Free movement of citizens?

[RainOfSteel]

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? An Imperiual charter that requires local worlds to provide pecuniary taxation seems to be the answer.

Where does the military power of the Imperial Nobility come from?

There are many views:
Fleets, IN organization, and general TO&E.
Sector, Subsector, Planetary navies

I see the IN organized thus: Sector, Subsector, Planetary navies: Post #29

The ruling nobility have vast funds at their disposal from taxation, and what is spent on defense on behalf the Member Worlds is under the command of the nobility (through the naval commanders in charge of that level of the navy, Imperial, Subsector, Planetary/World).

 

[RainOfSteel]

Oh, Elliott. Looks like you're two away from 1000.

Join the bandwagon and make post 1000 over in the the 1000 Posts thread I started . . . <he says, in a self-serving manner>.

 

[Elliot]

May I thank you all - ROS, Alan, Randy - this has been a most stimulating and civil debate. Something rarely encountered in RPG discussions these days.

 

[alanb]

To clarify/repeat my argument:

In my opinion, the high nobility is/was almost certainly "recruited" from those who are/were already powerful/wealthy/influential.

Thus, despite all rhetoric, their power is largely independent of the Emperor, not derived from him(/her/it).

The rulers of the Imperium tend to become nobles. That is, those who are already the powerbrokers are the ones that tend to get given the fancy hats.

This almost certainly includes most of the rulers of major worlds. Not all, but most.

The evidence for that is, I admit, incomplete. It's pretty explicitly stated in one or another T4 source, but I don't tend to consider T4 sources particularly authoritative. There is also the clear association of the nobility with the ownership of the megacorporations. We also know that admirals like Soegz occasionally are given noble titles (Archduke of Antares in that particular case).

It also makes sense. The Imperium _needs_ to incorporate local powerbrokers into its system. Thus, they are precisely the people who will get most of the big hats.

I consider it highly unlikely that the Imperial high nobility is distinct from the real class of power brokers in the Imperium. The Imperium would collapse and die if that was the case.

The rulers of the Imperium tend to be coopted into the nobility. Thus, the nobility (high nobility) contains, and to a significant degree consists of, the rulers of the Imperium.

In reality, the high nobility does not primarily draw its power and authority from the Emperor/Empress. It does, however, do so in theory.

This is a characteristic of feudalism, by the way.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Elliot:
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.

No. I am saying:

1. Many/most of the people who hold significant "positions of rule" in the Imperium are coopted into the nobility.

2. Therefore the nobility contains many/most of the people who hold significant "positions of rule" in the Imperium.

3. Therefore the nobility is a genuine ruling class, not a mere bureaucracy.

And yes, their power does extend to individual worlds, even though that of "the Imperium" (the Emperor) doesn't.

 

[RandyT0001]

AlanB
Assuming for a moment that you are correct in that the leaders of individual worlds are members of the Imperial nobility, on what basis are the nobles selected and are all the leaders (presidents, assemblymen, councilors, etc) of the various nations of balkanized worlds members of the Imperial nobility?
What is your source that many/most of the rulers, leaders, presidents, etc. of various world governments are members of the Imperial noble peerage in the OTU ?

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Assuming for a moment that you are correct in that the leaders of individual worlds are members of the Imperial nobility, on what basis are the nobles selected and are all the leaders (presidents, assemblymen, councilors, etc) of the various nations of balkanized worlds members of the Imperial nobility?

As always, "it depends".

I've never seen anything that suggested that the Imperium is plagued with consistency.

What is your source that many/most of the rulers, leaders, presidents, etc. of various world governments are members of the Imperial noble peerage in the OTU ?

It's pretty explicit in GT: Nobles (pp 14-16). There's a reference in the MT Players' Manual about "potentially disloyal leaders" being granted nobility and co-opted into supporting the Imperium (p95). Most sources are non-committal - it's neither stated nor denied.

Generally speaking, when this occurs, everything is true somewhere. There are world rulers who are nobles, and others who aren't.

But the ultimate basis of the argument is logic. There are very good reasons for the Imperium to co-opt planetary dignitaries into the nobility, and no reason why they wouldn't.

Now, what are your sources that indicate that few or no planetary rulers are Imperial nobles?

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by alanb:
In my opinion, the high nobility is/was almost certainly "recruited" from those who are/were already powerful/wealthy/influential.

Agreed. The original nucleus of this happened 1110 years ago, at the Founding of the Imperium itself. More were brought in through expansion of the Imperium. Which mostly stopped by the time of the Civil War. By 1110, "High Nobility" (whatever that really means; perhaps it's what I call "ruling nobility", but not being possessed of MT, I'm not sure) are all existing lines that have been around for many centuries.

Originally posted by alanb:
Thus, despite all rhetoric, their power is largely independent of the Emperor, not derived from him(/her/it).

Except that if the Emperor revokes a noble's Patent of Nobility, they are up a jump tunnel without a zuchai crystal. The IN/IM/IB complex of units and bureaucrats suddenly stops listening to that noble. Any that continue to do so are guilty of treason against the Emperor, and are subject to the death penalty.

Originally posted by alanb:
The rulers of the Imperium tend to become nobles. That is, those who are already the powerbrokers are the ones that tend to get given the fancy hats.

Rather, the Emperor co-opts the powerful and makes them noble. Or he destroys them, and they're never heard of again except in whispers in EM-cloaked rooms.

Originally posted by alanb:
This almost certainly includes most of the rulers of major worlds. Not all, but most.

The rulers of the worlds are the governments of the Member Worlds. Those individuals are not "High Nobility". There were probably a lot of blurred cases early on, where a world leader became a noble of the Imperium, and serves in the role of "charismatic dictator" and Imperial Noble for the world at the same time; but I'm willing to bet that most of those cases split into the traditional noble on one side world government on the other side roles before too long.

Originally posted by alanb:
The evidence for that is, I admit, incomplete. It's pretty explicitly stated in one or another T4 source, but I don't tend to consider T4 sources particularly authoritative.

<frown /> I can't consider them at all, as I don't have them.

Originally posted by alanb:
There is also the clear association of the nobility with the ownership of the megacorporations. We also know that admirals like Soegz occasionally are given noble titles (Archduke of Antares in that particular case).

Yes, all that's true.

Of course, I believe that all the board members and major officers of every one of the thirteen great Megacorporations were elevated to the nobility either at Founding, or in the next one to three hundred years (there are a couple of exceptions, as at least one megacorp is relatively recent, Interstellarms; and the senior officers of that corp would have gotten their nobility in the years after the Civil War).

Originally posted by alanb:
I consider it highly unlikely that the Imperial high nobility is distinct from the real class of power brokers in the Imperium. The Imperium would collapse and die if that was the case.

Um, can you cite a point in the previous posts that says the Imperial nobility are distinct from the "power brokers" in the Imperium. Everything I've said certainly points at the nobility being not only power brokers, but the power brokers.

Originally posted by alanb:
The rulers of the Imperium tend to be coopted into the nobility. Thus, the nobility (high nobility) contains, and to a significant degree consists of, the rulers of the Imperium.

I think it happens in the other direction. Those who are wealthy and powerful enough to become a risk of challenging for that "rulership" are co-opted, and become an actual ruler (or rather, among the class of rulers . . . without actually being a Ruling Noble or holding a IB/government position, no real rulership obtains).

Originally posted by alanb:
In reality, the high nobility does not primarily draw its power and authority from the Emperor/Empress. It does, however, do so in theory.

Well, given the actual legal structure of the Imperium, the nature of the Imperial Mandate (see GT:Nobles), the nature of the Emperor as the center of power, the nature of the oaths that are sworn to the Emperor: if those so bound to those oaths disobey an order or strictures of Nobless Oblige, they are in serious trouble; either they submit to punishment, or their nobility is revoked and they become hunted (and worse, "common!"; if it's bad, they whole family line could be demoted to commoner status!). Even the failure to submit to punishment for disobedience is itself a violation of Noblesse Oblige, but then, after disobedience in the first place, what's another Imperial Crime to place on top of the first?

The necessity for obedience is what makes the Emperor the center of the power of hte Imperium. Obedience to the feudal oaths isn't optional, and those who fail in their obedience aren't treated with kid gloves.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by alanb:
I've never seen anything that suggested that the Imperium is plagued with consistency.

Ah, a good point there.

Originally posted by alanb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
What is your source that many/most of the rulers, leaders, presidents, etc. of various world governments are members of the Imperial noble peerage in the OTU ?

It's pretty explicit in GT: Nobles (pp 14-16). </font>[/QUOTE]Are you referring here to what GT:Nobles calls "Planetary nobility"? Because pages 14-16 of GT:Nobles are otherwise discussion Imperial noble ranks. And with a few exceptions here and there (like the actual leader of Aramis' government being an Imperial noble), Member World govenment leaders and Imperial nobility aren't embodied in the same individuals.

Originally posted by alanb:
Generally speaking, when this occurs, everything is true somewhere.

I'm not following here. "when this occurs" in the above is referring to what exact phrase from the previous paragraph? And how does "everything is true somewhere" apply to whatever is referred to by "when this occurs"?

Originally posted by alanb:
There are world rulers who are nobles, and others who aren't.

Ok, if you mean that there are "always exceptions" to every rule, I'll buy that. The question becomes, what percentage of the total is "exceptional"? .1%? .2%?

Originally posted by alanb:
But the ultimate basis of the argument is logic. There are very good reasons for the Imperium to co-opt planetary dignitaries into the nobility, and no reason why they wouldn't.

A single planet-bound individual? Yes, I'd say that happens, too. On the full scene of the whole Imperium, it even happens a lot. But their rank as Imperial noble would be Knight or Baronet, at best. They would not be what I call ruling nobility. And the accomplishments necessary to achieve it would be substantial. What earns a marine/sailor the SEH doesn't even come close to getting Knighted on the battlefield.

Originally posted by alanb:
Now, what are your sources that indicate that few or no planetary rulers are Imperial nobles?

Personally, I only have the Aramis example to support your view. It does seem to happen infrequently, though.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by alanb:
Now, what are your sources that indicate that few or no planetary rulers are Imperial nobles?

Personally, I only have the Aramis example to support your view. It does seem to happen infrequently, though. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, well, since we seem to agree that GT: Nobles is a credible source, try the first paragraph on page 120.

On page 15, there's another example under the entry for Baron. I think it's fair to suggest that at least some of the more important of these would become Marquis instead.

Pre-GT sources aren't as explicit, but certainly leave plenty of scope for my position.

Once again: what evidence do you have to support your view? Come to think of it, what exactly _is_ your view?

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by alanb:
Come to think of it, what exactly _is_ your view?

Well, I thought my posts to-date would carry my views pretty succinctly.

The Emperor is the central authority, all nobles derive their legally invested powers through him, and are noble as the result of receiving a Patent of Nobility (either at Founding or later; with none earlier having any standing . . . though, of course, all the Sylean nobility who mattered got carried over into the new system).

The "ruling nobility" are the sector dukes, subsector dukes, and marquis' (techincally it's also counts and viscounts, except nowhere in canon can be found the groupings they are placed over, so I tend to pretend that only sectors, subsectors, and worlds exist as Imperial Government Districts).

These ruling nobility govern the IN/IM/IB and similar unit functions at their level of Imperial Government District. Sector dukes (or, IMTU, just "dukes") have the Sector Admiral and Sector Ministers (one over each branch of the IB) as their primary right-hands. Coming right after is their Seneschal (chief of staff of the noble's office), the commander of the Huscarles, and the commander of the noble's intelligence forces. The sector dukes hold "court", and usually requires a mandatory visit by all ruling nobility a couple of times a year, and by all non-ruling nobility at least once a year. Most noble families keep one or more members on permanent station in the court to represent the family, and keep an ear on what's going on. Sector dukes lead the whole sector in carrying out the Emperor's general orders and policies, upholding Imperial Law, and in formulating sector-specific policies required only by specific local concerns, and implementing them also through the IN/IM/IB and lesser ruling nobles. (The Emperor's birthday party, echoed at every sector court, it the major party to get into each year; those who are snubbed out without invitations are on the sector duke's s-list.)

This is pretty much replicated for subsector dukes (or, IMTU, just "counts"), only on a smaller scale. The exception is that the IN fleet admirals stationed locally are under the Sector Admiral (and therefore the Sector Duke's command). The subsector duke, on the other hand, is in command of the subsector navy (raised via subsector taxes) through that subsector navy's own command structure. The subsector duke, like the sector duke, holds "court" for the subsector nobility. Mandatory visits to the court by the ruling marquis' and barons (or, IMTU, margraves and barons) are required three to six times a year, and yet more family members are kept stationed there, for exactly the same reasons some are kept at the sector court. Some nobles who are a single jump away may stay at court quite a bit more than others. Keeping up a strong friendship with the subsector duke is a good idea (same goes for the sector duke, though that can be quite a bit harder to do for most of the sector's nobility). Subsector dukes function much like sector dukes, except are under the directives of the sector duke, and so have more general orders and policies to contend with. They are also more "in the trenches" than the sector dukes, as they are dealing directly with day to day world vs. Imperium and world vs. world disputes which need constant arbitration.

I'll skip over the world, domain, and Imperial levels for the moment.

I've been wandering ever further into IMTU, now for a hard left turn . . .

I classify the "Ruling Nobility" as those possessed of an Imperial Government District among their Title Properties (a sector, subsector, or world; with domains not counting from ca. ??? (but post-Civil War) to about 1110, when Strephon starts re-empowering the archdukes).

Titles are abstract entities created by the Emperor and granted to sophonts, making them "nobles" in the Imperium.

Titles themselves may possess property, or Title Properties. These are usually financial instruments, lands, Imperial Government Districts, ships, etc.; though only Ruling Nobility have Imperial Government Districts). It is a major requirement of Noblesse Oblige that the quality and value of the Title Properties be nurtured and increased. Not doing so can lead to removal of the Title (see GTD and Emperor Gavin's removal of the OTU-archducal Title from Marshal Nells). The Title Properties may not, in most cases, be sold off or disposed of (illegal, and also a violation of Noblesse Oblige).

Service Nobles are those who were elevated for service to the Imperium. Rank Nobles are those appointed a noble rank to serve in an IB post which requires a minimum noble rank (and no suitable nobleman can be found). Courtesy Nobles are the family members of these nobles, who get one-shot non-hereditary Titles at one rank below the Title Holder.

I also have dukes over sectors, counts over subsectors, and have margraves (as a variant of marquis) over mainworlds and barons over non-mainworlds.

. . . gah, I've got more than fifty pages in another document I'm working on, I'm not going to be capable of covering it in a post here.

I'm effectively writing (and have been for the last year and half, on and off) my own version of how Imperial nobility works.

Visit: Imperial Nobility: Foundations for MTU's version of the the origin and purposes of the Imperial Nobility. (Which is the only part of the document I was referring to above that is effectively complete.)

 

[Lochlaber]

First, both sides have brought up important ideas about how the Imperium fills it's manpower needs but the sort of draft mentioned wouldn't happen because of the anti-slavery rules. I can see planets getting quota's of potential recruits to serve in the Imperial Military, after all that is what the military does now but the local authorities don't line up their young men and women and march them into the office and sign them up, protesting or not and not a single recruiter would take them.

When you take into consideration the time and costs that would be required to educate a tech 5 peasant to live in a highly technic society, few societies could afford it. Even today, the US military no longer accepts personnel that don't meet it's educational requirements as they can't afford to train them up anymore. When you consider how deadly an environment space would be, you can't afford to fill your spaceship up with them, even in low level jobs. Somebody opening up a airlock at the wrong time could cause an entire ship to die.

I can see local limits on access to a starport to be similar to those presently in place at airports around the world, although a bit looser since there are no alternate forms of transportation possible. An Empire based upon free trade, cannot allow access to be completely cut off. Even allowing only a limited number of their citizens to freely access the starport would cause some problems as this would limit free trade as merchants would not want to be limited to whom they could sell.

As far as states having the power to draft, they do not have that authority to do so on their own. They can set up a draft board but only if it is authorized under a federal act.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Lochlaber:
[. . .] An Empire based upon free trade, cannot allow access to be completely cut off. Even allowing only a limited number of their citizens to freely access the starport would cause some problems as this would limit free trade as merchants would not want to be limited to whom they could sell.

Exactly! This goes back to one of my other standing complaints about the OTU. Too many worlds are hell holes on the human rights front or with weird oppressive regimes.

I argued over in the TML a while back that the Megacorporations themselves, a vast power within the Imperium, would act, out of self-interest, to pry open closed societies in order to expand their markets (and they have the money and influence to do it). This would tend to reduce the number of such places, not increase them. (Yes, I fully acknowledge that Megacorporations aren't looking to "free" anyone; but they definitely wouldn't want any planetary market closed or nearly closed and difficult to interact with; unless, of course, it was to everyone but themselves.)

 

[Captain Zoom]

Originally posted by Lochlaber:
As far as states having the power to draft, they do not have that authority to do so on their own. They can set up a draft board but only if it is authorized under a federal act.

Do states need a draft? For example, in Hawaii:

HRS §121-1 Militia. The militia of the State shall consist of every resident able-bodied citizen of the United States who is seventeen years old or older and under forty-six years of age and all other able-bodied residents of that age who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. The militia shall be composed of four classes:

(1) The federally organized and recognized national guard,

(2) The remainder of the organized militia to be known as the Hawaii state defense force,

(3) The naval militia,

(4) The unorganized militia.

The unorganized militia shall consist of those members of the militia who are not members of the national guard, the naval militia, or the state defense force. The unorganized militia shall be subject to active military duty only when called or ordered into the service of the State for such period as is required. They may be assigned to existing organizations of the Hawaii national guard, the naval militia, or the state defense force, or otherwise as the exigencies require.

Being the last state to join, Hawaii tends to copy alot of stuff from earlier states, so I wouldn't be surprised if you find other states with similar laws.

 

[Straybow]

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.

In short: no way is the Imperium going to issue brevet titles. Except for treason no title or knighthood can be revoked. A title can be a vestiture which is not passed to heir(s), but it is permanent upon the person elevated lest it be diluted in value.

On the other hand, perhaps certain posts are accorded hierarchical deference equivalent to noble ranks. Fleet Admirals in particular would fall into that category whereas Admirals serving in support roles would not.

Another ex: a Governor appointed to planet X could be equivalent to a Marquis in rank when dealing with Nobles. It would be customary to knight a commoner prior to appointment, but rare to elevate a knight or Baron just for that role.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Straybow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
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.

In short: no way is the Imperium going to issue brevet titles.
</font>[/QUOTE]In short, yes they are.

See: Library Data A-Z. Note the paragraph on Rank Nobles. Ordinary citizens may be elevated into and tossed out of the peerage upon entering and leaving certain high Imperial Government positions.

There is a section in Traveller's Digest #9 about it, IIRC.

GT:Nobles says it pretty well.

GT:Nobles P.12: Rank Nobility
A minimum noble rank is required for many senior positions in the Imperial government [. . .]. If a commoner or a nobleman who doesn't already hold sufficient rank is placed in such a position, he is granted a new title of rank so that he can qualify for it.

Originally posted by Straybow:
Except for treason no title or knighthood can be revoked.

I suspect there are more causes than just that. What happens if the noble goes on a psycho killing spree? That's not treason agasinst the Imperium, but you can bet the Emperor would strip the noble's title and pass it on to an heir.

Personally, I think the Emperor may revoke a Title for any reason he wishes, it had simply better be acceptable to a majority of the rest of the nobility, or it would cause widespread discontent (it'll cause some discontent no matter what the reason is). There is established custom on what is and isn't acceptable, but it's just that, custom.

Originally posted by Straybow:
On the other hand, perhaps certain posts are accorded hierarchical deference equivalent to noble ranks. Fleet Admirals in particular would fall into that category whereas Admirals serving in support roles would not.

I've never seen a canon cite for it. (IMTU, most of the higher admiralty are nobles because of the old boys network of support; but their position comes with no acknowledgement of nobility.)

 

[aramis]

Plain and simple: If the ruler is a dolt, but has a form of oligarchical or elective check and balance, and are basically honest, you elevate the checking portion to minor nobility, have them receive rewards from the non-ruling nobility for their "assistance", and make the titles permanent peerages if they prove worthy. Make those numerous barons local "traditional factions" who have a vested interest (the various megacorporate shares and off-planet fief-linked intangible and revokable assets) in off world matters.

Think of this, as a potential example. WB would probably be extremely unlikely to work with the Vilani contact team. THe various house committee chairs, and senate comittee chairs, however, if all approached simultaneously, could vote to grant permission to take foreign title, all accept, and then have a vested interest in both doing the offworld goals, and in nutting the president's agenda when it got in the way. Then all of a sudden, gold coins start appearing in their "Pass the hat" dinners, from guys with the wrong number of teeth... and those who actually supported the agenda find that their "fiefs" now include shares of Makidhadrun, Nassirraka, and Sharushiid.... and the dividends can buy them things that no one else can get.

The imperium is capable of this and so much more...

If the Duma in 1905 had had access to ACR-10's and CA-10, Nicholas might still be Tzar, but he'd be more a figurehead than QE2. Aw, heck, He'd have taken the Vilani assistance to eliminate the socialist parties.

As for ennobling the powerful: it worked for centuries in Russia. In few other countries could a peasant hope to become a duke... but in Russia, it was more than just a theoretical possibility. (But only a scant few made it from peasant to noble...)

 

[Straybow]

RoS, I'm not talking about canon. Like many here I view canon as a framework of ideas which are deeply flawed in many cases. I'm also expressing an opinion on nobility as a concept.

Except in extraordinary situations, a person must be a peer in order to hold high office in the Imperial bureaucracy (although not all peers hold office). These patents are tied to a position, and are not hereditary.

Sounds great, until you actually think how many levels of secretaries and undersecretaries would have to be dubbed and sworn as these temporary nobles. Eleven thousand worlds plus hundreds of subsectors to oversee (not manage, mind you, just oversee in the most general sense), times however many departments and divisions within the bureaucracy.

Now consider the actual governance of all those worlds whose heads of state are to be admitted on coming to office and removed or adjusted in rank on leaving office. Many may serve only a few years before replacement as political fortunes ebb or on some constitutional schedule. That assumes a singular head of state for each world, which may not be the case.

Poor ol' Emperor Strephon must spend his mornings reading the daily list of thousands of bureaucrats being added or dropped from the noble rolls, a list hopelessly out of date due to the months of travel time required for the data to reach him.

Heck, here we are in a tiny little country with one twentieth of the population of one backwater world and it takes months to wade through a couple hundred appointees once every four years.

Yes, the powerful have a way of winding up on the short list for knighthood and peerages. It has been so from the start. From where else did knights and nobles come? Yet even those who openly purchased their rank (it has happened more frequently than heirs would care to admit) can't be summarily dismissed.

The point about a "psycho killing spree" or some such is immaterial.¹ If a noble were found to be criminal he'd certainly have his office, fief, and priveleges revoked. Yet he would remain a Lord, whether in the prison cell or on the gallows.

The only terrestrial example I know of a temporary rank of nobility is the Lord Mayor of London. That case is a singularity. Imagine if every mayor of every inbred village in merry olde England were made Lord and then vacated as terms expired. I know the Crown hands out knighthoods like hors d'oeurves, but what a nightmare that would be!
__________
¹ Note: One popular conspiracy theory is that Jack the Ripper was of noble or even royal blood, and was dealt with outside the normal bounds of law in order to preserve the reputation of the house and the nobility in general.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Straybow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Except in extraordinary situations, a person must be a peer in order to hold high office in the Imperial bureaucracy (although not all peers hold office). These patents are tied to a position, and are not hereditary.

Sounds great, until you actually think how many levels of secretaries and undersecretaries would have to be dubbed and sworn as these temporary nobles. Eleven thousand worlds plus hundreds of subsectors to oversee (not manage, mind you, just oversee in the most general sense), times however many departments and divisions within the bureaucracy.</font>[/QUOTE]Canon says high office. That presumably doesn't mean more than the normal crop of hereditary barons and up can usually handle on their own, with only an occasional commoner brought on board now and again.

Now consider the actual governance of all those worlds whose heads of state are to be admitted on coming to office and removed or adjusted in rank on leaving office. Many may serve only a few years before replacement as political fortunes ebb or on some constitutional schedule. That assumes a singular head of state for each world, which may not be the case.

Only hereditary heads of high-population worlds (and maybe pop 8 worlds too) would rate an Imperial title, and they'd usually be noble anyway. Temporary leaders would rate a knighthood or at most a baronetcy.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Straybow:
RoS, I'm not talking about canon. Like many here I view canon as a framework of ideas which are deeply flawed in many cases. I'm also expressing an opinion on nobility as a concept.

But the moment you stop talking about canon and begin talking about your private opinions, the discussion pretty much becomes moot. It also becomes off topic for most of these bulletin boards (including this one).


Hans