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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Very useful! Gracias

[Thia Halmades]

De nada.

[Curufea]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

[Thia Halmades]

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

[Basil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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. :D

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]

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

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! 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, a baronet was addressed as "sir." 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]

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]

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]

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.... :)

[Basil]

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).
Etymology is not meaning. The source of a word does not completely define that word. A knight is a knight; a Anglo-Saxon servant is something unrelated.


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.[/qoute]
I doubt "ritter", etc., was ever seen as meaning "knight"; "heavy cavalry," yes, but there's a word---OK, a two-word term---for that in English as well. And it is not considered the equivalent of "knight," either.

[quote=Markdoc]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.
AH HAH! Now, we get down to the problem! Now I see the source of your confusion. While the child of a noble is a noble (unless nobiliary status is stripped away by attainder), one does not need a single noble ancestor to be noble oneself. Further, being knighted makes one noble. Hence, Sir John Hawkwood was noble because he was knighted; that is, because he was SIR John.


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.
As both a knight, and Lord Mayor of London, I can assure you he had all the status any Edwardian could ask for. Perhaps not the parentage some snooty idjits might have preferred, but his status was very, very high.


King John employed a great number of knights who were not noble (ie: not of gentle birth, nor of the peerage).
I've already dealt with this; there is no id est to it. There were knighted, therefore they were noble.


This was major source of friction in his realm - as they were disdained by the knights who were of gentle birth.
They may have been disdained because they were thought to be unworthy of knighthood, but that is a separate matter.


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
Which (if sometimes only in theory) is/was true of all peers. Any peer may have his titles stripped away, pretty much at the king's pleasure.

His nobility, however, is not so easily removed. It can only be stripped away for treason, tried and convicted in court (also all children lose their nobility by falling under attainder).


- because he could not pass on his titles and privileges -
Why? Was his title, when granted, a life-peerage? I doubt it; those, IIRC, are a fairly recent invention.


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 -
Let's not labor this any further. These statements are wrong.


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
Again, "knight" =/= "heavy cavalry". A few peers were never knighted (women who held titles themselves, minors, a few others), so yes, there were nobles who weren't knights. But never, never, never the other way around (unless you wish to translate "ritter," etc. as knight, in which case non-noble "knights" existed outside Great Britain).

[Markdoc]

Etymology is not meaning. The source of a word does not completely define that word. A knight is a knight; a Anglo-Saxon servant is something unrelated.

Well, we did start with "nobilis" for nobility - I was merely pointing out that the origin of the word does not define its current meaning. Thus although knights started as merely paid heavy horse, they evolved into something else. Likewise although - in theory - all knights were noble, in reality, this was not the case. This was formalised in the 13th century in England by the law referred to as "Of Four Quarterings" which defined nobility as having descent from agentle family for all four grandparents. It was strongly believed that much of a person’s character derived from their ‘blood’ that is to say, their heritage. Merely being knighted did not do it.

Likewise, being noble did not make you a knight - you had to be specifically knighted and some noble men (clerks, for example) never were. This also restricted their legal privileges, just as being knight - but not noble - offered some, but not all privileges.

In medieval times families from the two states were referred to as "de militari progenie" or "de militari sanguine" - of knightly descent, and "sanguine nobilium generata" - born of a noble family. There is a difference between the two states, and it's one which men fought and died for.


I doubt "ritter", etc., was ever seen as meaning "knight"; "heavy cavalry," yes, but there's a word---OK, a two-word term---for that in English as well. And it is not considered the equivalent of "knight," either.

Alas, the germans also differentiated between "ritter" - which does indeed mean something very close to the english knight, and heavy cavalry (actually Germans differentiated between heavy skirmishing and heavy shock cavalry as well as between those groups and knights). In England the non-knightly heavy cavalry was referred to as the sergentry and (confusingly) could contain men of noble birth, since squires often rode with the segeantry. In Germany, the same sort of situation arose, where Rittere (including unfree knights) often brought with them an entourage of non-knightly heavy horse called "companions". By the 15th century German knights were generally required to provide 2-3, depending on their wealth. Unlike the English system, companions, as far as I can work out, never included men of the knightly class.

And the Ministerales were Rittere (knights) with the special privileges granted to all knights under law. But unlike the nobility, their status was not automatically hereditary, and they were bound to their manor and could not adminster justice, render accounts or marry without permission from their leige. This different from an English knight (or, as far as I know, the knights of any other region), even one who held an Honour, not a fief.



AH HAH! Now, we get down to the problem! Now I see the source of your confusion. While the child of a noble is a noble (unless nobiliary status is stripped away by attainder), one does not need a single noble ancestor to be noble oneself. Further, being knighted makes one noble. Hence, Sir John Hawkwood was noble because he was knighted; that is, because he was SIR John.

I think we'll just have to disagree here. As noted above, Sir John, being knighted, was a gentleman* - but he was not "of gentle birth" and therefore acording to the mores of time, was not a noble. Not only did he not have 4 quarterings, he didn't even have one - by the laws of England, he would not have entitled to attend court in his own right, nor could he compete in a formal tournament. He would not have been entitled to wear clothes restricted to nobles in sumptuary laws, and so on. Just as today, being knighted does not make you a peer. Peerage is (and for hundreds of years has been) hereditary, although the sovereign (and only the sovereign) can raise a person to the peerage. In contrast, any noble can make a knight. My godfather (Sir Patrick Moran) was a knight - but he was not a peer. :(

*actually there was an ongoing debate throughout the middle ages whther a man could be come "gentle" by action, or only by birth. There would have been many in his time who would have said he was simply a knight, but not a gentleman.

These distinctions were important to the time (and to some people, still today). To take two contrasting examples - I've already mentioned de Breaute, who was a powerful, non-noble knight, raised by King John. It's not merely a matter of speech - he controlled Plympton and Carisbrook, two important and very wealthy fiefs, though his marriage to Margaret Fitzgerold. But although he ruled them, those fiefs *belonged* to the Redvers family. In the language of the time he did not have the fiefs of Plympton and Carisbrook, he had the "honour" of Plympton and Carisbrook. He could not have pass them onto his sons. The fiefs reverted to the Redvers when he died. However the king could not confiscate them unless the Redvers were attainted - de Breaute held them by virtue of marriage, not in gift. He did hold Oxford in gift and that WAS confiscated at the king's pleasure (or displeasure). In contrast, his great rival Hubert De Burgh, though of gentle birth, was from a very minor family, was also raised by King John and also fell into disgrace under Henry III. The difference is that before his disgrace, he had been ennobled - although he also compiled his estates by marriage, he was made the Earl of Dover: and thereby held the fief in his own right. Thus his sons inherited his estates in the West (although the king confiscated the others in France and the Midlands that were held in gift), even though the title of earl was withdrawn by the court.

If you are interested in this subject I'd recommend "Feudal Society" by Marc Bloch. Volume 2 is more or less devoted to exactly these questions, with specific sections on knightly and noble privileges, inheritance of knighthood and nobility and even a section on the segeantry and unfree knights (what he calls "serf-knights") - he discusses how they morphed over time into a class equivalent to the English knighthood. It's out of print but any good historical library should have a copy.

cheers, Mark

[Basil]

Markdoc: I have been studying heraldry, which is only secondarily the study of coats armour and is primarily the study of rank, inheritance, family, nobility, etc., for 30 years or so. I'm afraid your statements are incorrect to such a degree I can no longer see any sense to correcting them point by point.

Mayapuppies: I'd advise the player's character be addressed as "Sir Firstname." I'd also advise you to create whatever system of titles and ranks you want; just be consistant with it. Keep it simple so as to be readily playable, but not so simple it's boring. Take from real world history what you like, but not from too many different sources or it'll get too "patchwork" in feel. Most of all, have fun with it, and don't let us lovers of minutia get you down. :)

And with that, I think I'll bow out of this before I get testy. ;)

[Curufea]

Coats of arms came after knighthood, after all :)

Just to add another spanner to the works - there were "knights" in the Roman empire. A knight-equivalent class known as Equestrians. Although not a bestowed title as such but an actual class.

[sinanju]

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?

Here are a couple of webpages that can give you lots of information on the subject of peerages, titles, correct usage, etc. (These are primarily aimed at historical British usages...but they're a good place to start.)

http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles01.html

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/peerage

[tkdguy]

Sinanju posted some good links. Especially look at courtesy titles. (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/courtesy+title) Since the PC is the younger son of a baron, he'd go by "The Honourable (first name, last name)." I think that's a more modern convention rather than a medieval one, though. In any case, if he is a knight, he would be called "Sir (first name)."

[Markdoc]

Markdoc: I have been studying heraldry, which is only secondarily the study of coats armour and is primarily the study of rank, inheritance, family, nobility, etc., for 30 years or so. I'm afraid your statements are incorrect to such a degree I can no longer see any sense to correcting them point by point.

Basil, I'm sorry if I'm making you testy, but I am actually interested in the topic: like you I have been studying it (admittedly as an enthusiatsic amateur) for more than thirty years. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know, and would appreciate some pointers as to sources. I'm not being snarky, I'd *genuinely* like to know. It may be that my sources with regard to the UK are outdated (and it could well be - history is a very flexible subject!).

If so, it's a very widespread error - with regard to online sources, the BBC lists knights under gentry and states that baron is the lowest rank of nobility (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2791929). The abbreviated version from Debretts, which I had always taken to be authorative, says the same, namely "Baron (and baroness): The lowest rank of nobility .... If you have a life peerage this is the highest title you can carry". They also list Knight under gentry - although they also use the name lower nobility, which may be where the confusion arises.

In France the same seems to be true - as Francois Velde (one of the moderators of rec.heraldry) says "Thus, knights were not necessarily nobles, nor were nobles necessarily knights." (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/knights.htm). The same site reproduces some of the original texts (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/chevalier.htm) which confirm that "chevalier" although a mark of honour and of knighthood was not a mark of nobility until the late 18th century and the law regarding the making of unfree men into knights only with the king's permission indicates that in France, this could happen.

With regard to Denmark (and to the rest of the North - see for example, this raher swedish-biased discussion on Soc.cult.nordic at http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/scn/adel.html) there's no question: here people distinguished (and to some extent still do - the special naming privileges of the noble familes were only recently revoked) between "friherre" (Free Lords or Free Men - basically gentry) and "aedelslagtene" (Noble Kin: basically the aristocracy or herditary peers). All knights (Riddere) were either friherre or aedelesmænd, but there was a sharp and strongly enforced line between friherre and aedelslagtene over which one could not lightly tread - though it was possible to go from commoner to Frihere if you were rich and powerful enough. And of course not all friherre or aedelesmænd were riddere: that was a quasi-military title, not a social class. This was a social and legal distinction, not an economic or military one. Some friherre were wealthier and more powerful than aedelslagtene. At the same time there were commoners who were as powerful and wealthy as either. Such commoners might fight as armoured shock cavalry, but they were never "riddere" (ie: not knights). They were numerous and competent though - in the 16th century war called "Grevens Fejde" - the baron's war - the common shock cavalry several times defeated the knights in straight combat.

Hopefully this indicates where I'm coming from in the statements made previously.

cheers, Mark