Is there any rhyme or reason to royal titles? There are kings, dukes, counts, barons, marquis, earls and several others, I’m sure. But are they organized in any way that makes sense? What is the relationship between a king, a duke, a count, a baron, etc?
Here’s a link that may help Hereditory Titles and Peerage explained
Also, you seem to be confusing royalty and nobility.
Royals will often old titles of nobility at the same time.
In england, nobility titles are duke, baron, viscount, marquise (spelling?), lord, um, earl…etc etc.
In other countries, the title of prince/princess could also be a title of nobility-such as your Eastern European monarchies.
Royal titles were mostly king, duke, prince, grand duke, archduke, emperor, etc etc.
Nobility, as per Brit/French/Spanish, in descending order:
Duke, Marquis, Count(=Earl), Viscount, Baron
In Britain they are addressed as “Lord (family/house name)” or “Lady (family/house name)” Brits have some additional titles that are not quite peers, such as baronet.
“Knight” is an individually-earned dignity, though in feudal times USED to be reseved to those born of “noble blood.” Among the Brits they are addressed as “Sir (firstname) or Dame (firstname)”
As pointed out, in these countries, “Prince(ss)” and “Royal Duke/Duchess” are titles of royalty (form of address: Your Royal Highness), held by direct immediate relatives of a monarch (who could be, bit aren’t necesarily, in line of succession). In other places you rank as “Prince,” if you are nobility and in direct genealogy, however far, from royalty.
The ranking order (duke/marques/count/viscount/baron) has been given by another poster.
The duke was originally in charge of the armies. A kind of military governor having authority over a large region of the kingdom.
The marques was the same but only in border provinces.
The count was a civil servant, appointed by the king to represent him and manage civil matters (taxes, justice) on his behalf in a given province (there would be several such counties in the “military region” under the authority of a duke)
The viscount was a vice-count, who represented the count in subdivisions of the county.
All these persons were chosen, named and revoked by the king at will. Quite similar to our modern civil servants. Only when the states decayed into feodality (9°-10° century) the titles became hereditary and the corresponding families retained complete control over the lands they originally held only temporarily and in behalf of the king. They became vassals owning fiefs instead of civil servants representing him. Then only the concept of nobility appeared.
The names duke and count have a roman etymology, AFAIK. Someone else will certainly be able to give it. The name marques comes from the germanic word for boundary.
The hierarchy between them comes mostly from the fact that a dukedom would include several counties and a county several viscounties. Don’t know why the marques has been placed below the duke.
I’m not really sure when the word “baron” appeared. But it was a more generic term. After the feodal system and the concept of nobility appeared, any major noble land-owner would be a baron. In this sense, a duke would be also a baron. But so would be some important land owner who wouldn’t have any title. So, eventually, it would become a title on its own. Its lower rank is easy to understand, since one would call himself baron only if he had no other more prestigious title. It’s a “default” nobility title.
The word “prince” comes from the latin “princeps” which means “the first”. Were princes those who had nobody above them, who were the first in their lands. In feodal terms, those who weren’t vassals of a king (but a king himself would be prince in his kingdom). Generally, the princes were people who have managed for some historical reason to never be subjected to their more powerful neighbors. Past some point ( the time of the “classical” middle-ages), the very high respect for the legitimacy of the ruling families sometimes permitted them to survive as independant rulers. The prince of Monaco is a good example of that. There are cases of princes who didn’t fit in this model, but I won’t try to discuss that.
At some point, the word prince came to be used for the sons of a king. But I’ve really no clue when it happened, nor why.
Not just Monacco, but Montenegro, and several German territories. Then of course you got into Dukes and Grand Dukes. And of course, in Russia prior to Peter the Great, you had Grand Princes, until Ivan IV (the Terrible) declared himself Tsar of Muscovy.
Yes, it is DAMN confusing!
Thanks, everyone, for the links and explanations.
I still feel a bit lost but am sorting thru it, trying to understand.
I had problems keeping the aristocracy straight.
I could remember that dukes had the most status, and barons the least status. But I couldn’t keep the earls, marquis, and viscounts straight. I looked them up and found the etymology for the titles.
Earl comes from Jarl, and is equal to a count.
Viscount comes from substitute(vice) count, so is below an earl.
Marquis comes from “march”, which in this instance is the land bordering another country. This area needed strong leadership to hold, so Marquis is more important than a count.
Thus the order (most to least important):
Duke
Marquis
Earl
Viscount
Baron
In England, a Baronetcy is essentially a hereditary knighthood.
They rank from highest to lowest (M/F)
Duke/Duchess
Marquess/Marchioness
Earl/Countess
Viscount/Viscountess
Baron/Baroness
Baronet - (Sir/Lady)
Knight/Dame
Scotland and Ireland have a few special hereditary titles relating to being clan chiefs. I believe those in charge of these things in the UK also recognize a handful of hereditary knights in Ireland that (somehow) differ from baronetcies. I think this is all a great argument for a classless society.
BTW, I think that “Duke” derives from the late roman empire title of Dux Bellorum, roughly translated as “Guy in Charge of Wars”