Jump to content

Westerosi Style


YOVMO

Recommended Posts

This came up in another thread and I thought it would be fun to jump off.

The the positions of nobility, the peerage as they call it, comes with Styles. There is a very specific order to these. I have always wondered why grrm didn't use different titles because making everyone "Lord" seems to undermine the actual class structure. That said, I read an interview where someone asked him this and he basically said it would have gotten out of hand. So yeah, I am ok with that. Let's get these books written! But anyway, the Positions following king go

Duke, Marquess, Earl, Count, Viscount, Baron

So let us give some examples. I believe that Hoster Tully would have been a Duke. As such his form of address would be Your Grace / His Grace

Clement Pipper would be under him as a Marquess and as such his address would be My  Lord

Walder Frey I would call an Earl (I didn't list him as a Marquess because often times it is the history of the house rather than its power that makes this. Walder is a powerful lord but not nearly as old as other Riverlords. As a Lord Walder would by styled Mr Lord

I have Brackens and Blackwoods as counts. Also styled my lord

I have house House Darry down for Viscount and Styled My Lord and the two houses Vance as Barons both styled My Lord

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AmrothforGondor said:

what is the difference between earl and count?. 

It is a level of seniority. It is like asking the difference between Lord of Winterfell or Lord of Karhold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Blackfyre Bastard said:

Wouldn't Walder Frey be a Marquess, since his dominions are at the borders of the Riverlands, making him the lord of a march?

Hey, I just looked that up. I didn't make the etymological connection. Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

How much time do you have?

this is my hands down favorite question I see on this board. It always means I am about to learn some great stuff....let's have it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, YOVMO said:

this is my hands down favorite question I see on this board. It always means I am about to learn some great stuff....let's have it!

Lol I don't even really know. I just know it varies greatly between countries. For example I don't believe Earls and counts traditionally existed in the same country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

this is my hands down favorite question I see on this board. It always means I am about to learn some great stuff....let's have it!

 

2 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Lol I don't even really know. I just know it varies greatly between countries. For example I don't believe Earls and counts traditionally existed in the same country.

I think the Earl title / rank exists only in Germanic speaking countries (cf. Jarl in Scandinavia).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, YOVMO said:

 I have always wondered why grrm didn't use different titles because making everyone "Lord" seems to undermine the actual class structure.

George's own words on the matter, in a 2008 interview:

The number of titles of medieval nobility multiplied over times, as the feudal system became more complex and the social structure more layered, with various degrees of precedence, etc. In the earlier periods -- say, England around the time of Henry I and William II Rufus -- all those different titles did not exist. I preferred the simplicity of those times. In hindsight, I probably should have added a least one more title to differentiate the great houses from their vassals, but I am glad I stayed clear of using the whole roster of noble stylings.

The complex range of the peerage is something that appeared in much later periods than the ones George wants to evoke in ASOIAF. This is consistent with him using the style of "your grace" instead of "your majesty" for the kings (this was changed in England during the reign of Henry VIII).

I'd also add that it makes sense given the fictional story of the Seven Kingdoms. Since the Great Houses were kings before the Conquest, it makes sense that they didn't have a word to name the overlords of all the lords from a particular region.


Regarding your proposals of correspondence between the later ranks of peerage and the houses of the Riverlands, I think that that you rank the Brackens and the Blackwoods too way down. They were kings in the Age of Heroes, and the dominating forces of the Riverlands before the Targaryen invasion. I don't see why they should be ranked below the Pipers, and there's no doubt that they'll be above the Freys (they are very wealthy, but they don't stand very well in terms of prestige or antiquity).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

 

George's own words on the matter, in a 2008 interview:

The number of titles of medieval nobility multiplied over times, as the feudal system became more complex and the social structure more layered, with various degrees of precedence, etc. In the earlier periods -- say, England around the time of Henry I and William II Rufus -- all those different titles did not exist. I preferred the simplicity of those times. In hindsight, I probably should have added a least one more title to differentiate the great houses from their vassals, but I am glad I stayed clear of using the whole roster of noble stylings.

The complex range of the peerage is something that appeared in much later periods than the ones George wants to evoke in ASOIAF. This is consistent with him using the style of "your grace" instead of "your majesty" for the kings (this was changed in England during the reign of Henry VIII).

First off let me say thank you. I have only seen the end of that quote starting from "preferred the simplicity" and not the whole thing. This puts it in context I didn't have.

11 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

I'd also add that it makes sense given the fictional story of the Seven Kingdoms. Since the Great Houses were kings before the Conquest, it makes sense that they didn't have a word to name the overlords of all the lords from a particular region.

That makes sense. Maybe something like when Arch Duke would be good to see as Warden or Lord Paramount. That actually would make it funny if you think about it. Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand's murder was seen as the catalyst for WW I much in the way that what would effectively be Arch Duke of the North Eddard's murder was the effective cause of the war of 5k

 

And yes, the great houses being kings prior to conquest seems to be very important though the tyrells are a little different...Would you see the Tyrell's as great lords now? How about when Robert was alive? How about during the Targaryen dynasty  

11 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:


Regarding your proposals of correspondence between the later ranks of peerage and the houses of the Riverlands, I think that that you rank the Brackens and the Blackwoods too way down. They were kings in the Age of Heroes, and the dominating forces of the Riverlands before the Targaryen invasion. I don't see why they should be ranked below the Pipers, and there's no doubt that they'll be above the Freys (they are very wealthy, but they don't stand very well in terms of prestige or antiquity).

I had slipped that they were kings. You are correct again. I think I got so carried away wth the fun of the exercise I didn't really think it through. Thanks for all the good info though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...