Poll: https://strawpoll.de/rg24785
Now that the parliamentary privileges of hereditary peers are decreasing and one can expect for the House of Lords to turn into a life peer-only House in the next decades, the question arises of whether hereditary rather than life dignities, now not attached to any privileges except for the usage of a certain title, heraldic supporters etc... would become more legitimate once again.
The King of Belgium regularly grants hereditary nobility to distinguished statesmen, officers, entrepreneurs and scientists. While titles like Baron or Count are usually personal, all male-line descendants of an ennobled person are nobles of the rank Ecuyer, comparable to the cadet descendants of British peers who may call themselves members of the Gentry and are generally considered aristocrats. And sometimes, distinguished families that were ennobled one or two generations ago are promoted to Baronial rank, where all male-line descendants of the progenitor, or by primogeniture always the eldest sons of eldest sons, are also Barons.
In my opinion, the Monarch should once again begin to use his fount of honour to the fullest extent, by:
-
Resuming the granting of hereditary peerages, and of baronetcies, to distinguished British and Commonwealth citizens, and
-
Taking more control of these grants, by replacing the Prime Ministerial advice with a purely nonpartisan body like in Belgium.
What is your opinion on this?
-
Would Queen Elizabeth or, after his ascension to the Throne, King Charles, be able to execute such a reform?
-
What would be the implications of resuming the granting of hereditary peerages?
In my opinion, new hereditary peerages would also make discussions on changing succession rules less acute.
-
When a hereditary peerage is about to go extinct, a new one of a similar name can be created for a daughter or for a female-line descendant.
-
Theoretically, all newly-created hereditary peerages could have a Scottish-style remainder to male-preference, or Spanish-style remainder to absolute primogeniture.
The main advantages of hereditary ennoblements in Belgium are:
-
There are less violations of nobiliary law than in countries where the nobility is closed, as there are simply less reasons to pretend to a title when one can be earned by service for the fatherland.
-
The substantial, albeit purely "ceremonial" honor, becoming hereditary, instills in a family a culture of perpetual excellence and achievement, rat
One of my problems in understanding Chinese history is the titles of nobility. Everyone understands the Imperial "Emperor" title, but a lot of the other ones don't match up well. Is there a chart that shows the Chinese title and what the equivalent English title is? I'm thinking, what is the Chinese equivalent of a "Duke", "Baron", "Lord", etc.
I was a vasal of the southern empire, given large swathes of khuzait territory. Loyalty in my fiefs was abysmal because I was the wrong culture, so I filled my followers with khuzaits to be governors. I executed monchug and his entire urkhun clan because I was tired of their constant raids, but as a result the whole world hates me. I declared independence from the southern empire knowing full well that no lord would voluntarily join me with just low opinion. But in the end it didn't matter because I could just grant Peerage to my khuzait followers. I conquered all of the khuzait lands and made peers out of any khuzait wanderers I could kind. Now I am the ruler of the steppe with no risk of rebellion and several newly formed clans at my back. And every peer I make opens up a new slot for another follower. I can absolutely see this pattern continue through all of calradia, regardless of culture.
I have a ton of questions about how peerage systems worked in the Medieval period in Europe. Let me first start off by saying that I know that there were many different ones in different kingdoms or at different times within the same kingdom, so a one-size fits all answer will be quite flexible.
If you have a peerage system with an Emperor outranking a King, who outranks a Duke, who outranks a Marquis who outranks a Count, who outranks a Viscount, who outranks a Baron, how does the apportionment of landholdings work? Like, what made a duchy more significant or desireable than a march, or a county more desireable than a barony? And what role did a viscount have at court? Could any noble holdings be within another, higher ranking noble's holdings, like a barony within a county within a duchy?
As I understand it, the king rules a single kingdom, and a emperor is entitled when they rule a kingdom and conquer another kingdom and or multiple duchies, making their domain an empire, but I'm not certain beyond that. Did the king own all land in their kingdom, and had the authority to demote or elevate nobles as they saw fit?
What was the significance of a duchy, aside from, at least at one time, being one of the most prosperous parts of a kingdom? What made a duchy and its noble lord politically significant enough that a duchy could exist outside of a recognized kingdom such that there were independant duchies that weren't vassal states to a kingdom throughout various points in European history? What was a march, and why was it of greater importance than a county? What was the significance of a barony?
Also, were there any significant strong ties between knighthoods and peerages? Did every barony need to supply at least one knight or rather a squire to the king per year? Was there any relation between a baron/barony and a baronet? Were baronets knights who earned themselves a non-hereditary landholding by service to the king, roughly as important as a barony?
Oftentimes it seems that the grant or “promotion” to another title in the peerage is separate from land itself, e.g., when a king makes an earl into a marquess, they’re not necessarily giving them a special marquisate-sized tranche of lands to go along with it.
Was there any benefit to being a higher rank of nobility other than getting to demand others call you that rank and being technically higher in the order of precedence?
What really comes to mind is how the various Lord Protectors during the reign of Edward VI kept making themselves dukes (and then getting themselves executed) - why were they doing this at all? Wasn’t publicly “promoting” themselves much more blatant and even more likely to arouse the ire of other noblemen (as opposed to quietly granting themselves more land or straightforward embezzlement of state finances)?
I really enjoy Austen, Brontë, Gaskell, Dickens and spend a lot of time researching that time period. I’d love some recommendations on more historical books on the peerage or even certain titles (specifically the Duke of Devonshire) and haven’t been able to find anything like a comprehensive history of the Dukes of Devonshire. Any suggestions?
#Hello everyone!
An update from TaleWorlds about some upcoming and recent additions to the game!
##INTRO
Greetings warriors of Calradia!
The past few patches contained some significant updates to the game, multiplayer in particular, so with e1.6.4 now live, we wanted to share a Development Update video to highlight some of the new additions that you can jump in and experience straight away!
##MULTIPLAYER CUSTOMISATION SYSTEM (e1.6.2)
e1.6.2 saw the introduction of a new multiplayer customisation system that rewards you with Loot simply for playing the game.
Loot can be used to unlock different armours and clothing for your character and troops, allowing you to customise the appearance of each troop for each faction, while still retaining the look and feel of the selected class and culture.
Additionally, Loot can be used to unlock various Sigils to display on your banner and shield.
This update allows you to inject more of your own personality into your multiplayer character and will, in time, allow friends and foes to identify you on the battlefield from your appearance alone.
##MULTIPLAYER CHEERS (e1.6.3)
With e1.6.3, two additional multiplayer updates arrived to help you when it comes to further expressing yourself and communicating with other players.
Cheers are short animations that can be used to encourage your teammates or taunt your opponents in equal measure, allowing you to celebrate those special moments and acknowledge other players in a more personal way.
##MULTIPLAYER SHOUTS (e1.6.3)
And alongside Cheers we have Shouts.
Shouts have a more direct impact on gameplay as they allow you to quickly and effectively communicate with your teammates using a selection of preset commands.
##MULTIPLAYER MVP (e1.6.3) If you plan to peacock around in your shiny new gear, shouting and cheering, then you need to be able to prove that you’re worth your salt. The addition of the most valuable player award in e1.6.3 allows you to do just that, by highlighting the standout player from each team every roun
... keep reading on reddit ➡This question is asked purely for fun, please treat it as so. Be good to eachother.
Imagine if the Board of Directors changed the rules to allow kingdom crowns to be won by other peerages than the Chivalry. This might be an A&S tournament for Laurels, some sort of moot for Pelicans, and of course rapier tourneys for MoDs, but replace those with better systems if you have one in your head.
What changes do you think this would cause for the various peerages (including Chivalry)? How do you think it would change the Society as a whole? What do you think we might gain or lose on a different model?
The latest proposal from the BoD is to make an omnibus peerage that people can split off of, if there are enough peers in a subject. Now obviously this is intended as a way to allow for new martial peerages, but the proposal states it isn't just limited to martial pursuits.
What other groups could you see getting peerages and splitting off? Bards who feel unsupported by the current structure? Making Herald Extraordinary a peerage? Obviously this is all just for fun and it remains to be seen if this proposal even happens.
If yes, who should, in your opinion, receive one?
If the political trend continues, Hereditary Peers might lose their last foothold in the House of Lords, which will become an organ of only Life Peers.
Shouldn't this make granting hereditary than life titles more legitimate in the eyes of the politicians?
The King of Belgium regularly confers hereditary nobility to distinguished citizens, it is certainly not an outdated practice.
