Why not. The King/Prince is a sovereign ruler while the Duke is just an Imperial flunky. While the Duke has at least some control over the Imperial forces in his subsector that king can have absolute control over planetary forces that could be almost as great assuming he rules the most populous planet.
Why not. The King/Prince is a sovereign ruler while the Duke is just an Imperial flunky. While the Duke has at least some control over the Imperial forces in his subsector that king can have absolute control over planetary forces that could be almost as great assuming he rules the most populous planet.
The princely states of India were ruled by maharajas ("high king"), among other titles, under treaties with the king or queen of Great Britain (also self-styled as the emperor or empress of India). However, the administrator of India, responsible for a wide range of duties including most prominently foreign affairs and defense, was the viceroy appointed by the British monarch - the highest rank in the British peerage enjoyed by a governor-general of India was marquess.
The princely states of India were ruled by maharajas ("high king"), among other titles, under treaties with the king or queen of Great Britain (also self-styled as the emperor or empress of India). However, the administrator of India, responsible for a wide range of duties including most prominently foreign affairs and defense, was the viceroy appointed by the British monarch - the highest rank in the British peerage enjoyed by a governor-general of India was marquess.
Of course he may. Which is why the SL 15 duke of 1st Ed. Traveller cannot be the same substantive rank as the SL 15 duke of of later editions Traveller, because he ranks below planetary rulers while the subsector duke ranks above. OTU planetary rulers would seem to fit in around SL 13.
Several people seem to've gained the impression that I was trying to use the quote to bolster a claim that subsector dukes in the OTU ranked below planetary rulers. I'm not. I'm claiming that the original dukes weren't subsector dukes (I would also like to point out that an empire of 'several' worlds is unlikely to require subdividing into subsectors, let alone sectors and domains).
I've had an article detailing my scheme in the JTAS slushpile for many months. Loren told me that he'd publish it, but that he was saving it for a theme issue about nobles. That was quite a while ago.
That gets into the whole question of just what social rank represents. Is it a game artifact for the benefit of referee and players or is it a label fixed on certain Imperial individuals by some institution? If it's the former I can well se how a planetary ruler could outrank a visiting subsector duke in a social situation. But formally that would be more a host/guest thing than a higher rank/lower rank thing. Informally a courtier may pay more attention to the king who'll still be here tomorrow than the subsector duke who'll be gone tomorrow. OTOH, the courtier who wants to win a lawsuit at the subsector court or to appointed ducal chamberlain may pay more attention to the duke than the king. As soon as you beging introducing relativity into the rankings, the whole subject becomes hopelessly muddied.
Yes, but that kind of situations are resolved by the subsector duke appearing in the guise of a planetary duke rather than in the guise of a subsector duke. Just because two titles sound the same doesn't mean that they are the same. As the Duke of Rhylanor, Leonard of Rhylanor will outrank any planetary ruler, but if he just happened to also be the Duke of Tistahw, vassal of the King of Sthepozevac on Porozlo, he could chose to visit Porozlo as Duke Leonard of Tistahw, in which case he'd not only be properly deferential to the King of Sthepozevac but also to the other kings and presidents of various Porozlan nations. But even then I can't see any of those kings and presidents treating him quite the same as they'd treat his Sthepozevacan peers. However much he pretends to be a lowly SL11 planetary duke, people will always remember that he's actually SL 15, far above a mere planetary ruler.
No what you claimed to have was proof that nobles in CT chargen were planetary nobles. What you in fact had was a suposition based on your impression of relative power. That's not proof.
No what you claimed to have was proof that nobles in CT chargen were planetary nobles. What you in fact had was a suposition based on your impression of relative power. That's not proof.
But if you have absolute control of the most populous world in the subsector (frequently having a population 10 times that of the next larger planet) you do have more practical power than a person who can exert some control in some situations and only as a representative of higher authority subject to the review of superiors.
But if you have absolute control of the most populous world in the subsector (frequently having a population 10 times that of the next larger planet) you do have more practical power than a person who can exert some control in some situations and only as a representative of higher authority subject to the review of superiors.
No what you claimed to have was proof that nobles in CT chargen were planetary nobles. What you in fact had was a suposition based on your impression of relative power. That's not proof. </font>[/QUOTE]Well-said.
No what you claimed to have was proof that nobles in CT chargen were planetary nobles. What you in fact had was a suposition based on your impression of relative power. That's not proof. </font>[/QUOTE]Well-said.
