I apologize if I'm bringing up an old and sore topic but I need some help trying to reconcile the Great Families of Furyondy with any logical order of precedence. I'd like to keep this constructive so please try to avoid Sargent- bashing.
In this nation we have seven great nobles who share equal power and prominence in the Furyondian order of precedence: The Barony of Kalinstren, the County of Crystalreach, the Duchy of the Reach, the Barony of Willip, the Gold County, the Barony of Littleberg, and the Viscounty of the March. In any "real-world" order, this doesn't work as far as I can tell.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Using an English model, the general way it ought to go is: King, Duke, Marquess, Count/ Earl, Viscount, Baron. Baronet, Knight. So, does this mean that Littleberg, Kalinstren and Willip lack any nobles of higher rank than Baronet? The same goes for the rest- Would the Gold County, for instance, be limited to Viscount and below?
My instinct is to go with inventing a new title in the order of precedence. Some kind of name meaning Dynastic Head, but more flowery. I've had trouble thinking of a name for it though. Maybe simply adding the prefix Arch before each title whenever official proclamations are made? Everyone knows that Baron Butrain is actually say, Archbaron Butrain but it is shortened for ease except whenever a regular Viscount, Count is standing in front of him.
It looks like your confusing baronets with barons or baronies. Baronets are not barons, and they’re not necessarily higher on the list than knights; a baronet is a hereditary knighthood, and while a baronet would be higher than most knights bachelor, a knight banneret (made by the king) and knights of certain orders would be superior. Baronets and knights are not peers; they all would reside in the area controlled by a baron or higher. Littleberg, Kalinstren and Willip are all baronies, so the noble in charge would be a baron.
I think feudal precedence was, in practice, much more vague and flexible than you might think. Depending on who was enfiefed to whom, a baron could be as powerful as a duke (or as a king, in certain situations). A feudal title isn't exactly like a military title, where it always means the same thing and the only way to become as powerful as a captain is to be given the title of captain. It's something that you inherit generations or centuries later, and it isn't necessarily changed even if the fief you rule is much larger, smaller, or more or less prominent than the one your ancestor was given.
The title of "baron" initially, during the reign of William I, meant that the noble had pledged his loyalty to the king directly, and it was as powerful a title as any other.
I think in practice, most feudal titles can be interchangeable. If Furyondy has established a more formal and rigorous peerage system like that in modern Britain, it might be another matter, but I don't think they have. The various provinces of Furyondy were organized into baronies, counties, vicounties, and duchies for historical reasons which must have seemed very important at the time, but are less so now.
I misunderstood the original post.
Sargent’s work can’t really be reconciled with real world order of precedence, so if you want to stick to it, don’t try to make it work. Just go with rasgon’s suggestion; the baronies, counties, etc. were set up under Aerdian rule, and the titles are now maintained for traditional reasons.
Good question. Yeah, Rasgon has it. Everyone who matters knows that Baron Soandso is as a powerful or even more so than Count Whatisname so it doesn't really matter what the title is as long as they are peers. IMO the only time it probably would matter is at the point of the creation of a title. If the king decided to reorganize some lands and name one of his favorites Duke of Thingambob that could be a statement of relative favor compared to all the existing counts, earls and barons.
BTW baronet is a fairly modern title created by James I as a way of raising cash. Doesn't mean you can't use it but it doesn't show up in the list of titles in the WoGG. There are several rankings of knights given and one might be used as an equivalent.
The various provinces of Furyondy were organized into baronies, counties, vicounties, and duchies for historical reasons which must have seemed very important at the time, but are less so now.
I just noticed this too, Slavers dates the Gold County from the days of the Viceroyalty of Ferrond. Dyvers was part of it. Given the location of Dyvers compared to the modern boundaries of Gold County it wouldn't be hard to assume that some of the old Gold County lands now make up part of the western Barony of Willip.
Yes, the various provinces *won't* have any nobles of higher rank than the titles of the provinces(county-count, barony, baron, etc.).
It is of note that regardless of the titles of the provincial rulers, they all hold equal power and status on the ruling council. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I don't know so much about in England, but on the continent it was not uncommon for a person to hold more than one Title. You could be prince of one place, a Duke of two other provinces and a count somewhere else. I don't think the titles had as much to do with peerage level as they did with the amount of land that came with them. Duchies tended to be a lot bigger than a barony or a county or, as was often the case earlier on in the Middle ages, a Duchy would be made up of several counties which in turn would be comprised of Baronies and so on down the feudal chain. After the renaissance when mercantile factors became more important than the land itself is when titles started to lose there original meanings. But even in medieval england the Barons wielded considerable power and influence over the king.
One should remember that the original peerage system of Furyondy came from the Great Kingdom and according to ItU; military and economic power is far more important then the actual title of a noble. ItU actually mocks the many "penniless princes" found within the GK. So the actual title doesn't particularily reflect the military and economic power of the noble. The seven families deal with each other as noble equals regardless of title.
I have found an interesting excerpt that could be used as a historical basis for the relevance of the titles. (Paraphrase; Roman or French historical origin)
Baron: Held land direct from the crown for military service; also given miltary govenorship responsibilites.
Duke: Appointed commander of all the troops contained in a military territory, given authority to lead military expeditions.
Count: Appointed by a king to defend a settled locality, a countship. main area of duties concerned with the monetary fiscal matters of the realm.
Viscount: A trusted appointee of the king awarded royal jurisdiction to hold a "viscountship" or "viscounty", or other area.
Perhaps a kernel of truth within the titles can shed light of how the earliest monarchs viewed threats to the kingdom upon creation of the provinces rather then concerns about peerage ranks. Nuisances in the titles; as I view them
Baron: Militarily Aggressive
Count: Militarily Defensive and Economic
Duke: Militarily Very Aggressive
Viscount: Trusted Administrator
Furyondy; The Barony of Kalinstren, the County of Crystalreach, the Duchy of the Reach, the Barony of Willip, the Gold County, the Barony of Littleberg, and the Viscounty of the March.
The Barony of Kalinstren: Rumbles of northen discontent and perrenland rebellion would necessitate an aggressive military presence.
The County of Crystalreach: Given the defensive value of the Veng more of a defensive mentality developed.
The Duchy of the Reach: Hardest to square but perhaps the decision to release veluna and highfolk had not been made plus the southern presence of keoland could convince the monarch that a strong military presence; able to march abroad was needed. The historical reason for the bootmen.
The Barony of Willip: Miltary presence given the naval importance of the Nyr Dyv and the naval fleet.
The Gold County: Far from the borders and it is still considered the economic heart of the kingdom.
The Barony of Littleberg: Another tough province but its central location within the kingdom does provide a rationale for a military presence. Due to its central location troops can be sent in various directions to reinforce other provinces on the borders of the kingdom.
The Viscounty of the March: Given its location so near to the capital and since the province is between the three baronial provinces. It makes sense to have a trusted noble within this province perhaps the monarch wasn't so comfortable with baronial provinces so near the capital and wanted a trusted noble with his provincial troops near in case of problems.
This is longer then I had planned; sorry about that
Feel free to rip apart - I won't mind; in fact I encourage it.
Since I am currently reading Nigel Tranter's excellent trilogy on Robert the Bruce and this has given me new take on feudal nobility I thought I'd throw in my two pence worth.
A noble's title is generally far less relevant than the relative wealth of his lands, the number of men he can therefore raise from them and the titles granted him by the King. The County of Crystalreach would, even pre-Wars, have been raided from the (then) Horned Society and would now see frequent raids from Iuz. This would deprive people along the Veng River of stability and often of their harvested crops, the noble's primary source of wealth. The Count may though, be given the title of Warden of the Eastmarch for example to raise his status. The Viscounty of the March on the other hand, while ruled in theory by a lower ranking noble, is a larger fief and includes some of the richer heartlands of the kingdom. The ruler may therefore be loaning a lot of his junior knights and their associated men at arms to his neighbour in Crystalreach to shore up the Veng border, increasing his relative power.
Similarly the King may grant the title of Lord High Admiral to the ruler of either the Barony of Willip or the Gold County to boost their prestige and power. Of course, whether titles such as these have any true power is up to you. The UK has had (and still does have) many royal titles that are purely ceremonial and have no real power whatsoever.
In this nation we have seven great nobles who share equal power and prominence in the Furyondian order of precedence: The Barony of Kalinstren, the County of Crystalreach, the Duchy of the Reach, the Barony of Willip, the Gold County, the Barony of Littleberg, and the Viscounty of the March. In any "real-world" order, this doesn't work as far as I can tell.
Correct me if I'm wrong. . . .
You are not wrong. You are correct. It makes zero sense. Oh, you can rationalize it in any number of ways but it makes zero objective sense from the standpoint of English heraldic precedence and peerage law. It is for this reason, among others, that IMC I instituted a Furyondian Civil War (variously submitted to Canonfire in some topical submissions); it was an opportunity to reshuffle the deck and make the Furyondian peerage make objective sense.
NB - French precedence would be in accord with the English in the main. German and Italian less so but then neither had a strong central goverment in many periods, both being famously confederations or not of largely independent nobles much of the time. Charitably, maybe that was what Sargent was going for but that is not how Furyondy is described.
Death to Belvor the Undying! Long live, King Artur! _________________ GVD
The titles are of course not equal by any means, but the holders of the titles do have equal power by way of an agreement made with the King and among themselves. I read the reference for this in the last week, but I can't recall where it is at the moment(most likely in The Marklands).
Oh, and you are on CRACK! Artur Jakartai is not only a foreigner, but a halfwit! Nobody in their right mind would support him for king! What do you think this is, the Great Kingdom? _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
The titles are of course not equal by any means, but the holders of the titles do have equal power by way of an agreement made with the King and among themselves. I read the reference for this in the last week, but I can't recall where it is at the moment(most likely in The Marklands).
"One point of precedence which is very important to the Seven Families is that their formal titles (Baron, Count, or Viscount) are not important. They are regarded as equals in rank, above everyone except the king. This is an exception to the usual niceties of life in Furyondy, where social rank and title is of great importance among the elite."
From p. 4 of Marklands. I emphasized the last sentence because it does indicate that this is an exception to the norm, although this has apparently been the situation from the early history of the kingdom if not the beginning -
"Furyondy‘s lands were ruled by seven noble houses during those early times. Six of those families survive today." p. 3 of Marklands. There's more there emphasizing the increasing power of the the Seven families at the expense of the kings. I think that bit about the seven being only six today must be a typo or something.
Another thing from Slavers I noticed was that Gold County is mentioned in the same paragraph as Thrommel I being a count so it would be easy to assume that he was the Count of Gold. Maybe the Rhavelle's have some relation to the royal family?
Oh, and you are on CRACK! Artur Jakartai is not only a foreigner, but a halfwit! Nobody in their right mind would support him for king! What do you think this is, the Great Kingdom?
Okay. So his INT is 6. Nothing a few ioun stones, some magic regalia or an awaken spell can't fix. And think of the plot hooks if King Artur is magically dependent! But there are more mundane possibilities.
Good advisors.
That high WIS compensating - Artur knowing when to zig rather than zag - or an innate sense of the moment.
Or Artur having one area of particular brilliance, even if he is otherwise dull.
Or some combination.
But anyway, not every ruler needs to be a Da Vinci. Few have been. And some rather dull witted sorts have lead major nations, superpowers even, without wrecking the ship of state. ::cough:: ::cough:: Some have even proved "able dunces."
As for being a foreigner, off the top of my head, Britain has seen more than its share of foreign sovereigns - to include some whose command of English was second rate. No problem here.
However one wishes to slice it, King Artur is not an impossibility nor an implausibility. Does Artur start somewhat behind? Sure. That doesn't mean he can't come from behind to win out in the end. And wouldn't that make a fine tale to tell? As a DM, that happens to be in my line. _________________ GVD
One point of precedence which is very important to the Seven Families is that their formal titles (Baron, Count, or Viscount) are not important. They are regarded as equals in rank, above everyone except the king. This is an exception to the usual niceties of life in Furyondy, where social rank and title is of great importance among the elite."
From p. 4 of Marklands. I emphasized the last sentence because it does indicate that this is an exception to the norm, although this has apparently been the situation from the early history of the kingdom if not the beginning -
"Furyondy‘s lands were ruled by seven noble houses during those early times. Six of those families survive today." p. 3 of Marklands. There's more there emphasizing the increasing power of the the Seven families at the expense of the kings. I think that bit about the seven being only six today must be a typo or something.
Nice post was going to cite the page 4 reference myself.
I just have a funny vision of Artur sitting on his throne literally glowing with magic. When his duties are over, he doffs all of his "regalia" and settles in for the evening.
"It is said that the king is not much of one for conversation at the end of the day."
How did you have him become king though? Did he marry into the noble family that had the most direct claim on the throne after the death of the heirless Belvor? they're not jus going to give it to him you know. He's lord of a province that was laid waste during the war, and is not yet even fully recovered. His military might is a necessity seen by the other lords, but without aid from the other lords he (and Furyondy) would likely be doomed. And its not like the peasants are clamoring to go north and resettle in Crystalreach, which is still the site of endless skirmishes and raids. Without a good peasant population, supplies and other goods will have to come from elsewhere. Add to that the lingering level of trust between Furyondians and Shield Landers, and the disdain that the Knights of the Hart hold the Shield Knight in(which Artur is one of), and it's not really a winning recipe to be king.
On another note, Furyondy is seemingly this very feudal state, but it really isn't as described. It is more similar to the parliament system, with titular noble head. The way the noble Council is described they have sworn anything but fealty to the king. I'm not too keen on that, and so I don't use the noble Council in that way. In my campaign, the nobles are beholden to the king, though not his lapdogs by any means. The king can make reasonable demands of them in his capacity as the ultimate authority in the land. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
The articles on the Knights of Fury and Furyondian Nobility add some further detail. The "mystery" of Artur's INT is not directly addressed, as I see it as a non-issue. IMO, Artur's high WIS makes up for a good deal of the difficulty. Good advisors do the rest. And IMO he has a knack for military matters, however much his brow furrows when talk turns to literature, music, economics or just about anything else. Artur is good in a fight and knows how to lead men from the front, as this is Furyondy continually threatened by Iuz, the rest sorts itself out as Artur has good advisors to handle the rest. _________________ GVD
You just couldn't pass up the King Arthur similarity; Artur = Arthur.
Knights of Fury = Round Table.
For all the reasons Cebrion mentioned I just don't see it unless Artur stages a coup backed by shield land exiles; even his loyal Furyondian troops would not back a play for the throne. Not to mention Artur himself would have too have a radical shift alignment - a coup against his rightful monarch is hardly a lawful act.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
