Free movement of citizens?

[Elliot]

That would be, "Member Worlds cannot be interefered with by the Imperium." Which is found all over canon.

Well as stated above I accept I am on shakey ground, however, let me present an argument if only for the sake of continuing a fruitful debate (I hope you see it as such too

)

As stated above the essence of true feudalism (as opposed to bastard feudal or later honour nobility systems) is the contract where an estate in land is granted by a lord to his vassal on condition of rendering homage and service.


The American Heritage dictionary describes feudalism thus:

'A political and economic system . . . based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.'

Therefore the feudal system works because Emperor grants land to Duke who grants land to Knight who grants land to Peasant who farms it. In peace the peasant pays rent for the use of land, in war the peasant provides military service to the Knight (i.e. the peasants form the infantry). The Knight provides military service to the Duke holding the land and so up to the Emperor.

Lets look at Library Data N-Z as an Ur text of canon:

'All nobility is part of the feudal system of Imperial government' p.34, para.5

So the Imperium is feudal (to some degree) - therefore the fief for service paragigm must be in place to some degree or there is no sense in calling the Imperial structure feudal.

To continue:

'The Emperor is the ultimate object of thousands of oaths of loyalty and fealty. . .' (p.36 about para.8)

So the Emperor is offered fealty - i.e. he gets something in return for making people nobles and that is service. I would argue that in a feudal context this is specifically military service in one form or another (eg. tax or men).

and on:

'Patents of nobility...may include fiefs of land. . . The fief is a convenient method for the Emperor to reward certain nobles.' Libr.D. N-Z p.36

OK - first contradiction with real feudalism - land is give as a convenient reward. BUT land is given, and that land is not part of a world government's possession, it is land belonging to to the noble by reason of his title (reference is made to a Knight holding either a large plot in the wilds or a singe hectare in a business district).

Mix that with feudalism and we have a situation where the Emperor can call in the favour - in true feudalism this is either money or arms.

Imagine this: A traveller Count might have fiefs on each of his three or four worlds. As a count he may have very large fiefs indeed. He is not interfering with a world government as the Emperor has given that land to the Count as his personal and heritable property in return for service.

The Count has a choice - he can rent out that land to individuals, companies or even the world government who develop it for profit; or he can leave as his personal hunting ground and exclude all from it. Assume he lets it out. As this is feudalism, the rent may be money tax in times of peace or men tax in times of war. In any event the Count is charged with providing fealty to the Emperor when called upon, so I would expect the Count to make sure that he can do so in such an event.

Remember canon says that the Imperium is feudal and a fief is personal. If it was a continent one would expect at least a money price as rent. If it was truly feudal the Lord could demand conscripts from among those vassals who have the benefit of his lands.

Unfortunately canon doesn't really say how big a Count or a Duke's fief would be.

In my view, therefore, it is possible to argue from canon that a high noble had a right of conscription from his own lands without interfering with world governments.

I might, of course, be entirely wrong.....

 

[RandyT0001]

Originally posted by Elliot:

'All nobility is part of the feudal system of Imperial government' p.34, para.5

So the Imperium is feudal (to some degree) - therefore the fief for service paragigm must be in place to some degree or there is no sense in calling the Imperial structure feudal.

To continue:

'The Emperor is the ultimate object of thousands of oaths of loyalty and fealty. . .' (p.36 about para.8)

So the Emperor is offered fealty - i.e. he gets something in return for making people nobles and that is service. I would argue that in a feudal context this is specifically military service in one form or another (eg. tax or men).

The noble owes the requested service to the emperor for his fief and patent, not the world's inhabitants upon which his fief is located.

'Patents of nobility...may include fiefs of land. . . The fief is a convenient method for the Emperor to reward certain nobles.' Libr.D. N-Z p.36

OK - first contradiction with real feudalism - land is give as a convenient reward. BUT land is given, and that land is not part of a world government's possession, it is land belonging to to the noble by reason of his title (reference is made to a Knight holding either a large plot in the wilds or a singe hectare in a business district).

The emperor does not automatically own all the land on the worlds within the Imperium just because he is emperor. This is a difference from historical feudal systems where the king owned all the land in his kingdom by 'divine right' which was parceled to his nobles for service. This Imperial land fief to the noble must be acquired from a world's government by purchase or grant (gift).

Mix that with feudalism and we have a situation where the Emperor can call in the favour - in true feudalism this is either money or arms.

Imagine this: A traveller Count might have fiefs on each of his three or four worlds. As a count he may have very large fiefs indeed. He is not interfering with a world government as the Emperor has given that land to the Count as his personal and heritable property in return for service.

The Count has a choice - he can rent out that land to individuals, companies or even the world government who develop it for profit; or he can leave as his personal hunting ground and exclude all from it. Assume he lets it out. As this is feudalism, the rent may be money tax in times of peace or men tax in times of war. In any event the Count is charged with providing fealty to the Emperor when called upon, so I would expect the Count to make sure that he can do so in such an event.

Remember canon says that the Imperium is feudal and a fief is personal. If it was a continent one would expect at least a money price as rent. If it was truly feudal the Lord could demand conscripts from among those vassals who have the benefit of his lands.

In my view, therefore, it is possible to argue from canon that a high noble had a right of conscription from his own lands without interfering with world governments.

The Imperium is not a 'true' feudal government. The noble can rent out his fief in order to raise money so that he can outfit the requested battalion of soldiers when war comes. I don't think an Imperial noble, in times of war, can go to his fief and conscript the shopkeepers, clerks, farmers, etc there into Imperial service. Just because they rent a store front, etc. from the noble does not obligate them to render service to the noble.

IMO

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Elliot:
Well as stated above I accept I am on shakey ground . . .

<snip of many definitions of feudalism and potential parallels>

I previously acknowledged that the medieval feudal system did require nobles to provide troops in time of war (some knights, some infantry, some canon-fodder, it varied), serfs for labor, agricultural products, etc., all as taxation (although it was often called other things).

However, as I also pointed out before, this sort of thing didn’t continue as soon as money became available to substitute. Money is a very convenient way to handle an exchange of value for goods and services.

The Imperium itself is a long way off from medieval times, technology, and the barter/agro economic system. The Imperium operates on the almighty Credit.

It is my belief that all taxation throughout the Imperium is handled in Credits, and nothing else. There really isn’t a whole lot (ok, I haven’t seen anything at all, but that doesn’t mean it might not exist somewhere) in canon to say otherwise, and canon does say that the only legal form of currency in the Imperium is the Credit.

Worlds that are incapable of paying in Credits are aided in their development by the Local Noble (and that noble’s personal fortune), until they have some way of paying their taxes. In extreme cases, the Local Noble may be paying the taxes personally, but that’s only going to be for very small population worlds that are hopelessly impossible to develop.

Originally posted by Elliot:
Unfortunately canon doesn't really say how big a Count or a Duke's fief would be.

Well, it does say, specifically, that an archduke gets an entire “world” as personal fief (I have always assumed it wasn’t a Pop 8 to A world, because that would be putting a ridiculous amount of power in someone’s hands; and Artemsus, brilliant man that he was, just wouldn’t have done it). For the rest of the nobles, it says nothing for sure.

Originally posted by Elliot:
In my view, therefore, it is possible to argue from canon that a high noble had a right of conscription from his own lands without interfering with world governments.

Well now, conscripting from individuals living on the noble’s personal lands? Maybe.

The trouble for me is, conscription is the equivalent of slavery, period. I don’t care whether or not the slave is happy and satisfied and even willing to be a slave, it’s still slavery.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
The emperor does not automatically own all the land on the worlds within the Imperium just because he is emperor. This is a difference from historical feudal systems where the king owned all the land in his kingdom by 'divine right' which was parceled to his nobles for service. This Imperial land fief to the noble must be acquired from a world's government by purchase or grant (gift).

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
The Imperium is not a 'true' feudal government. The noble can rent out his fief in order to raise money so that he can outfit the requested battalion of soldiers when war comes. I don't think an Imperial noble, in times of war, can go to his fief and conscript the shopkeepers, clerks, farmers, etc there into Imperial service. Just because they rent a store front, etc. from the noble does not obligate them to render service to the noble.

IMO

Yes, I see things this way, as well.


And, additionally:

In order for the Emperor to grant fiefs to a noble, the Emperor must acquire that land. Now, when a Member World originally joins the Imperium, it may be required to forfeit some land for the the starport and for the noble's fief, but the Member World isn't going to hand over large amounts of prime real estate, otherwise, it wouldn't join (join, I said, I'm not talking about early period conquests). In order to gain more land, the Emperor will have to buy up some of it. But in any event, land is not always the key to success it was in the medieval period, and so being granted a thousand square miles of land that no one else in the Member World's Government wanted may not be the best money earner.

In any event, IMTU, a new noble is granted a variety of things. Shares in Megacorporations, Mutal Funds, Bonds, perhaps an interstellar yacht or two, and then land (possibly in more than one location). They do not depend soley on land to make their fortunes.

Also IMTU, Ruling Nobles (those who count Imperial Government Districts; sectors, subsectors, and worlds (where Domains aren't a part of the tax structure) as a part of their "fief") receive a stipend in the form of a share of taxes collected. This means that the Ruling Nobility are plugged into titanic sums of wealth. My version of Noblesse Oblige requires them to spend a great deal of it on the development and maintenence of their fief (worlds, companies, ships), and also requires that nobles be charitable, and so a great deal of money winds up getting donated to charity causes.

Although it may be a new Member World's noble's (Marquis or Baron) job to see to its development so that it has a way to pay taxes in Credits, the next noble up the chain (Count) is likely (though it isn't certain) to help out in order to make themselves look better in from the Subsector and Sector Dukes by enhancing the tax structure of the area. Those higher level nobles may also help out. Sometimes the development of a new world may be carried out with sufficient external funds that the it may look like hitting a fly with a nova-trigger.

 

[RandyT0001]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:

Worlds that are incapable of paying in Credits are aided in their development by the Local Noble (and that noble’s personal fortune), until they have some way of paying their taxes. In extreme cases, the Local Noble may be paying the taxes personally, but that’s only going to be for very small population worlds that are hopelessly impossible to develop.

Though Marc Miller has stated that Adv 5, Trillion Credit Squadron, does not in it's entirety specifically apply to the Imperium we could infer from it how interstellar currency exchange is handled. On p. 32 of that adventure there is a relative value table and in the adjecent text it states that worlds marked with an asterisk are taxed periodically (i.e. not as often as more advanced worlds, quarterly as opposed to monthly possibly). Such taxes are variable and low (presumably, less than one percent, the lowest value on the table).

Well, it does say, specifically, that an archduke gets an entire “world” as personal fief (I have always assumed it wasn’t a Pop 8 to A world, because that would be putting a ridiculous amount of power in someone’s hands; and Artemsus, brilliant man that he was, just wouldn’t have done it). For the rest of the nobles, it says nothing for sure.

The archduke gets a world as a fief, generally retained as a private reserve. There are only six such worlds in the entire Imperium. I read the 'private reserve' as having no indigenous population or government. A baron's fief is generally not more than 100 square kilometers. I assume the 100 square kilometers refers to farmland and not a grant located in a urban area which would be smaller.

 

[Elliot]

In many ways this discussion shows how ill thought out the whole Traveller nobility system is. What is described as a feudal system (which to me as a historian has a specific meaning that extends beyond what honourific you call someone) turns out to be nothing but the equivalent of the nobility of the C19th British Empire: you get a viscounty for being a good general and being born a Marquis may lead you into the upper echelons of government by reason of your connections.

At the same time Traveller has a whole (and ever increasing) catalogue of bureaux and ministries doing government things. The simple (simplistic?) idea in early CT of the local magnate controlling the march because the stars are too far apart for effective bureaucratic government has fallen apart because of successive accretions of additional bureaucracy.

I must confess I like the feudal idea and will use it IMTU if I ever play 3I stuff again.

Many thanks for this debate, it has been most enjoyable.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Elliot:
What is described as a feudal system (which to me as a historian has a specific meaning that extends beyond what honourific you call someone) turns out to be nothing but the equivalent of the nobility of the C19th British Empire: you get a viscounty for being a good general and being born a Marquis may lead you into the upper echelons of government by reason of your connections.

I would say that this is only true to a point.

One of the characteristics of classical feudalism is that state power is distributed amongst local magnates, rather than concentrated in the hands of a centralised state. This is most definitely true about the Imperium.

There are good reasons why the Emperors/Empresses treat the greater nobles of the Imperium with respect - they are dangerous. They are, to varying degrees, people who wield power comparable to that of the Emperor himself. Or at least they do if they gang up against him.

The nobility command the fleets, the worlds, the bureaucracy, the religious organisations and the megacorporations of the Imperium. That is why they are nobles and how they became nobles.

And the Emperors know this.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Elliot:
In many ways this discussion shows how ill thought out the whole Traveller nobility system is.
<snip>

At the same time Traveller has a whole (and ever increasing) catalogue of bureaux and ministries doing government things. The simple (simplistic?) idea in early CT of the local magnate controlling the march because the stars are too far apart for effective bureaucratic government has fallen apart because of successive accretions of additional bureaucracy.

Well, as I run MTU, and as GT:Nobles shows, the [ruling] nobility (those directly over the Imperial Government Districts; sectors, subsectors, and worlds) are in charge of all "Imperial Personnel" in their district. So they do "control the march," because they're in charge of the IB, the nobility of lesser rank, and the IN/IM in their area.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
The archduke gets a world as a fief, generally retained as a private reserve. There are only six such worlds in the entire Imperium. I read the 'private reserve' as having no indigenous population or government. A baron's fief is generally not more than 100 square kilometers. I assume the 100 square kilometers refers to farmland and not a grant located in a urban area which would be smaller.

I can see the archduke's worlds as originally having had zero population, but that would have been when Artemsus granted the worlds as fiefs. 1000 years later, and it would be a different story. Until sometime after the Civil War, the archdukes had enormous power and wealth, they would have undoutedly invested in their "personal world". And a smart move to, as they got unplugged from their rulership and other wealth (their share of taxes) later on.

 

[Elliot]

AlanB stated:

One of the characteristics of classical feudalism is that state power is distributed amongst local magnates, rather than concentrated in the hands of a centralised state. This is most definitely true about the Imperium.

This is a characteristic of feudalism along with many other state systems but it is not the defining characteristic = feudal from the ancient germanic word 'feoh' (literally 'cattle') which equates in use to heritable property rights - hence freehold real estate is held in fee simple. The thing that makes a feudal state feudal is the contract of property and dominion for service.

Mere uncentralised power is not a peculiar and defining characteristic of feudalism - for example colonial India was run on such lines with Viceroys and bureaucrats (often with noble titles) having pretty much carte blanche in their region.

Furthermore, as has been argued here - local magnates do not have control of local worlds - they only run the space between worlds = if that is so, then where does there military power come from? An Imperiual charter that requires local worlds to provide pecuniary taxation seems to be the answer.

This hardly makes them magnates in the sense that John of Gaunt was a magnate. It therefore still appears to me that the 3I nobility are viceroy style civil servants rather than feudal lords in the proper sense.

RoS stated:

the [ruling] nobility . . . are in charge of all "Imperial Personnel" in their district. So they do "control the march," because they're in charge of the IB, the nobility of lesser rank, and the IN/IM in their area.

Again I agree, yes they control the March but not in a feudal sense: nobility in charge of bureacracy was a feature of ancien regime France and the Tudor state but those regimes were part of the post feudal early modern period.

So, IMO on the arguments presented here and in the way Traveller has developed the Imperium cannot be called feudal by any standard definition of feudalism.

 

[RandyT0001]

Elliot, since you're a historian (with a degree from a college, I presume) maybe you could offer a better term to describe the Imperial government. Unlike the C19th British Empire, the Imperium does not have a legislative parliament. The Moot, the assembly of noble peers, has primarly only three governmental functions: confirmation of emperor, serve as advisory council to the emperor for Imperial policy (of which the emperor has the sole and final authority), and the ability to vote to dissolve the Imperial government (which means the emperor and the nobility lose their governmental authority, an act they are very unlikely to do). Bureaucracy really is not an option, IMO, since all governments above tribal/family level have a bureaucractic element to them.

Maybe it is more like the C1st to C3rd Roman Empire but substituting 'emperor appointed nobles' for the 'citizen elected Roman senate'. I'm not sure what such a government would be called except dictatorship. What are your thoughts?

One of the greatest aspects of Traveller, the RPG system, is the ability to change parts of the OTU to suit YTU. May you and your players have immense fun IYTU.

 

[Elliot]

Cheers Randy for the challenge - I will consult the dusty texts for a name for the Imperial system of government (that is unless someone beats me to it...)

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
<snip>
Bureaucracy really is not an option
<snip>

And I thought that the Imperial Bureaucracy wasn't an option. During the Emperor's of the Flag period, the Imperial Government "was judged to have gone on unbroken because there was no break in the bureaucracy." This implies, outright, that the bureaucracy is far more important to actually getting things done at the ground level than the Emperor or the nobility.

 

[RandyT0001]

ROS, it is my assumption that the various emperors that reigned during the 'Emperors of the Flag' period were not Moot 'confirmed' emperors but held the position due to control of fleet elements. It would appear that the battles fought during this period were solely space borne and involved very little, if any, world conquests (as opposed to the civil war following Stephon's murder).
Those nobles below the emperor still held power and were in charge of the 'Bureaucracy' that maintained the daily Imperial government operations, IMO. To me it shows the importance of the nobility to the mundane government operations. These nobles did not wish to dissolve the Imperium but were unwilling to inject themselves in the naval fighting between fleet admirals, nobles themselves caught up in the powerplays for the imperial throne. Once Arbellatra defeated Gustus and accepted regent status as a suitable (presumably) Jaqueline I heir was located did the Civil War wind down. I figure that Arbellatra knew that the chances to find a 'suitable' heir of Jaqueline would be very slim since most of the various Emperors of the Flag had probably killed them during the civil war so as to eliminate potential challenges to them. IMO, Arbellatra used this in a PR move to appeal to the Moot to position himself as the best choice for emperor once the search failed.
IMO

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Elliot:
Furthermore, as has been argued here - local magnates do not have control of local worlds - they only run the space between worlds = if that is so, then where does there military power come from?

You are forgetting _why_ they were made nobles in the first place.

You are trying to downgrade them to mere bureaucrats. They aren't.

They rule the worlds of the Imperium. They are the Popes, Ayatollahs and Lamas of the Imperium. They are the Admirals, the senior bureaucrats (yes, some are bureaucrats), and the plutocrats of the Imperium.

They rule the Imperium.

All of it.

That is why they were made nobles.

If you want the argument repeated, it is nice, simple, and a little bit circular:

The rulers of the Imperium become nobles. Therefore, nobles rule the Imperium.

 

[RandyT0001]

Alan, I think you are mistaken as far as the OTU is concerned. The Imperial government rules the space between worlds, not the individual worlds. Otherwise, why would they have differing world governmnet codes. The inhabitants of the world rule that world. The Imperial nobles are there to facilitate the interaction of the world government and the Imperial government.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Alan, I think you are mistaken as far as the OTU is concerned. The Imperial government rules the space between worlds, not the individual worlds. Otherwise, why would they have differing world governmnet codes. The inhabitants of the world rule that world. The Imperial nobles are there to facilitate the interaction of the world government and the Imperial government.

Let's look at the MT Imperial Encyclopedia. GT Nobles might be preferable, but it's also rather ambiguous, IIRC, probably because Loren was trying to keep us both happy.

Under "Types of Nobles" we have:
Honour Nobles: 'sometimes travel on the interstellar "lecture and cocktail circuit"'. They don't appear to have any government functions *associated with their title*. (But apparently they can also be Rank Nobles too - see below).

Rank Nobles: 'Patents for rank nobility are give because of a citizen's position, and all noble classes are eligible for such a patent. Members of the rank nobility belong to one of two subtypes.'

The subtypes are:

Local Nobility: 'These nobles serve as Imperial representatives in systems that have a government somehow not conducive to administration by high nobility'.

Administrators: 'The second subtype of rank noble comprises citizens who hold Imperial office...'

OK, these two categories are your "bureaucrat nobles".

But the kind of nobles I'm talking about - the scary ones - are in the next category:

High Nobles: 'The rare titles of the high nobility are given for "political support in office, victory in the military, or contributions or economic assistance from the commercial sector" behond any reasonable expectation.'

In other words, these are the kind of people that can give "political support in office", etc.

These are the movers and shakers of the Imperium: the owners of the megacorps, the commanders of the Imperial fleets, the rulers of major worlds - the people the Emperor has to rely on. And they are the people who can depose the Emperor.

They're the nobles I'm talking about.

 

[aramis]

GT is not the OTU. It's a separate, but similar ATU.

THe statement about ruling the space between the worlds is why IMTU, the feifs are usually the starports.

 

[Elliot]

If you want the argument repeated, it is nice, simple, and a little bit circular:

The rulers of the Imperium become nobles. Therefore, nobles rule the Imperium

If you want to be condescending in a reasonably well argued debate then fine. I personally don't understand your attempt at logic as your 'syllogism' lacks either a major or a minor premise, making it logically deficient. I venture that what you are saying is this:

1. Only nobles can rule the Imperium;
2. All people who obtain a position of rule become nobles;
3. Therefore all rulers the Imperium are nobles.

That sounds like a meritocracy to me, not feudalism. It also sounds like a form of civil service oligarchy to me, where promotion to rule is accompanied with noble elevation (and rightly so - it is not for nothing that in England all High Court judges are knighted when obtaining position).

But I dispute that this argument is true: I can envisage that a local bureaucrat may rule a portion in the Imperium (a world, a city, a park, an estate) without holding a title, therefore premise 2 goes out the window and the sylogism fails.

Furthermore my argument is not about nobles ruling the Imperium, it is about whether nobles hold power on a feudal basis or a different basis. There is nothing in your 'nice, simple point' that engages with that in the slightest.

In fact with reference to ayatollahs and the lot you are tending to support a premise that has been rejected by Lord R.O. Steel and Mr Tyler, which is that the Imperium is not an arbitrary state ruled at the whim of local magnates. On the contrary, they say the Imperium curcumscribes the power of a local noble via a negotiation with 101 different entities such as world governments, the IN, the Army and the various bureaux.

In my view that is simply incompatible with what you are saying about nobles and power (of course you may actually disagree with them, which is fine).

Anyway, peace and love, if this appears too strong please forgive me - I do not mean in that way.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Elliot:

That sounds like a meritocracy to me, not feudalism. It also sounds like a form of civil service oligarchy to me, where promotion to rule is accompanied with noble elevation . . .

The Imperial Government is a modified feudal system. Heavily modified. But a pure civil service does not involve a bureaucrat swearing a set of ever more important oaths to a chain of superiors that bind the life and obedience of the bureaucrat to those superiors. Pure bureaucrats get hired into their jobs, serve their time, and retire; and after they retire. While a Rank Noble may lose that after leaving the post they needed the Noble Rank for (and that's an open issue), the other nobility, ruling, etc., all retain their rank, and remaing a class apart.

Thus, the Imperium is part feudalism, part oligarchy, and has a civil service bureaucracy to help them run their Empire. It isn't exactly like any historical government, even though it has the trappings of many of them. Cleon I was a clever fellow, after all. His nation has a custom job government.

Originally posted by Elliot:
But I dispute that this argument is true: I can envisage that a local bureaucrat may rule a portion in the Imperium (a world, a city, a park, an estate) without holding a title, therefore premise 2 goes out the window and the sylogism fails.

Cities, parks, and estates are not "ruled" unless they are a personal fief, and if there is population there, it was probably developed by the historical family line, or attracted there by various inducements (if the fief were just created).

Noble "rule" is the handling of Imperial affairs, interface with Member Worlds, and the commanding of Imperial Personnel.

Originally posted by Elliot:
Furthermore my argument is not about nobles ruling the Imperium, it is about whether nobles hold power on a feudal basis or a different basis. There is nothing in your 'nice, simple point' that engages with that in the slightest.

Well, the Emperor is the center of power in the Imperium. The nobles are empowered to act in the Emepror's name in certain matters. Since the various branches of the Imperial Government, IN, IM, and IB, will all listen to the "ruling" group (those over Imperial Government Districts) and follow their orders.

Thus, it appears to me, that "power" flows from the Emperor into the individuals. The entire legal basis for power in the Imperium is based upon it. GT:Nobles calls it Imperial Mandate, I've been calling it Imperial Authority for my purposes.

Originally posted by Elliot:
In fact with reference to ayatollahs and the lot you are tending to support a premise that has been rejected by Lord R.O. Steel and Mr Tyler, which is that the Imperium is not an arbitrary state ruled at the whim of local magnates. On the contrary, they say the Imperium curcumscribes the power of a local noble via a negotiation with 101 different entities such as world governments, the IN, the Army and the various bureaux.

A noble's power may be circumscribed, but it is only with respect to Member Worlds and their superiors, and the contraints placed upon them by the rules of Noblesse Oblige (whatever any particular GM choses to have those be). Imperial Personnel under their command are under their command. The ruling nobility also have vast wealth at their beck and call, so even those not under their command might well listen to whatever they have to say.