A Question of Title

[mayapuppies]

Hello all,

 

A player in my group is playing a minor noble who is also a knight. I'm having trouble deciding what his "title" should be and how he would be addressed.

 

He's the second son of a Baron and when his father died the characters brother inherited the Barony. My friends character became a knight of the Barony and lives in the family castle (he has no lands of his own).

 

Now the FH book lists the child of a Baron as a Baronet, would this title still hold even though his father is dead and his brother now occupies the "throne"?

 

Would he be addressed as Sir Whateverhisnameis or Lord Whateverhisnameis?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: A Question of Title

 

This varies from fantasy to fantasy; if you want to go as historically accurate as possible, all brothers who are not the inhereting brother get zippy. Nada. In a Fantasy setting you can set them up so that they are in line for the inheritance, but when the commanding brother has a child, that child becomes the inheritor, de facto.

 

If he has become a Knight, then he has only title, and no land. A Knight is still a vassal. A Knight is the first step towards gaining land, in most cases, but the important thing here is that since land = wealth, and conference of a Title requires (generally) land to be held, Sir So-and-so is always referred to by his first name.

 

For example: Sir Thia. Sir Mayapuppies.

 

If you hold land: Sir Thia, Baron of Munchhausen.

 

If you hold land but are not knighted: Baron Halmades, of Munchhausen.

 

AND I'm drawing on my classical education here, so I may be slightly off, but I'm fairly certain that's close to Hoyle.

[mayapuppies]

Re: A Question of Title

 

Ok, so it would be like this:

 

Father: Sir Aldor, Baron of Fina <--- was a knight

1st Son: Baron Aunus of Fina <--- is not a knight

Player: Sir Whateverhisnameis <--- is a knight but no land

 

On an aside, if a Baronet (child of a Baron) has the political rank of 3 and a Knight has the political rank of 2, what would Sir Whateverhisnameis be?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: A Question of Title

 

He would be a landless Knight, probably given a small piece of property - a keep, with a short stack of servants and women to 'attend' him. Based on your setting and his personal code; bearing in mind we RP fantasy as being infintely more socially advanced than it was. Bearing that in mind.

 

Well, once a Knight always a Knight; it's a revocable Title, but it's one part honor, and three parts guaranteed service. So Aldor is, still, Sir Aldor, you've got that. I think you're asking me a "rank as mechanics" question, so my answer (near as I can infer from your example) would be:

 

A Knight will generally have a rank of 1, which I'm assuming is the lowest noble rank, because not all Knights are of noble birth nor landed (although, generally, they were all of noble birth, but exceptions were made). One of the things conferring Knighthood did was guarantee the favor of the Knight in question. "Great job, I want you on my side. We'll throw a big party that makes you my servant, and you'll be happy about it!" Future Knight, ponders his fate as a permanent servant: "Okay. But if there are any girls there, I want to jump them!"

 

A landless Knight is the lowest of the ranks, and generally led troops into battle at the front. Field Commanders did it from behind (heh, unintentional, but I left it in) because they were more valuable (noble birth, higher born, usually had extensive education and controlled the fate of thousands.) There are parrellels to that and medieval Japan, just Europe wasn't half as civilized.

 

So if your PC is starting out, he'll be of the lowest available rank while still commanding the respect of the commoners. Higher ranked Knights, landed Knights, and any landed nobles will not, as a rule, be impressed.

 

Does that help?

[mayapuppies]

Re: A Question of Title

 

Actually, it does. The mechanics of the Fringe Benefit Perk, list the Squire as rank 1, which never really felt right to me, so I'll drop senior Whateverhisnameis to Knight 1.

 

So, even though his brother is the current Baron of Fina, our character doesn't get any "street cred" for this relationship among the landed nobility?

 

The country this gentleman comes from is loosely based on Crusades era France/England (ala Kingdom of Heaven...the player REALLY liked that movie).

[Thia Halmades]

Re: A Question of Title

 

Then absolutely not, they are actually pitied. They get nothing. They're often written out of the land once the other brother has a child, as I mentioned. They get squat. It was common practice for the eldest brother (the inheritor) to prepare and be groomed for leadership; the others had to fend for themselves, hope they married well, or find a trade. If your PC became a Knight, that could be for any number of reasons.

 

- His noble favor is what got him his position, but he's no longer a member of the line proper; he's a Knight now and expected to behave as such

- His hard work got him where he is

- He was handed off at a young age and picked up his master's armor (see below).

 

A Squire is a slave; the only person he's important too is his Knight, and that's because the Knight is generally too important to do what needs done himself. Sometimes true, sometimes not, and sometimes a squire is like a cell phone. "So... who's the kid?" Sir Roderick flicked his eyes back, and sighed quietly. "You know, it isn't something I support, but Darron there was set on a life of adventure. Might be the best thing for him; at least he's busy, fed and healthy. He may get murdered tomorrow. Hurts my heart, but it's the way things are done."

 

So there are a lot of ways to see the Knight/Squire relationship. In business, as in Feudal societies that business is generally based on, the structure is the same. The front man has all the rank and pull; the aides do the work (prepping docs, minor investigation, etc.) but the spoils go to the guy in the flashy armor with the pointy stick. The Knight is responsible for the squire; now you could give the Squire a PRE boost in the appropriate circles, especially if his Knight is well known, but that's about it.

 

He could, for example, use his PRE to intimidate a bunch of chefs to make a special meal on behalf of his Knight. He could not use it on anyone who recognized him for what he was (a guard would ignore him completely, having seen hundreds of squires and realizing he has no authority). A savvy kitchen chef might know, but do it anyway. But I digress.

 

During the Crusades Knights were a dime a dozen, and were leading charges all over the place, and generally getting killed. Some squires picked up their mantles and continued the legacy; some were killed. I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven but I understand it wasn't a very accurate representation. You might consider watching Joan of Arc with Milla Jojovich; it has a lot of interesting material in it, some of which pertains to class structure.

 

Useful? Yea? Nay?

[mayapuppies]

Re: A Question of Title

 

Very useful! Gracias

[Thia Halmades]

Re: A Question of Title

 

De nada.

[Curufea]

Re: A Question of Title

 

One way of expressing this with fringe benefits is to just pay for the highest rank as a Rank Benefit, and paying for lesser titles as "belonging to a group"-

i.e.

Baron - 3 points

Also belongs to the Knight group - 1pt

 

Because many of the benefits of a Knight are already included in being a Baron (preferential treatment, respect, education/training etc)

[LordGhee]

Re: A Question of Title

 

William Marshall greatest of all Knights was made a Knight on eve of Battle at age of 16 (this gave right of arms and they where expected to lead and prove that they were worthy) with many orther young men. This was common.

 

over the next 16 + years he made his living by fighting at tourney. (he was 6-4 ) he won and won. winners of tourney got the orther quys armour and horse.

 

Richard the lionhearted upoun gaining his crown gave the hand of the maid who had the right to the third largest estates in England.

[Beast]

Re: A Question of Title

 

here is a copy of precedence from QE1's time

(yes I also act at faire)

it should give you an idea of ranking

 

1 Sovereign

2 Archbishop of Canterbury

3 Lord Chancellor

4 Archbishop of York

5 Lord high treasurer

6 Lord of privy seal

7 Lord great chamberlain

8 Ambassadors

9 Earl marshal

10 Lord high admiral

11 Lord steward of the Household

12 Lord chamberlain

13 Royal dukes

14 Dukes by creation/ Wife of dukes

15 Marquis/ Wives of marquis

16 Eldest sons of dukes / Wives of Eldest sons of dukes

17 Daughters of dukes (unless married to an (earl or) baron

18 Earls/ Wives of earls

19 Eldest sons of marquis/ Wives of Eldest sons of marquis

20 Younger sons of Dukes

21 Daughter of Marquis (unless married to an baron

22 Wives of younger sons of Dukes

23 Viscounts/ Wife of Viscount

24 Eldest son of an Earl/ Wife of Eldest son of an Earl

25 Younger sons of marquis/ Wife of younger sons of marquis

26 Daughter of Earl (unless married to an baron

27 Bishop of London

28 Bishop of Durham

29 Bishop of Winchester

30 Other bishops by consecration

31 Retired bishops

32 Secretary of state if a Baron

33 Barons/Wife of a baron

34 Treasurer of the (royal) household

35 Comptroller of the (royal) household

36 Vice chamberlain of the (royal) household

37 Secretary of state

38 Eldest sons of Viscounts/Wife of Eldest sons of Viscounts

39 Younger sons of Earls

40 Younger sons & Daughters of viscounts

41 Eldest sons of Barons

42 Bannerets or baronettes

43 Younger sons of Barons (Daughters too if after 1595)

44 Wives of bannerets

45 Knights of the garter

46 Knights of Bath

47 knights banneret

48 Knights bachelor/ Wife of knights bachelor

49 Daughters of barons who marry below knights (until 1595)

50 Officers in her majesties armed forces (unknighted or titled)

51 Gentleman / Gentlewomen of her majesties service

52 Gentleman/ wives (department heads in service)

53 Gentleman/ wives

54 Yeoman

[assault]

Re: A Question of Title

 

A Squire is a slave; the only person he's important too is his Knight' date=' and that's because the Knight is generally too important to do what needs done himself. [/quote']

 

That's true in early periods. By the fourteenth century or so, kings in at least some countries were trying to force landowners to become knights, because of the fees that were involved. At that point, the difference between a squire and a knight would have been effectively non-existent, although some squires would still be "knights in training".

 

The main system of titles I use in my fantasy games is a very simplified one. There are three titles: King (or Emperor), Count and Knight.

 

Baron and Prince are courtesy titles. Duke is mainly a foreign title, which if it is used at all "here" is given to royal princes.

 

Viscounts are either appointed deputies of Counts or of Kings. In the latter case, they are generally known as sherrifs (shire reeves). In both cases, they are important local barons, despite technically "only" being knights!

 

Confusing enough? I hope so, because that's the point!

[Markdoc]

Re: A Question of Title

 

For the period you are looking at, there are a couple o' things to keep in mind.

 

1. Not all knights were noble. In fact the vast majority weren't. They were "of gentle birth". That just means that they came from a land-owning family or one who held lands for somebody else.

 

2. Nobles held land either direct from the king/emperor or in their own right (rare).

 

This is important. Nobles (even poor nobles) were still somebody. They got precedence and people were generally nice to them because you never know - a sudden run of plague or a whim of the king and they could be rich again. Their names and titles were designed to differentiate them from the hoi-polloi and there were special privileges under law just for them

 

"Of gentle birth" meant little. You could beat up on the peasants and usually get away with it, but that's about it.

 

Squire, knight, banneret, etc are *job*descriptions*, not social ranks. A squire was a knight in training and usually - but not always - acted as servitor a specific knight or group of knights from the same household. Depending on how rich your knight(s) were that could be a good job ora crap one. The Duke of Burgundy was a squire at Henry's court, but he had his own rooms and arrived to take up his "squiring position" with a train of 120 servants and bodyguards. He might have been an 8 year old squire but he was still a noble - and a magnate as well. He carried a hell of a lot more weight than most knights at court -or most nobles for that matter.

 

On the other hand, to be a knight, you had to have 133T gear. If you couldn't afford a horse and armour or find someone to provide them for you, you might stay a squire your entire life. There are records of squires in their '60's.

 

A knight is just a professional fighting man, basically. Getting knighted simply meant you were judged functional. So you could be a knight and a noble - in which case you were somebody, or a knight from a poor rural fief, with no inheritance, in whch case you might be little more than a bandit. In Germany, some parts of Italy and parts of the low countries you could be a knight AND a commoner or knight AND a priest (Ministeralies). You didn't have to be of gentle birth.

 

Last of all, usually one person got the fief: if it could be inherited at all - not all fiefs were heritable. In many cases the person who gave it could take it away and give it to someone else. That meant the favoured (usually oldest) son got the fief and the title, if it came with one. The second son got another smaller fief, if there was one to give, or he got a horse, armour and weapons and an invitation to get the hell out and make a living for himself. The third son got knightly stuff if the family was rich enough to afford it, or got shuffled off to the church with a small purse. That's one reason we got the crusades. Europe was awash in younger sons who weapons and weapons training, but no land, no money and no prospects. European kings were paying people's passage to the Holy Land, not out piety but simply to get rid of them.

 

cheers, Mark

[assault]

Re: A Question of Title

 

The best part about all of this is the sheer inconsistency of what happened historically.

 

First of all, things changed over time.

Second, there were often regional variations within a single state.

Third, different kingdoms/whatever had different systems. In other words, England, Scotland, Denmark, Aragon, Bohemia, and Athens would all have different systems.

 

All of this means that you can set the rules you feel like using, and still be historically "correct".

 

But then, if you are using a fantasy world, you can do that anyway.

[mayapuppies]

Re: A Question of Title

 

Always nice to have a point of reference. You guys are great. Thank you so much for the help.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: A Question of Title

 

When in doubt, ask the guy with the sheepskin. Well done, Mark.

[Basil]

Re: A Question of Title

 

For the period you are looking at, there are a couple o' things to keep in mind.

 

1. Not all knights were noble. In fact the vast majority weren't. They were "of gentle birth". That just means that they came from a land-owning family or one who held lands for somebody else.

 

2. Nobles held land either direct from the king/emperor or in their own right (rare).

 

{snip}

This, I'm afraid, is exactly backwards. Although it is widely believed, it is incorrect.

 

The word "noble" comes from the Latin nobilis, meaning "known"; known, that is, to the king. The idea goes back to the Germanic invasions/migrations; a band of men would be the king's guard/companions, and hence known to him. Later, the "known" expanded to all the fighters that served, directly or indirectly, the king (later still, even persons who didn't fight, but administered). Thus, all the heavy fighters---that is, knights---are nobles.

 

Those who have lands and titles are peers, a subset of nobles. Please note, that while all peers are nobles, not all nobles are peers. This is the proper use of the two words, as they have been used for centuries by the British royal court, and (with the proper translations) by the French and German aristocracy.

[Basil]

Re: A Question of Title

 

Hello all,

 

A player in my group is playing a minor noble who is also a knight. I'm having trouble deciding what his "title" should be and how he would be addressed.

 

He's the second son of a Baron and when his father died the characters brother inherited the Barony. My friends character became a knight of the Barony and lives in the family castle (he has no lands of his own).

 

Now the FH book lists the child of a Baron as a Baronet,

Which, from a historical POV is a complete screw up. "Baronet" (in various spellings) was originally a misspelling of "Banneret," (properly "knight banneret") a word used to describe a type of knight who had various special privileges (one of which was to fly a smaller version of a type of flag (a "banner") which only peers could fly; hence the diminutive, "banneret").

 

would this title still hold even though his father is dead and his brother now occupies the "throne"?

 

Would he be addressed as Sir Whateverhisnameis or Lord Whateverhisnameis?

He would be Sir Firstname (NOT Sir Lastname!). If he were not knighted, he might be addressed as Lord Lastname, if he were permitted a "courtesy title"---in some times and places, the younger sons of a peer were adressed as if they had titles they did not, in fact, have. At the lowest level (e.g., the younger sons of Barons), this took the form of "Lord" before the family name. Note, however, this is a post-medieval custom.

 

One very important note: a Knight, no matter how landless, was not, NOT looked down on. While peers would be fully aware of their higher status than a landless knight, they were equally aware that knighthood was considered the base that all lordship (and government) was built on. A Duke would no more mock a knight than the roof-beam would mock the foundation-stones.

 

Particularly as it was, in most times and places, considered necessary for a prospective peer--or a monarch--to be knighted before he could take up his title and peerage. A non-knighted Baron would be a remarkable thing, and he would probably be mocked, sometimes to his face, for not being a knight. This wouldn't come up in the rare but not unknown situation where a woman inherited a title and peerage; a woman could be a peer, but not a knight.

[Curufea]

Re: A Question of Title

 

Best advice-

It's a fantasy setting, define the tiles and how they are addressed, and what responsibilities and privelages are inherent to those titles.

 

If a PC argues with you about "history" point out that history is a period of time on Earth and even there it changed - but you have a definitive written description for your fantasy setting that is completely accurate. Something that the real world never had for "history".

[Roland]

Re: A Question of Title

 

Fantasy Hero lists baronet as rank 3, above squire (1) and knight (2), below baron (4). It does not say anything about a baronet being the son of a baron. Here is how the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines baronet:

 

British hereditary dignity, first created by King James I in May 1611. The baronetage is not part of the peerage, nor is it an order of knighthood. A baronet ranks below barons but above all knights except a knight of the garter. The baronetcy is inherited by the male heirs of a baronet.

 

One became a baronet by paying a specified sum of money to the king (originally 1,095 pounds). Yes, the title was invented as a scheme to raise funds for the royal treasury! Like a knight, a baronet was addressed as "sir." Unlike a knighthood, a baronetcy could be passed on to one's heirs.

 

So this title is probably not appropriate to a medieval campaign if you want to be historical. Perhaps you could replace it in the Lordship Perk hierarchy with a higher sort of knighthood, e.g. a rank of knight commander or membership in an order of knighthood.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: A Question of Title

 

"Of gentle birth" meant little. You could beat up on the peasants and usually get away with it, but that's about it.

 

As long as you did so gently.

 

For my spare-time-project world, titles are mostly unimportant, since it's a sort of "new world" setting, and who your parents are isn't as important as what YOU can do. Even so, titles are fairly common, and titled characters still feel like they're supposed to have privileges over commoners. The fact that most commoners don't pay that much attention to them can cause some friction sometimes...

[Basil]

Re: A Question of Title

 

Fantasy Hero lists baronet as rank 3' date=' above squire (1) and knight (2), below baron (4). It does [i']not[/i] say anything about a baronet being the son of a baron.

Well, I'm glad that mistake wasn't made.

Here is how the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines baronet:

British hereditary dignity' date=' first created by King James I in May 1611. The baronetage is not part of the peerage, nor is it an order of knighthood. A baronet ranks below barons but above all knights except a knight of the garter. The baronetcy is inherited by the male heirs of a baronet.[/indent']One became a baronet by paying a specified sum of money to the king (originally 1,095 pounds). Yes, the title was invented as a scheme to raise funds for the royal treasury!

Mind you, that wasn't the first time a peerage was purchasable, just the first time it was

openly

up for sale (a number of people across the centuries were eleveted to the peerage after being "helpful" with money, but nobody said so in public).

 

Like a knight' date=' a baronet was addressed as "sir."[/quote'] However, as Sir

Lastname

. Only knights are Sir

Firstname

. That's because knighthood pre-dates the use of family/last names, but baronetcy doesn't.

 

Unlike a knighthood, a baronetcy could be passed on to one's heirs.

 

So this title is probably not appropriate to a medieval campaign if you want to be historical. Perhaps you could replace it in the Lordship Perk hierarchy with a higher sort of knighthood, e.g. a rank of

knight commander

or membership in an order of knighthood.

Knight Commander

is, AFAIK, only used as a rank within some orders of knighthood. Unlike knight banneret, it isn't (and probably wasn't) used as a "stand-alone" title/rank. So I'd suggest "Knight Banneret".

 

YMMV.

[Markdoc]

Re: A Question of Title

 

This, I'm afraid, is exactly backwards. Although it is widely believed, it is incorrect.

 

The word "noble" comes from the Latin nobilis, meaning "known"; known, that is, to the king. The idea goes back to the Germanic invasions/migrations; a band of men would be the king's guard/companions, and hence known to him. Later, the "known" expanded to all the fighters that served, directly or indirectly, the king (later still, even persons who didn't fight, but administered). Thus, all the heavy fighters---that is, knights---are nobles.

 

You are sort of, technically, right - I've been using the word nobility in the commonly accepted sense. Today "nobility" has essentially replaced peerage in common use. But it's never been true (even in Britain) that all knights were nobles (at the beginning of the feudal period, of course, a knight - from saxon "cnight" meaning servant was just a paid soldier). And many of them remained that, right through the medieval era

 

And of course this only applies to a limited era/area. Flemish knights were often wealthy burghers - not noble at all. Many German knights were indentured servants - also not of the noble class - employed by church magnates. The knights of the condotterie could be of noble birth (like the Sforza) - or like Sir John Hawkwood, of low birth (son of a tanner, reputedly - about as low down the social scale as you could go). He was apparently knighted on the battlefield - a perfect example of a knight who was neither noble nor even of gentle birth. And this is hardly a restricted incident - nor one limited to war or to the high medival period. Sir Walter Gray (Lord Mayor of London and member of parliament) was the son of smallfarmer before being knighted - and this in the status-obsessed Edwardian age.

 

King John employed a great number of knights who were not noble (ie: not of gentle birth, nor of the peerage). This was major source of friction in his realm - as they were disdained by the knights who were of gentle birth. They were not just mercenaries either - some of them made it onto his privy council and were superior in rank to families of quite substantial wealth and lineage. Faulkes de Breaute became one of the regents for the next knig - although he was the son of a peasant and got his start by killing a knight with a hay-fork. But however powerful he may have been, he held his castles and fiefs (12 at one point) by the king's pleasure - because he could not pass on his titles and privileges - and he was always socially inferior. Some of these non-noble lords disappeared (like de Breaute), their lands being merely lent by the crown - while others managed to get their positions made herditary and hold them long enough that their familes became noble (ie: accepted as legitimately part of the peerage).

 

So, even in Britain, it is true to say that not all knights were noble - and of course, when we use knight to mean fighting man, not all noblemen were knights (though they may hve been in theory).

 

Cheers, Mark

[Curufea]

Re: A Question of Title

 

I'd just like to add on the name thing, for March (okay, the more common word used is Marquis), Count and higher ranks - there is also a high probability that the person is named after the land, or the land named after the person. Primarily because when first given the responsibility for that area of land by the sovereign, it is named after the person so honoured.

Later on the title holder's surname may change due to marriage, or they may keep the surname of the land.

 

I use "probability" and "may" because again, different areas and different times practiced different things.

 

It's also quite common for Emperors to change their names (have a look at the Holy Roman Empire). Although this may start as a means to reasure the populace that the bloody coup that got them in power should be overlooked for stability - it often becomes a tradition.

 

There's nothing like unique names for every ruler, NPC and ancestor for breaking the fourth wall and confirming that you are playing Fantasy. I like having names duplicated - often ruler's names will be taken by the same generation of non-nobles as the names for their children (and the occasional inn).

[Outsider]

Re: A Question of Title

 

One very important note: a Knight, no matter how landless, was not, NOT looked down on.

 

Recall also that a Knight was generally a man who had been training since he was a small boy to kill people with a big knife. Sure, you may outrank him, but....