Originally posted by DaveShayne:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DaveShayne:
Those dukes and archdukes don't rule worlds except in rare situations where they have a position in the planetary government seperate from their Imperial office.
They rule worlds just as much as the Emperor does. Interstellar government begins at the subsector level.</font>[/QUOTE]How do you figure?</font>[/QUOTE]It says so somewhere in
Library Data. I think it's in the general overview of the Imperium.
My understanding of the way the Imperium works is that planets rule themselves.
They rule themselves the same way the states of the US rule themselves. Or the way the Indian princedoms ruled themselves under the British Raj. Note that I'm not claiming that either of those examples provide an exact counterpart to the Imperial setup, but the principle is the same. Some things the Imperium deals with, other things are left to the member worlds.
Am I reading that wrong? Are the home rule provisions noted in Book 4 and elsewhere and somewhat important to a large number of adventures incorect?
There are several examples of Imperial laws superceding those of member systems. The Psionic Edicts is a prime example. Just how much sovereignty member systems have is not spelled out anywhere (my surmise is that it can differ and that the details would be spelled out in whatever treaty that makes the nation/world/system a member). I also think the member systems (the high-population ones, anyway) are stronger vis-a-vis the Emperor than the states of the USA are vis-a-vis the Federal Government. And then, of course, each duchy represents a separate political unit too, so the Imperium is a three-tier system as opposed to the two-tier system of the US.
But regardless of the actual division of powers and authority, the Imperium has a measure of authority over all duchies and all member worlds and each duchy has some measure of authority over the member worlds inside its borders.
Anyway in Supplement 11 nobles are described as being "associated" with planets not ruling them.
The barons and marquesses don't rule the worlds they're associated with and counts don't rule the clusters they're associated with. But the dukes rule the duchies they're associated with (though I don't actually recall that word being used in connection with the dukes).
Not proof of non regalness but an interesting wording if nobles do in fact rule their worlds. But even if Imperial nobles do exercise direct control over world policies (which according to my reading of canon they do not)
Which is why I was very careful to spell out that I talked about the dukes and not the counts, marquesses, and barons. I felt that 300 dukes would provide enough examples of 'rulers of several worlds' who were not called emperors that I didn't need to drag in anyone else. And, of course, I that pointing out that the two rank systems were manifestly different would help too.
...they still don't rule those worlds as they are vassals of a higher authority. Vassals that serve at the pleasure of the emperor.
That is a definition of the word 'rule' with which I'm unfamiliar. To rule simply means to exercise authority. The source of the authority is irrelevant.
And while the passage given could be interpreted in the way you describe it - assuming you interpolate a planetary nobility structure (that uses the same ranks as the Imperial nobility to refer to presumably lesser possitions)
Where in any of my posts in this thread do I mention anything about interpolating a planetary nobility in the canonical rank system? In the posts I've made in other threads about the canonical rank system I point out that planetary nobles are
missing from it and express the opinion that this is a mistake. But in
this thread, all I've done is state that in the original version[*], there were no interstellar nobles; that the barons, marquesses, counts, and dukes were planetary nobles. Since we all know that the Imperium does have interstellar barons, etc., it seems pretty obvious to me that I can't be talking about the Imperial system.
[*] To begin with I said '1st edition', not 'original version', which I've come to realise was wrong. I was aware that you can have new editions without revising the text, but I mistakenly thought that if you revised the text, you automatically got a new edition.
that isn't really mentioned anywhere that I can see - it is also consistent with the canon version of nobility if you interpret one imprecise word more broadly than it is usually considered to be used.
Only if you ignore all the other differences. Which, come to think about it, you have. Or perhaps you just inadvertently forgot about them? You know:
"The Imperium has no kings, its princes don't rule words, it has archdukes"
So take your pick are all of the noble titles being used to refer to two different rank structures with no mention of which rank structure is being refernced at any given time
In the original version they refer to planetary nobles. In subsequent versions they refer to interstellar nobles. At no time do they refer to both at the same time (Well... most of the Imperial nobles that show up in early adventures
act like petty nobles rather than powerful interstellar potentates, but that's by the way in this context).
Original version:
Baron
Marquis
Count
Duke
Prince
King
Petty Emperor
Subsequent version:
Imperial Baron
Imperial Marquis
Imperial Count
Imperial Duke (ruler of a duchy)
Imperial Archduke
Prince
Emperor
Different from each other. Not the same. Changed from one to the other. Got it?
or did somebody at GDW use the word 'several' when he perhaps meant 'more than one' or did the fact that the sentence was itself subsequently removed mean it has no bearing on the nobility of the evolved structure either way.
Or does the fact that the sentence was removed show that it no longer applied because the system had been changed?
Hans
.
