was using AI so much, it became depedent on it, using it as a crutch, and human kind began to stagnate as robots took care of all our needs. And so the people rebelled, overthrew their opressors and destoryed all the advanced computing technology. They agreed to never create AI again and from then on to work on improving the humankind itself, with the commandement being encoded in religious scripture as: "Thou shall not make a machine in the likeness of the human mind" and being punishable by death, no exceptions, no excuses.

PART 1 - THE SHIELDS

So now that we have established the combat is always man-on-man, let's begin with the shields. Like many other sci-fi, Dune has energy shields. They utilize something called the "Holtzman Effect", that has something to do with how particles interact on subatomic scale. This effect is the basis for most of their advanced technology, including their FTL drives, the suspensors that allow hovercraft and people to levitate

Political offices in America are a lot like life peerages, because the officeholders can style themselves as "President", "Governor" or "Senator" for life, and the wives of Presidents and Governors derive the title of "First Lady" from their husbands. Burke's Peerage records the male-line descendants of all Presidents, and the Social Register also admits a family upon the gaining of the presidency.

Some states, like Kentucky, grant military-style titles to civilians for Life (for example "Honorary Colonelcies"), which clearly are surrogates for titles of nobility, whose bestowal is banned by the Constitution as of now.

If America ever becomes a hereditary monarchy, it will most likely be an Empire. But what should be the titles of nobility outside the Royal Family, and how should they be inherited?

In my opinion, states should have the choice of adopting German-style sub-monarchies. The tier would depend on size. So we might have a Kingdom of Texas or Kingdom of California, but Delaware would be a Principialty or a Duchy.

Sub-state level monarchies are also possible. You can create well-deserving citizens Counts and give them Counties, for example.

But what would be the other titles of nobility, not associated with land?

And would they mirror the British system, in which only one person at a time can hold a given title, or the Continental, in which a title can multiply among all legitimate male-line descendants of the grantee?

In my opinion, a mixed approach could be followed here. While titles above Count or Earl could mirror British peerages, there should be a possibility to grant a title to be given to all male-line descendants. Owing to the many Germans who migrated to America, some of which brought German titles or just a "von", it should be possible to create a Baron and rule that all his sons, and unmarried daughters, should also be known as Barons and Baronesses.

In respect to Salic law, at least in the German tradition, a noble lady becomes a commoner woman and loses her nobility upon marrying a commoner. In that case, the Emperor (or state monarchs, if the power to grant nobility is delegated to them) would examine the man, and might find that he is worthy of being granted nobility himself.

Upon the establishment of the monarchy, male-line descendants of Presidents (or in the case of Washington of his adopted heir), Vice-Presidents, Governors, Lt. Governors and Officers who fought for the Union during the Revolutionary War should be elig

Hello everyone and welcome to the second Offseason Book Club! If you've read the book dive right in, and if you haven't I hope you won't be too squeamish about spoilers for 30-50 year old baseball history and join in as well.

#January Selection

A Whole Different Ball Game: The Inside Story of the Baseball Revolution ~ by Marvin Miller

For more than a century the owners of baseball franchises conducted their business like feudal barons, with the players in the role of serfs. This situation began to change in 1966, when the Major League Baseball Players Association was formed and Marvin Miller, who had been chief economist and assistant to the president of the steelworkers' union, became its first executive director. Here he recounts his experience in dealing with club owners and his success in winning a new role for the players. He helped virtually end the system that bound an athlete to one team forever, and thereby raised salaries enormously. Candid in his assessments of the characters involved in this drama, Mr. Miller is nonetheless generous in his comments about the ballplayers who made sacrifices for their union.

Book Club Schedule

• November/December: A's Bad as it Gets by John Robertson and Andy Saunders
• January 29th: A Whole Different Ball Game by Marvin Miller
• February 26th: The Only Rule is it Has to Work by Ben Lindberg and Sam Miller
• March 26th: Summerland by Michael Chabon

In V5, the players build their coterie sheet, that includes domain, which players can enhance by investing points. Does that mean that their domain is now collectively owned? Or does that mean that players live in a domain owned by their suzerain? Wouldn't it make more sense for each vampire to have their own separate domain?

And if all domains are collective, how does that fit in the city's power structure? Does the prince now delegate domains to groups instead of individual kindred? Or is it more like an informal thing?

Poll: https://strawpoll.de/7z38gse

The Scottish Feudal Barony is the only legally recognized dignity worldwide that can be transferred to any person, by way of freely appointing an heir or even selling the title. The holder of a Barony may style himself "The Most Honoured John Doe of Sampleton, Baron of Sampleton".

Lord Lyon Innes was notable for his very broad definition of nobility, and he stated that Scottish Feudal Barons are the equivalent of the heads of Continental baronial houses. Under his definition, upon buying a Barony, one attains the same rank as, for example, a German Freiherr. Lyon Innes even placed Feudal Barons above Knights and Baronets, making them the highest non-peerage rank and directly subordinate to Lords of Parliament, the Scottish equivalent of English and British Barons.

Subsequent Lyons have challenged Innes' views, especially after the Abolition of Feudal Tenure act separated Baronies from the caputs, or estates once connected to them, in 2004. Before 2004, buying a Baronial manor constituted you a Baron - now, Baronies are incorporeal dignities separate from the land, and are increasingly held by people without residence or any connection to Scotland.

The current Lyon sees the ownership of a Barony as a reason to grant somebody Scottish arms, but refuses to make mention of the Barony in the Letters Patent and thus does not add the traditional additaments, such as the Baronial Chapeau, the "coronet" used to signify the rank, to the arms anymore.

The British CILANE member association refuses to admit Feudal Barons, but, strictly speaking, could admit anybody who has arms in Britain.

What is your opinion on the nobiliary character of Baronies? Do you go with Innes, who made Barons the equivalent of continental Fideicommissum Barons (i.e. Barons passing by Primogeniture, as opposed to other Continental Barons whose children are all Barons and Baronesses) and their male-line descendants untitled noblemen (as any scottish Arminger, by his definition, is noble)? Or do you not recognize Feudal Barons as noble? Perhaps only Barons whose families held the titles before 2004, or only Barons who also own the caput and therefore would also be Barons before 2004, are noble?

In my opinion, the following compromise should be made. Any Feudal Baron who wishes to be recognized as noble must:

Promise to not alienate the Barony from his family, i.e. to prevent any further resale, Promise to inherit the Barony in imitation of usual Scots

EDIT: THANK YOU FOR THE STICKY, AND FOR THE GOLD!!!

It has come to my attention that some members of this subreddit decorate themselves with bought "certificates" and claim that they derive nobility from it. These certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on, for the operators of these websites do not and never had the right to bestow nobility.

The only titles of nobility worldwide that can be bought are Scottish feudal baronies, and even their ennobling character is under attack now that they are not connected to land anymore. Lord Lyon, the Scottish heraldic judge, is very reluctant to recognize owners of baronies; buying the mansion historically associated with it and the land surrounding it (the baronial caput) might help. Under some conditions you do get the right to call yourself "The Most Honourable John Doe of Sampleton, Baron of Sampleton", but organizations like CILANE are still very, very allergic to it unless you prove aristocratic heritage and character. By the way, the cheapest baronies start at $95.000, and they are regularly sold for multiple millions.

English "Manorial Lordships" are much less serious. Scottish "Lairdships" that seemingly give you the title of "Laird" for buying one square inch of land are an absolute rip-off. Even if you get the right to call yourself a "Laird", be aware of the fact that a person who owns three apartments he rents out, or the owner of the village pub are also "Lairds". "Laird" is the Scottish word for "Landlord".

In some republics, especially Germany, titles of nobility have become part of surnames. Thus, every year, thousands of people waste horrendous sums of money for an adoption. Adoption does not, and never constituted, a nobleman, for nobility is only inherited from a noble father to a biological, legitimate child. The only body that can make exceptions is the Deutsche Adelsrechtsausschuss. If you do not have a connection to the adopting family, do not have noble ancestors, are not a distinguished individual and are not the owner or future owner of a manor with a lot of land (preferably the family's manor), your chanc

[Edit: Argh. Duchy, not Dutchy.]

I'm trying to figure out the peerage system in Dune.

From what I can tell, a House Major is defined by having a siridar (planetary) fief, with the head of house deriving a title based on the size of the fief.

A House Minor would be closer to traditional feudalism, with a non-siridar fief on one planet.

AFAIK, in traditional feudalism, the basic unit is the barony. A county consists of multiple baronies, and a duchy consists of multiple counties.

So for a House Minor, a Ducal house wouldn't just outrank a Count or a Baron, it would also have more territory on a factor of scale.

But for siridar fiefs, it doesn't seem like they're organized the same way (with a siridar duchy including a gaggle of planets).

So I'm wondering if there's some quality of the planet that makes it a dutchy fief instead of a barony fief. Maybe size, population, or resources? Or location, perhaps being on a core guild trading route?

Or maybe the siridar holdings are based on something in addition to the size of the planetary fief, like maybe it's a matter of CHOAM placement or Landsraad votes?
That would mean that Caladan is a dutchy because it's ruled by the Atreides, and rather than the Atreides being dukes because they rule Caladan.

Anyhow, while I can think of a few possible explanations, I don't know if any of them are, you know, correct. Or even close.

This sub is understandably very dominated by talk about the show, but I thought people might want to talk about the books a bit as well. I haven't read a lot of the books in a very long time so some of my memory for some things is quite hazy but looking over the map and some of the early books some things really get under my skin about all of the open spaces on the map.

A Moth-eaten World: a Very Nerdy Look at WoT Demographics

You just have to take one look at the map of Randland to notice that something strange is going on demographically. The map is moth-eaten with huge holes in between the nations where no states exist. What’s going on here?

Everybody’s Dead Dave

Well, obviously, lots of people died. The Breaking of the World was not demographically ideal and that was followed by wars, unpleasant critters wandering around, bad weather, and disease. The normal consequences of civilizational collapse were compounded by a lot of additional supernatural suckage so a lot of people died.

DEMOGRAPHIC DECLINE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

So Randland having a pretty sparse population makes sense but the specific way that that population is distributed (functional Early Modernish states interspersed with land that is either empty or with a scattering of autonomous villages) is just something that we’ve NEVER seen in all of human history. You just never get the sort of moth-eaten map that Randland has, it’s deeply weird.

To explain why Randland is so weird, if you look at history, states and even entire civilizations collapse plenty in human history, but usually in the wake of that collapse you get successor states. Maybe smaller, maybe weaker, but SOMETHING that replaces the old order. You do get things like the Bronze Age Collapse in which cities and writing disappear from the periphery and large organized states cease to exist while the center at least partially holds on, but that doesn’t give you a checkerboard of functional states and land “with none in authority above a mayor or a Town Council.” You do also get examples in which a whole society implodes and you even get farming societies replaced by hunter-gatherers but we don’t get that in Randland either and even the greatest die-offs of human population (such as what happened in the Americas in the wake of the Columbian Exchange) don’t give you the kind of persistent empty areas that Elyas talks about when he says, "The way you're going, you can travel all the way to the Spine of the World

The United Empire, sometimes called "Hegemon of the East", is a vast, powerful and heavily industrialised country at the Far East, dominating a land equals to 10 million square kilometers. It is a weird case since the country is both "united" and "divided" at the same time. At the same time, it is a democratic federation and the last feudal empire, a military dictatorship but also a consitutional mornachy with an elected parliament and civil government. Things that shouldn't exist in the same gov actually fits in here.

The Empire consists of 7 constituent countries, all with their own authorities and sovereignties. However, they all answer to the Imperial Capital Đông Kinh, and by the 1560 Constitution, their political powers are decreased drastically. The most important thing is the shift from a confederation to a federation, where they can not secede by the laws. This is the lesson they learnt after the collapse and eventually "a thousand years in slavery" of Hồng Bàng Confederacy, the Empire's northern predecessor that fought a civil war with many fiefdoms retreated and was conquered by "Northern barbarians". The 7 lands, called Grand Territories, include:

• Empire of Đại Việt, capital Đông Kinh.
• Grand Principality of Tây Việt, capital Vân Châu.
• Principality of U Minh, capital Bình Sa.
• Grand Ducy of Linh Giang, capital Bạch Hạc.
• Grand Duchy of Bồn Điện, capital Đế Ly.
• Grand Duchy of Ai Lao, capital Vạn Tượng.
• Grand Duchy of Viễn Tây, capital Lã Sa (some old documents write as Lạp Sa, both names are equally legal).

As the names suggest, these lands are ruled by the Emperor, Grand Prince, Prince and Grand Dukes. They're the highest levels that can rule over such vast territories. In fact, except for U Minh, all other lands are founded after the formation of the Empire. The old U Minh consists of itself, Ai Lao and Bồn Điện as a powerful kingdom that emerged as the sole hegemon, while Đại Việt, Tây Việt and Linh Giang are old regions of Hồng Bàng Confederacy. Viễn Tây used to be called the Great Tufan Empire but it was conquered after the rulers backstabbed and attacked U Minh army in their joint expedition against the Liang Zhou Dynasty, at that time was ruling over Hồng Bàng.

Currently, the nobility hierachy of the Empire is ranked as below, from highest to lowest:

• Monarch: The "neuter gender" noun for ruler. Both emperors and empresses, as long as they are the ruler, are called monarch. This is not the same if the empres

So I'm looking for a cheap bare land section.... real estate web site turns up place in mt lyford. Drive through 140km of sparsely utilised farm land. Marginal ground hills and mountains all over the place... No sections for sale. Reach Mt Lyford.... A whole bunch tiny over priced sections one on top of each other. "Adventure" park At the top off the road charges you to exist on their soil. We're serfs in a feudal society run by land barons so rich in land, yet they disdain to even sell us crumbs.

I personally feel that any English government after the Magna Carta is illegitimate, since it left the compromised by baronial influence.

No hate if you feel otherwise, just trying to see how you all feel.