Ya got yer Lords, Dukes, Earls, Barons, Counts and Viscounts, Princes and Princesses.
Then you got Kings and Queens, Emperors and Empresses.
What decides who is what?
I always figured the one with the most swords gets to be king and he decides the rest.
Tsk tsk hung mung… tsk tsk. You also forget the many “advisers” appointed to the young noble heirs, and if they were to be corrupt they could force their desire upon the young one…
It is much more complicated that the king just “decides the rest”. Did you account the other families involved when arranging the marriages? Or what about the kings commanders? Surely they appoint the ones under them.
That is a completely asinine statement to assume such a thing. A public execution is in order, or we shall denounce him to be the court jester…
In medieval Europe generally speaking the title ‘Emperor’ orginally denoted a claim to be a successor state to the Roman Empire. So for example the Holy Roman Empire claimed to be the successor state to the Western Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire claimed to be the successor state to the Eastern Roman Empire (with some accuracy as it was the direct continuation of the Eastern Empire). Later claims of imperial title were often claimed by those claiming to be successor states: the Russian Empire claimed to be the successor to the Byzantine empire (Tsar = Caesar) and the German Empire claimed to be the successor to the Holy Roman Empire (Kaiser = Caesar). Various other rulers who styled themselves as ‘Emperor’ or equivalent also claimed their imperial status (more or less) through similiar claimed connections (for example the Bulgarian Tsar claimed his imperial title directly from the Byzantine empire and the first Austro-Hungarian Emperor was also the last Holy Roman Emperor).
Also though as an empire was recognized to be a loosely speaking a nation-state who exercised some sort of power over nation states other European monarchs took on the title of emperor to lesser or greater degrees, often just to claim equal-standing with the Holy Roman Emperor. As European countries gained overseas empires again the title was often used to lesser or greater degrees.
Obviously a king was a generic ruler, but recognition title also depended on the size and importance of the territories they ruled and the degree of control they exerted over that territory with rulers of lesser territories and/or rulers who were vassals of other rulers sometimes being demoted to prince. The Holy Roman Empire formalized the various levels of different royalty and nobility, with the higher ranks being greatly sought after. Outside of the Holy Roman Empire the local rulers assigned ranks to their noble caste and often complex hierarchies evolved over time.
As Europe gradually came in to contact with the rest of the World it transposed its own system of rulers onto the local rulers.
To somewhat modify the preceding post:
Ranks did not “come down from the top”. They were create organically over time, and not by monarchical fiat, although what exactly each rank meant varied with locality, culture, law, and time. Not all ranks were equal, and not all of them co-existed.
The Duke, for example, came directly from the Latin Dux, a title denoting major military commanders in the late empire. And indeed, some of the Duchies, if not necessarily individual Dukes, could indeed trace ther history of their positions back to the Roman Empire. Even in the more Germanicized north, conquerers quite often took on titles and posts of the conquered.
Earls are basically equal to Dukes, but the Earl, from the Norse Eorl, was mostly shoved aside in England in favor of Duchies after the Normal Invasion, although you can still find Earls and Earldoms. In many cases the differences between any given title are largely historical; people in one spot were called something and in another something else, so there’s no such thing as a universally consistent rank even in one nation.
Likewise, the role and title are essentially the same: A count rules a County, and he’s a COunt because he rules a County. Baron == Barony, Duke ==- Duchy. Even if the family later expanded their holdings, they might or might not get fancier titles to go with it, depending on how and when they did so. And then you get into the varied local customs on whom held what title, and how people moved up the social ladder (which was quite possible; Italy was a hotspot for it). Note, too, that the farther back you go, the less important a title was. There might not be much differences in social status, equipment, or training in 800 AD between a wandering mercenary band and the Duke who hired them to round out his army. he was a Duke because he was powerful enough to be one; the mercenaries might join him, rise in esteem, and become major landholders after a successful campaign. It was only over time that law and custom became a major aspect, which became more and more a civilian title with a specific legal aspect.
I disagree with that a little bit: whilst the titles themselves evolved naturally and were more fluid and rank less strict in the earlier medieval period, rank was very important in medieval Europe and by the time the concept of nobility ceased to become important very strict hierarchies had evolved and their evolution was greatly in control of the local ruler. For example the Norman Barons mostly displaced the Anglo Saxon Earls as the highest rank in England when William I invaded (though for various reasons an Earl now out ranks a Baron in England)
For example in the UK there is a strict rank that ranks many thousands of supposedly (in practice of course the rankings don’t mean much in themselves) the most important people from top to bottom.
It was quite possible for a lower ranked noble to hold more lands, be richer and hold more influence and power than a higher ranked noble, but it was still expected that the lower rank noble would treat the higher rank noble in accordance with their rank. This of course though could be the source of friction though and the start of many feudal conflicts.
Here’s the Wikion the English Peerage. It has some specific answers, but not all. And only for England, of course.
(…wales and scotland and parts of ireland too, I think)
No, Earls are the British equivalent to Counts, and even in Britain, a female holding an earldom is a Countess, not an Earless. There are plenty of Earls, and they are definitely inferior to Dukes.
I’ve always found this articleto be as definitive as you can get.
That was a Norman innovation ( equating earls and counts in rank ). Previously they were closer to continental dukes ( actually contemporary chroniclers referred to them as such in Latin ), as were Scandinavian jarls. Anglo-Saxon earls typically ruled over multiple shires as seen here in this map of pre-Conquest earldoms, whereas Norman earls were generally associated with just one.
“Lord” isn’t an actual rank. It’s a mode of address.
Except in Scotland.
Bass-ackwards: it’s called a County because it’s ruled by a Count. “Count” is from Latin comes meaning a companion of the emperor; and this title would be given out by kings to those landholders/military commanders (those two being necessarily the same thing, as holding territory required command of some armed force) who were their “good friends”.
Well, in general, emperors, kings, and popes bestow the lower titles. Though there are exceptions.
The Grimaldi family, through force of arms, acquired possession of Monaco. Whether Monaco was a Genoese colony, or a French province, or a Spanish province, was not entirely clear. From 1297 to 1612 they were Lords of Monaco. After 1612, they started calling themselves Princes of Monaco. By playing the French and Spanish kings against each other, they managed to get international recognition as an independent country, and the princely title.
By playing the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Poland against each other, the Hohenzollerns managed to get themselves elevated from margraves to kings.
By playing the Holy Roman Empire and the French Empire against each other, the rulers of Bavaria and Wurttemburg got themselves elevated from dukes to kings.
And then there is the story of the Thirty Years War, in which the dukes, princes, and margraves of the Holy Roman Empire started the war as vassals of the emperor, and ended the war as rulers of sovereign states. (But still under the emperor. The HRE was a weird construction.)
I’ve another question about noble nomenclature.
Some sources claim that when the “King of the French” (or West Franks) became “King of France”, a major change occurred. That a King of a People was rule of, by and for the people, but that when that King became King of a Territory, he was God’s Steward and his power came from Divine Right, rather than any consent of the governed. Was this indeed a seminal change in medieval perceptions?
On a separate matter, I’d been confused by the Bible, 1 Chronicles 1:51 where
No over-king is mentioned; so why are these “dukes instead of Kings”? (The question may address notions of medieval translaters rather than the Bible, but that is the topic under discussion.) Other translations are different, and I’ve concluded that the passage means that after Adad, Edom was ruled by several “dukes” concurrently rather than a single King. Correct?
I don’t know about medieval practices, but the theory was somewhat popular in the 18th Century and 19th Century. That’s why Napoleon took the title “Emperor of the French” instead of “Emperor of France”. Also, the Belgian monarch’s formal title is “King of the Belgians, Prince of Belgium, Duke of etc.”
When Germany was unified, there was a big argument over whether the monarch would be “Emperor of Germany” or “Emperor of the Germans”. They eventually compromised with “German Emperor”.
Personally, I think the shift in nomenclature had less to do with political theory, and more to do with whether you were leader of a nomadic tribe, or leader of a settled state.