This is probably a very elementary question for most of you but:
What's the difference between the nobility ranks of King, Emperor, Count, viscount, marquis, earl, baron, duke, etc.
Any help is much appreciated.
Printable View
This is probably a very elementary question for most of you but:
What's the difference between the nobility ranks of King, Emperor, Count, viscount, marquis, earl, baron, duke, etc.
Any help is much appreciated.
I think some of it is language. English does tend to complicate things.
Eastern Armenian (Modern Armenian) and to a lesser extent, Western Armenian (Spoken in old Diasporas and the old Armenian) have very few words for noble titles. We have the titles of King, Prince, and well, literally translates into ruler but really means the equivalent of a Lord or Count. I believe earl is a Saxon term, yes?
Also, some titles do have a relation to how they are gained or what is expected of the office, for instance, Scottish Thanes were warrior-leaders, earning their titles through lineage or distinction during war, whereas I am under the assumption that Viscount is a more peaceful title, but that could just br the cultural differences or the chronological differences.
In order:
At the top is a emperor who commands what is basically a large kingdom.
Next is a king who rules a kingdom or country. Ex: france england ect...
A prince is ether the heir to a throne. It is also sometimes to with the HRE electors (leading dukes).
A duke rules over a duchy which is a large state, sometimes autonomous sometimes not. An example of this would be Normandy. In England this would be an earl
A marquis is between a count and duke other then that I'm not sure what they have to rule over.
An count rules over a county, or proveriance like state in a kingdom.
And then it goes on to the bottem...
It has a lot to do with the Vassal system. The nobility titles can be split into two different catagories:
Nobility
In most Peerage, Marquis ranks below a Duke and above an Earl (or Count).
A Baron ruled a Barony and are quite low on the ladder.
A Count (or Earl in Britain) could either be a military Count or else be a normal one who rules over a "countship."
A Viscount is slightly lower than a Count.
A Duke is a Prince (or ranks the same as one) but one who is not in line to the throne.
And a Knight was the most basic form of nobility.
Sovereign
Emperor rules an Empire
King rules a kingdom (generally smaller than an empire).
Grand Duke is essentially a higher ranked Duke.
Prince rules a principality.
Of course, these ranks and their respective lands they are entitled to rule is mostly theoretical, as many simply held these titles as nominal titles which gave them status and money, not nescessarily the respective "Dukedom" or what ever they were meant to rule.
In the People's Republic of Scotland, a Baron refers to a Feudal Baron (after the abolishion of the Feudal system a couple of years ago, this is all a little vague now) and ranks very low, below a Knight in the Order of Precedence, methinks. This is tied to a particular piece of land, or caput of the barony, and the person listed in the Register of Sasines (no longer, I think). Pre 1707, each one of these chaps had a seat in the Parliament, though they were rarely used.
Above that is a Lord of Parliament, or Lord-Baron (equivalent to a Baron in the English sense)
Then Viscount
Then Earl (Count on the continent)
Then Marquess (Marquis for pre-1603 titles and on the continent)
Then Duke
Then Dukes of the Blood Royal.
Children of Dukes use the courtesy title of "Lord" or "Lady", though this is not a form of peerage.
I don't see much difference between king and emperor. Both of them simply mean a monarch. 'Empire' is used to refer to many states that were not ruled by an emperor, some of which were ruled by kings.
Emperor is higher than King. Before Queen Victoria's daughter was crowned Empress (or when she married the heir to the throne) Her Majesty would have been lower than her, so Queen Victoria was made Empress of India...
Empire = Federation or somesuch thing
Emperor is superior to king as it has several pretentions to universal rule that king doesn't. A king rules a nation. An emperor rules "the world", in so far as the culture using the titles defines the world. An emperor in the Roman style is also the equal of the apostles (post Christianity, evolved from an emperor being a living god). Thus having supreme secular and religious authority.
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
To expand, in the United Kingdom, courtesy titles for the children of aristocrats are based on the principle that higher ranking nobles invariably have several titles. The eldest son and heir is allowed (as a courtesy) to take one of the lower ranking titles of his father. This applies below the rank of Duke, all the way down to Viscount - but not usually Baron. (On the basis that a Baron's son will have no lower title to adopt).
Thus the Earl of Erewhon, may also be Baron of Watchamacallett. His eldest son would adopt that latter title as a courtesy. Some courtesy titles have a degree of precedence, so they are not just decoration.
The other sons would be referred to as Lord Family-Surname, though the younger sons of Viscounts down would be the Hon. Family-Surname. Except in some exceptions. :beam:
Dukes are relative newcomers to the "British" peerage (note that there are significant differences in the Scottish, English, Irish peers as his Grace the Duke Malcolm alludes). The ancient families invariably have earldoms, though sometimes they were well enough placed to gain a Dukedom on top.
This complexity is why we have Debretts and etiquette. For even more fun, hereditary offices complicate precedence even further, so an earl can outrank a duke. :book2:
One rank not yet mentioned is the Baronet. These are hereditary knights - not peers. In Scotland, there are also clan chiefs which have standing - but that's a real dark art to fathom.
A Clan Chief in himself does not have particular rank. Many Clan Chiefs, however, hold titles -- The Lord MacDonald of MacDonald (there are several Chiefs of several Clan MacDonalds, this is the Chief Chief), the Lord Fraser of Lovat -- as well as Earldoms and somewhat more conventional titles -- Earl of Dundee, Earl of Glasgow, Duke of Hamilton, Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, et al.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Also, in a fit of North American colonisation, several chiefs (30?) became and are still Baronets of Nova Scotia.
Other Chiefs (who remain in the UK), while are generally from Aristocratic and landed families, they use courtesy titles (these do not confer a rank, the ranks of a Duke's son is not that of the title he uses, rather simply the rank of a Duke's son in itself, but I digress) such as The Hon. John X of X, X of that ilk, The X of X, Madam X, where X is the clan.
Also on the matter of courtesy titles, the eldest sons of Earls (or Countesses) use their fathers (or mothers) designation, but become "master", e.g. the heir of the Earl of Dundee is styled the Master of Dundee.
Though I must say that this subject is not history.
Scotland still has a criminal and civil court for dealing with this sort of thing. Just a month ago, the fact a new Chief of the Clan MacDonald of Clanranald was selected by the Lord Lyon (it had been vacant for sometime) was on the BBC News
The title of Earl/Jarl is one of the oldest amidst Germanic speaking peoples, though it only survives today in Britain and Scandinavia, as far as I'm aware.
I don't think there are any jarls left, at least not in Sweden. Actually, the last Jarl of Sweden was the only famous one (Birger "Jarl" Magnusson). Jarl is - interestingly enough - pretty different from Earl as far as I understand. A jarl was not a specific landowner, but more of an adviser (and sometimes almost co-ruler) to the king. Birger Magnusson (or his son Valdemar, don't recall) removed the title later on, as it was obvious that the Jarl had too much power when compared to the king.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
There's no jarls in Norway either, I think noble titles were removed in the 1800's may have been in the constitution. Anyway there weren't really many Norwegian nobles, the only ones left when the noble titles were removed were a handful of, in a wider sense, insgignificant counts and others (if memory serves me correct), anyway these were likely Danish as Norway had been a subject country to Denmark for some 200-300 years, if not more.
I'm sure there will be a more authorative site out there somewhere, but this lists order of precedence in England & Wales (which is why I suspect the order of the Thistle is rated some way below the Garter - maybe they're reversed in Scotland). Of course not all these are noble titles.
http://www.london-guides.co.uk/pages.php?id=b0801080
I think it has something do to with the church. Emperor has to be crowned by the highest authority in the church. The Pope, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
In the eastern europe, rulers usually formed an autocephalous church befory they were crowned Czars (Emperor)...
When we are talking about titles, can somebody tell me what is the correct spelling in English for "Czar"? I've seen people write Czar, Tzar, Tsar...
Yes, Scotland has a somewhat different Order of Precedence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Clemens
Immediately below the Sovereign and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh is the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. There are no Bishops in the Scottish one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_o...ce_in_Scotland
"King" and "Emperor" are really the exact same thing. The latter just has more pretensions, in the "king of kings" vein. ~;p After Roman times there were actually only exact two Emperors in Europe - the Greek Emperor, ie. the Byzantine Basileus, and the Holy Roman Emperor, ie. the "German" one. In practice when people spoke of the Emperor they meant the latter; that most holders of the office actually had even less of a grip over their sprawling and fractitious "empire" than most (technically lesser ranking) kings over their nominal kingdoms whose feudal potentates more often than not did as they pleased is another issue.
Resurrecting this thing, the european emperors were crowned by the Pope, the ruler of Rome and therefore recognised as "King of the Romans", i.e. the heir of the Roman Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
After the fall of Byzantium, the russian monarchs believed themselves to be the "third Rome" (from a religious perspective) and, since they were crowned by the Patriarch, styled themselves emperors to reflect that heritage.
In other places, people attached the title to cities: In Spain, king Alfonso something, claimed that Leon is an imperial city and claimed that title of Imperator totius Hispaniae (Emperor of all the Spains) for whoever held the city of Leon. The title was later dropped.
Emperor. That's our only equivelant. As with similar titles, Czar comes from Caesar. English and certain other languages just took a different route and adopted his title, rather than name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
"Tsar" I'd say as the Russian letter "Ц" is equivalient to the sound "ts" in English like in "sits "Quote:
When we are talking about titles, can somebody tell me what is the correct spelling in English for "Czar"? I've seen people write Czar, Tzar, Tsar...
Yes, I know that Czar means Emperor. But when they talk on history channel about russian imperial family, for example, mostly they say "russian czar" (or tsar, tzar), not "russian emperor" . I was just wondering is there a rule how that word should be spelled. Or maybe there is no particular rule since it is not an english word...Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
@Randarkmaan
That would be probably correct. But I think I hear a "z" somewhere when it is spoken in english. Too there aren't any english proffesors here :book:
I'm fairly confident that it's just to stress their foreignness. :yes:
There is no official spelling, since it isn't an English word. The one I'm most aquainted with is 'Csar'.
If I understand it correctly, a marquis (or marcher lord) was usually given authority over turbulent borderlands, a march or mark, usually with a hostile enemy on the other side. They tended to be given even more authority than usual within their own domain, still subject to the king, but able to enforce a sort of martial law due to the unstable nature of their lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope
Technically, I believe this is the correct spelling: царь ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I've heard challenges to that etymology, that Tsar actually derives from a separate Slavic term rather than the Latin caesar, but I can't find any sources or support for that at the moment. The Latin derivation is certainly the most widespread and accepted explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
Ajax
I think it is from Caesar, it's the same reason why we call it "Keiser", the Germans "Kaiser" and so on, Caesar was pronounced Kai-sar(maybe "sahr" would be more fitting to write...) so it's not hard to see where it comes from.
In Poland all ranks were cancelled officially in 1492-1505 - from that moment all nobles were equal according to the law - landless and awfully rich.
Together with the large number of the nobility ( 10-15 % of society - 10-20 times more than in England) it meant the beginning of democratic traditions present for all later centuries.
Of course there were exceptions from the rule - the titles given by the HRE Emperor or by the Pope and the earlier titles of 'Kniaz' ( Russian duke) kept by the ones living in Poland.
However all of those were purely honorary titles with no meaning from legal point of view.
The partitions of Poland changed the situation - the nobles had to prove their rights and because often it was impossible ( it is hard to keep documents for 4 centuries...) it added another factor to the general tension.
The nobility became the driving fpart of all uprisings, revolutions etc.
It also built a large part of so called 'intelligentzia' - intellectuals, political leaders, artists, trade union activists etc.
In 1918 all the noble rights were cancelled by giving equal rights to the whole society.
Personally I find it amusing that here even the lowlist plumber would be called a baron, duke or even a king in some countries.
But with at least 60 % of current society having such rich ancestry it is perfectly acceptable and for a fully democratic country also quite important.:2thumbsup:
Eh, nobles need to eat too. These days sneering at the idea of doing work or engaging in a trade just doesn't cut it anymore. Know what the current eldest male heir of the old Romanov imperial line is, the last I heard ? A retired USMC senior officer in Texas. The equivalent guy of the Hessen-Kassel princely line, who might have been the current king of Finland, is a fashion photographer in New York.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
:shrug:
haha, no he isn't. Firstly, it is a contested title, between 2 people mainly, a man and a woman. Both European, with European Imperial ancestry (Prussia and Russia, methinks). Both, I believe, and should be, are in the line of succession to the British throne...Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
But that is by-the-by...
Emperor vs King in medieval timesQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Holy Roman Emperor is in fact a title, not a function. The title refers to the Roman emperor (thought of continuatio/renovatio imperii, the continuation/renewed empire), mixed with a bit of christianity: "holy". As already said, it means something like 'primus inter pares' (the first among equals), just as the pope is, or "universal leader". There is some theory: the theory of "the two swords". Basically is means that there are two rulers of the (known) (christian) world (=western middle ages): the pope, leader of spiritual matters, and the emperor, secular leader.
There were three main problems with this:
1) in practice, pope and emperor struggled for power, like in the struggle for the investiture of bishops
2) other kings did not always recognize the title given to the (chosen) German king, e.g. the French king. The emperor, being a king with a prestigious title, often had little real power
3) there was some other "Roman" emperor, namely the Basileus, emperor of the Eastern Roman empire, who was not pleased at all when the pope gave the title of "true ruler of all christian lords" to someone else. So when people spoke of the emperor, it is necessary to know who these people are when we want to know which emperor they meant. A Greek patriarch meant the Basileus, a western bishop meant the German king, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation (as the full name goes), at that time including Northern Italy.
In fact, since the post-Roman period, western civilizations have given the title of emperor to anyone who claimed to be more than "just a king", but more a ruler who stood above all others. Also the term of "empire" refers to some kind of territory, claiming to be bigger or better or superior than others.
Examples:
- when England became a huge (colonial) power, people spoke of the British empire
- when the Chinese civilization was discovered, (western) people spoke of a Chinese emperor referring to the Chinese ruler.
- think of Aztec emperors, a Spanish interpretation of the function of the Aztec ruler at the time of their discovery by Cortez (i forgot the Aztec name for their rulers, but it meant something like 'great talker' i think, but i could be wrong).
- The German ruler kept holding his title of Emperor until someone ended this 'anti-modern' (as it was called then) habit and introduced a new term: "Führer".:inquisitive:
Not every German king got the title of "emperor" too...
Known medieval emperors (crowned by the pope) were Carolus Magnus, and later Otto I and most of the German kings who came after him.
I also wanted to say that not only emperors were crowned by the Church (mostly the pope impersonating the Church). It was an old habit since Clodovech, or Clovis was crowned king, and Carolus Magnus re-invented it to legitimate his function against the old (Merovingian) dynasty. French kings always were crowned that way by important impersonators of the Church (mostly in Reims).
Just my little add...
:idea2:
Arch
I don't think there was title for the Aztec Emperors per ce, but the name Motecozuma (called Montezuma by the Spaniards) means "Our strict/harsh ruler", and may have been more of a title than a real name. I don't know about Aztec names, but Mayan and Olmec names for an example generally was the date they were born on ("Eight Deer" for an example is a name mentioned, which means that guy was born on the eight day in the month of the deer). Just felt like popping in and saying that, I just read about it you see...Quote:
- think of Aztec emperors, a Spanish interpretation of the function of the Aztec ruler at the time of their discovery by Cortez (i forgot the Aztec name for their rulers, but it meant something like 'great talker' i think, but i could be wrong).
Concerning the title of Emperor, you could include the Ottomans as they had the Persian title "Padisha" (Great King/Sultan, I think) and many also took the title Keyser-i-rum (Emperor of Rome).
I now remember their title: "huetlatoque" (sing.: huetlatoani). They ruled over a confederation of city-states, each ruled by a tlatoani. There were some reforms under Nezahualcoyotl in the early 1430's, but only on the level of tlatoani.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
A recent, interesting book on this subject:
S.T. Evans, Ancient Mexico & Central America, Thames & Hudson London, 2004.
This is a very interesting example. The Ottomans somehow wanted to establish their power and gaining prestige by taking over the title of the Byzantines, after conquering the big C.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
Secondly, they were an eastern, islam civilization after all. The islamic version of the "Pope" and "emperor" were united when the Ottomans took the title of Caliph. There are arguments to compare pope and emperor with caliph and sultan, but then often in one person: the ruler at the Ottoman Porte. When referring to the titles in the first post in this thread, they are all western (medieval) titles.
:idea2:
Arch
edit: my posts always suffer from my bad english ....
Like the Byzantines many also referred to themselves as protector of the Greek Orthodox church, and much of their court ceremony was copied from the Byzantines, as was that of previous Islamic states, but also with a dash of Persian.Quote:
This is a very interesting example. The Ottomans somehow wanted to establish their power and gaining prestige by taking over the title of the Byzantines, after conquering the big C.
I think that Tsar is a pheonetic english spelling. Czar is more similar to the word in other slavic langauges. Car (croatian), Clsar (Czech), and Caesarz (Polish).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Czar became another word for emperor when Peter the Great proclaimed himself Emperor of all Russia (or the Russia's).
Marquis (which is a French title BTW) is from the German Markgraft. Graft is the German form of Count, mark can mean march or border. You'll find several flavors of Count in Germany. Burg graft (castle count), Land graft (land or forrest count), and Pfalz graft (count palatine).Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Padishah=Great King. It came to be accepted in Europe that the Islamic form of emperor was Padishah. Another aside is that the Iranian Shahanshah (king of kings) is an odd but royal (rather than imperial) title.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
Just out of curiosity, have a look at wiki's entries for Tsar.
The spelling tsar is the closest possible transliteration of the original using standard English spelling, while the scholarly transliteration is car, with the letter 'c' standing for 'ц' ('ts') in Slavic languages employing the Latin alphabet (e.g., Serbian, Czech, Polish). Tsar has been accepted in Standard English for the last century as a correct usage. The use of "czar" is typically found in American English and has also been accepted into general use for more than a century there. The French adopted the form tsar during the 19th century, and it became more frequent in English towards the end of that century, following its adoption by The Times (see the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition). The spelling tzar with 'z' is also very common, and represents an alternative transliteration of the first letter ц, derived from German.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
I could have at least looked in wikipedia before I asked the question :wall:
This is feudal hierarchy in the West :book::
Emperor
King (rex)
Prince
Grand Duke
-------------
Those are princes.
Duke (dux)
Margrave (comes marcae)
Count (comes)
Viscount (vicecomes)
Baron (baro)
-------------
Those are barons.
Baronet
Knight
-------------
Those are knights.
Esquire (squtaria)
-------------
Esquire is gentry.
Situation in Eastern Europe is complicated.
In English a comes is a "Count," but English counts are always called "Earls" (Old English eorl, "warrior, nobleman"). The wife of an Earl, however, is still a "Countess." In German, "count" is Graf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justicar
Greek Emperor? :laugh4: Are you kidding? It was Roman Emperor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Initially, title was Tsar of All Russians. Pyotr I Great proclaimed himself as Emperor after he won over Sweden in Great Northern War. After that rulers of Russia had title Emperor. And Pyotr title was pretty long…Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I will add:Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
:book:Quote:
Some Counts are more important than others. Counties at the edge of a Kingdom may be threatened with invaders, or may be expanding into outside territories. These are the "Marches" (Mark in German, marca in Latin) and the Count of a March is a "Margrave," from German Markgraf, or "Marquess" (in English, "Marquis" in French) – comes marcae, marchicomes, or marchio in Latin. The wife of a Marquis is a "Marchioness" (in English, "Marquise" in French, marchionissa in Latin), which preseves the origin of the word more clearly. The most famous Margravate was Brandenburg, which became the Kingdom of Prussia. A Marquis thus has a higher noble rank than a Count. True feudal Counts and Margraves have sovereign powers over their own subjects, entitled to "meet justice," bear arms, and collect taxes; but they are also vassals, of their sovereign Lord. Their vassalage, of course, is in terms of a feudal contract, i.e. they owe military service for a certain part of the year. Usually this does not extend to furnishing any tax revenues to their Lord, which, as produce, could hardly be transported or stored well in the early days; but appeals of justice might be made over their heads to the King or Prince.
He wasn't. The emperor in Constantinople was far more Greek than he ever was Roman.Quote:
Greek Emperor? Are you kidding? It was Roman Emperor.
Also, "tsar" does not mean emperor. It is a title that a Bulgarian ruler managed to wean off the Byzantine emperor after he inflicted a crushing defeat on him. This title was "Caesar," a position of subservience to the emperor. It was more akin to king than it was to emperor.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=81066Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Nice discussion on the subject.
It depends. Serbian tsar literally meant Emperor. Second serbian tsar awarded the title king to one of the feudal lords (Vukasin Mrnjavcevic). Although he was strong enough to disobey tsar Uros V, formaly he was subserviant to him. So tsar was higher than a king.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Actually Caesar (and it's slavic derviatives) does mean emperor. Emperor had two levels to the Romans. The Augustus was the senior emperor, the Caesar the junior emperor. So if the Serbian ruler took the title Tsar. It mean't he was claiming a position akin to junior Roman emperor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
The original title meant a position below that of basileus, the Byzantine Greek term for emperor (though it meant king, once upon a time). I'm sure it meant more to Bulgarian and Serbian rulers than did their simple, native titles (khan, king, etc.), but in the end it originally meant nothing more than a status as friend and subordinate of the emperor in Constantinople -- which was, to the Byzantines, of course, more than good enough for some Slavic savage, even if he had defeated them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Also, note that Peter the Great took on the title emperor, which stood above his titles of tsarship.
See above. What's important here is to remember that things had changed in the time period between Diocletian and the Byzantine court of the 9th century (or was it the 8th?).Quote:
Actually Caesar (and it's slavic derviatives) does mean emperor. Emperor had two levels to the Romans. The Augustus was the senior emperor, the Caesar the junior emperor. So if the Serbian ruler took the title Tsar. It mean't he was claiming a position akin to junior Roman emperor.
Peter the Great taking the title Emperor of all Russias had more to do with westernization of Russia than anything else. By assuming that title he didn't gain any more authority than he already had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
As a rule, there could be one emperor in a church. There was one in catholic world and one in orthodox. To assume title of emperor/tsar, serbian king Dusan had to be crowned by patriarch of constantinople. Since he refused, Dusan had to make Serbian orthodox church autocephalous (independent) to be crowned tsar.
The point is that tsar is the highest ranking title and above king.
Basileus is more properly translated as soveregin. As originally it refered more to the person than his office. And Aristotle exposed that a Basileus was, what we would call a constitutional monarch (restrained by law). While a Tyrant was would be an absolute monarch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Actually it replaced several of his titles of Tsarship. Peter changed his fathers title of Czar & Grand Prince, Autocrat of all Greater, Lesser & White Russia,Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod
to
Emperor & Autocrat of all Russia,
of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod,
But that was just the primary line of a very long list of titles. One of which was "Dominator of the northern countries."
In some ways yes and some ways no. The Slavs took the title of Tsar because they weren't Romans. And thus couldn't be crowned emperor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on