Fixing the noble ranks of Westeros.

[Aebram]

On 8/29/2022 at 10:04 AM, Vaegon the dragonless said:

The noble ranks of Westeros dont make sense, you are either the King, a lord or a knigth.  G.R.R.Martin h as already gone on record saying that it is one of is biggest regrets and he would change it if he could go back in time but it is now too late.

Where is this record please?  I seem to recall reading something different:  that GRRM chose to simplify the ranks because including all those other levels was an unnecessary complication.  But I don't think that was an actual quote from him.

I don't know much about medieval society, but I've read ASOIAF many times, and it "makes sense" to me.  Some lords rule over other lords; we have terms like "vassal," "bannerman," and "liege" to identify the rank when necessary.  If I wanted to be nit-picky, I might complain that the distinction between a lord and a landed knight seems unclear to me.  But the question hasn't come up in any way that affects my understanding or enjoyment of the story.

[SeanF]

Prince is a title I’d remove completely, save for Dorne, where it’s given the correct medieval designation of Head of State/Head of Government.

So, the children of Kings are simply Lords and Ladies, out of courtesy, until they get invested with a title.

I’d probably go for the overall ruler being Emperor, while the others remain kings (and Prince of Dorne).  Government is pretty decentralised, like the HRE.

I’d go for two ranks of lordship.  Either Earl/Baron or Duke/Count.  A guy like Manderly would be the former.  A man like Cerwyn, the latter.  Lords should owe fealty, either to the local king, or to the Emperor.  Vassals of lords should not themselves be lords.  They might be lords of the manor, but they are not peers.

[Vaegon the dragonless]

8 hours ago, Aebram said:

Where is this record please?  I seem to recall reading something different:  that GRRM chose to simplify the ranks because including all those other levels was an unnecessary complication.  But I don't think that was an actual quote from him.

I don't know much about medieval society, but I've read ASOIAF many times, and it "makes sense" to me.  Some lords rule over other lords; we have terms like "vassal," "bannerman," and "liege" to identify the rank when necessary.  If I wanted to be nit-picky, I might complain that the distinction between a lord and a landed knight seems unclear to me.  But the question hasn't come up in any way that affects my understanding or enjoyment of the story.

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Asshai.com_Forum_Chat should be here if you scroll down a little.I remenber im to be more critical of it but I migth be miss remenbering.

Well I wouldnt say that the lack of distinction is preventing enjoyment of the story or anything, it really changes nothing but for me it would make the universe alot deeper and ad nuance to the different families and show the difference in power and status between the families of Westeros.

Sure Vassal, Liege and Bannermen help but for the first two it only discribe the relation between two lords, and two lords who have different liege can be of different power, after all lord Rosby is directly under the King but seem alot less powerfull then the Manderly's, having a different title would show that. 

[Vaegon the dragonless]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Prince is a title I’d remove completely, save for Dorne, where it’s given the correct medieval designation of Head of State/Head of Government.

So, the children of Kings are simply Lords and Ladies, out of courtesy, until they get invested with a title.

I’d probably go for the overall ruler being Emperor, while the others remain kings (and Prince of Dorne).  Government is pretty decentralised, like the HRE.

I’d go for two ranks of lordship.  Either Earl/Baron or Duke/Count.  A guy like Manderly would be the former.  A man like Cerwyn, the latter.  Lords should owe fealty, either to the local king, or to the Emperor.  Vassals of lords should not themselves be lords.  They might be lords of the manor, but they are not peers.

That could be a other, having only two ranks would add depth all while still being very simple. I dont think that removing completely Prince would be a good idea, maybe still keep it for Dragonstone as well as Dorne.

I agree that Emperor of Westeros would make more sense but Aegon wanting one king of Westeros can give some justification on why the title would be King.

I disagree on that last part tho, I think that the greater lords should still have lords underthem but of inferior rank, for example the Hightower vassal's seem to be lords of decent enougth power and it would make sense for them to also have a title even of they were under another lord.

[SeanF]

11 hours ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

That could be a other, having only two ranks would add depth all while still being very simple. I dont think that removing completely Prince would be a good idea, maybe still keep it for Dragonstone as well as Dorne.

I agree that Emperor of Westeros would make more sense but Aegon wanting one king of Westeros can give some justification on why the title would be King.

I disagree on that last part tho, I think that the greater lords should still have lords underthem but of inferior rank, for example the Hightower vassal's seem to be lords of decent enougth power and it would make sense for them to also have a title even of they were under another lord.

Titles of nobility tended to be subject to grade inflation. Rome had senators and knights.  Later, the former then started calling themselves clarissimi, spectabiles, illustres, gloriosi, the latter ementissimi, and perfectissimi.

The continent originally had Dukes and Counts (Roman military titles).  England had Earls and Thegns.  Then, all sorts of new titles, baron, viscount, marquess, were invented, along with different orders of knighthood.  Dukes wanted to be Grand Dukes and Archdukes.  Children of kings wanted to be princes and princesses, rather than lords and ladies.

[Vaegon the dragonless]

53 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Titles of nobility tended to be subject to grade inflation. Rome had senators and knights.  Later, the former then started calling themselves clarissimi, spectabiles, illustres, gloriosi, the latter ementissimi, and perfectissimi.

The continent originally had Dukes and Counts (Roman military titles).  England had Earls and Thegns.  Then, all sorts of new titles, baron, viscount, marquess, were invented, along with different orders of knighthood.  Dukes wanted to be Grand Dukes and Archdukes.  Children of kings wanted to be princes and princesses, rather than lords and ladies.

Oh yeah I know and completely agree, but that makes even less sense for Westeros since its been thousands of years with the existence of noble. In a world were a family is considered young for having ruled lands for 600 years it seems like they should be alot more titles (and dont get me started on the linguistics).

[Equilibrium]

There should be attention paid to historical construction of titles. Everything in the approximate real world period is historically contingent and there were rarely uniform hierarchies, it wasn't McDonald's with general manager, regional managers, store managers and so on or Roman legion with decanus, centurion, pilus prior, primus pilus. 

There can't be the Empire of Westeros, since there was no Empire ever in the whole cultural sphere, there were kings in Westeros and Valyria was a Freehold, let's simplify it to republic (oligarchy, magocracy). How would Aegon even come up with an Empire, there was Ghiscari Empire which would be too foreign, ancient and feeble of a tradition for Targaryens (who are culturally Valyrians) to call upon. Also all Empires (in ASOIAF, Ghis and YiTi, and in pre-modern real world) claimed divine origins. If Aegon claims he is a god or chosen of Valyrian gods, he will always be stranger antagonistic to the Faith, and if he claims he is chosen of the Seven (not established theological concept), well, their voice on Earth, High Septon (well established theological concept) can always interfere leaving monarchy at the mercy of the Faith. King of Seven Kingdoms represents both power (I hold them all, while previous rulers had only one each, pathetic) and continuity (Every individual kingdom is the same as it always was but now in personal union), which is good political move. 

Aegon inherited the system he was more than content to simply repurpose, there was never an attempt to establish uniform, consistent or advanced administration, even to the extent Normans tried IRL. And there were no uniform and consistent administrations in Medieval Europe even if you pick single time frame and single well established and powerful monarchy.

If you look at the Duchies in 14, 15th century France and England (powerful, centralized, established Western European monarchies) you will see that Dukes were persons or royal blood (few exceptions of royal marriage or otherwise uncommonly close ties) that held nominal dominion of vast expanses, perfectly comparable with Lords Paramount in Westeros. Lords Paramount and Kings of independent kingdoms previously had no single reason to raise Dukes in ranks of their vassals, it's a recipe for disaster, they had no trouble ruling their domains dealing with lords, greatest of whom had famed names, riches, vast lands, their own powerful vassals (not a planed organization, historical contingency, plenty of high nobles got stripped of vassals after being uppity) and prestige but were accorded the same privileges as the other vassals of the King/LP. Just as Norman kings ruled the barons of England and Normandy with few if any earls (counts) and no dukes. 

Archduke is a concept made up by raising Habsburgs to denote their primacy over other Dukes in a bid to attain status of Elector in HRE, it doesn't mean ruler of dukes or something, but first among equals, modeled on Archbishop title, which also historically just meant more prestigious bishop not ruler of bishops. While similar Grand Duke was also later, self-proclaimed title with no contemporary legal standing, a way of independent Dukes to elevate their status without claiming kingdoms, complex process involving Popes and historical legitimacy.

Marquess is simply French translation of markgraf (grave, grof) true English would be march earl (count), count of the march, that is special, particularly vulnerable, attacked or unrestful border region and we have those in ASOIAF. Viscounts are Imperial and Carolingian administrators, title is documented as used occasionally as hereditary later. In modern peerage you have jumble of all of mentioned noble titles, but they don't represent actually administrative hierarchy, they don't literally run all the lands their title is associated with and even say Prince of Wales doesn't have legal authority to order about all the lesser peers with seats in Wales.

Lord was never a landed title, simply a title, used for nobles, prelates, knights, administrators, God etc. It holds no meaning but GRRM chose to replace the count with it, probably because of the whole count/earl thing. While petty lord would probably be analogue to historical baron or baronet.

Now until very late in medieval period knights were gray area of nobility, but were always landed, and there is much nuance about their hold on "their" land, but obviously it's all non-factor in the story since knights are frequently encountered as retainers paid in room, board and one assumes cash and in precarious hedge knight position which has no historical analogues (historical knights errant in the extant they existed in chivalric romance kind of sense, were regular landed knights with penchant for wandering about, not beggars in chain-mail) 

I gotta say I am content with how titles are done. King - Lords Paramount - Lords. Titles aren't only thing GRRM oversimplified and made more consistent (in space and time) than it was in medieval Europe. It's effective and he saved himself a lot of headache, by not boxing himself in with various concrete power and rank scales he would than had to keep track of. Any, even previously mentioned or seen, lord with timber keep and three sheep to his name could be vassal of Lord Paramount or some other lord as the story requires at the moment, there is no need to track who is his viscount and who is his viscount's count and who is his count's duke and what does marquess even mean and where do they come into play. 

[LindsayLohan]

Regarding the Emperor talk, Aegon didn’t crown himself. When he descended upon Oldtown they opened the city gates, and the High Septon crowned him King. He was too busy whooping ass to have gotten around to that, and the smarty-pants Hightowers checkmated him. What was he going to do, refuse the Kingship?

[Vaegon the dragonless]

18 hours ago, LindsayLohan said:

Regarding the Emperor talk, Aegon didn’t crown himself. When he descended upon Oldtown they opened the city gates, and the High Septon crowned him King. He was too busy whooping ass to have gotten around to that, and the smarty-pants Hightowers checkmated him. What was he going to do, refuse the Kingship?

If I recall correctly Aegon was crowned twice, the first time by is sister's when he landed and then a second time when he got to Oldtown ? So he did chose to be a king.

[Craving Peaches]

Aurion crowned himself Emperor of Valyria before he vanished. Of course it didn't last very long and he wouldn't have been acknowledged by many as such, but the title isn't completely unheard of because at least one person who is known to the maesters and literate elite has used it. As Valyria was also a very large domain that ruled over many different peoples I still think Aegon could have used the title if he chose, it may be he wasn't aware but he did seem like he read his history.

[Vaegon the dragonless]

22 hours ago, Equilibrium said:

There should be attention paid to historical construction of titles. Everything in the approximate real world period is historically contingent and there were rarely uniform hierarchies, it wasn't McDonald's with general manager, regional managers, store managers and so on or Roman legion with decanus, centurion, pilus prior, primus pilus. 

There can't be the Empire of Westeros, since there was no Empire ever in the whole cultural sphere, there were kings in Westeros and Valyria was a Freehold, let's simplify it to republic (oligarchy, magocracy). How would Aegon even come up with an Empire, there was Ghiscari Empire which would be too foreign, ancient and feeble of a tradition for Targaryens (who are culturally Valyrians) to call upon. Also all Empires (in ASOIAF, Ghis and YiTi, and in pre-modern real world) claimed divine origins. If Aegon claims he is a god or chosen of Valyrian gods, he will always be stranger antagonistic to the Faith, and if he claims he is chosen of the Seven (not established theological concept), well, their voice on Earth, High Septon (well established theological concept) can always interfere leaving monarchy at the mercy of the Faith. King of Seven Kingdoms represents both power (I hold them all, while previous rulers had only one each, pathetic) and continuity (Every individual kingdom is the same as it always was but now in personal union), which is good political move. 

Aegon inherited the system he was more than content to simply repurpose, there was never an attempt to establish uniform, consistent or advanced administration, even to the extent Normans tried IRL. And there were no uniform and consistent administrations in Medieval Europe even if you pick single time frame and single well established and powerful monarchy.

If you look at the Duchies in 14, 15th century France and England (powerful, centralized, established Western European monarchies) you will see that Dukes were persons or royal blood (few exceptions of royal marriage or otherwise uncommonly close ties) that held nominal dominion of vast expanses, perfectly comparable with Lords Paramount in Westeros. Lords Paramount and Kings of independent kingdoms previously had no single reason to raise Dukes in ranks of their vassals, it's a recipe for disaster, they had no trouble ruling their domains dealing with lords, greatest of whom had famed names, riches, vast lands, their own powerful vassals (not a planed organization, historical contingency, plenty of high nobles got stripped of vassals after being uppity) and prestige but were accorded the same privileges as the other vassals of the King/LP. Just as Norman kings ruled the barons of England and Normandy with few if any earls (counts) and no dukes. 

Archduke is a concept made up by raising Habsburgs to denote their primacy over other Dukes in a bid to attain status of Elector in HRE, it doesn't mean ruler of dukes or something, but first among equals, modeled on Archbishop title, which also historically just meant more prestigious bishop not ruler of bishops. While similar Grand Duke was also later, self-proclaimed title with no contemporary legal standing, a way of independent Dukes to elevate their status without claiming kingdoms, complex process involving Popes and historical legitimacy.

Marquess is simply French translation of markgraf (grave, grof) true English would be march earl (count), count of the march, that is special, particularly vulnerable, attacked or unrestful border region and we have those in ASOIAF. Viscounts are Imperial and Carolingian administrators, title is documented as used occasionally as hereditary later. In modern peerage you have jumble of all of mentioned noble titles, but they don't represent actually administrative hierarchy, they don't literally run all the lands their title is associated with and even say Prince of Wales doesn't have legal authority to order about all the lesser peers with seats in Wales.

Lord was never a landed title, simply a title, used for nobles, prelates, knights, administrators, God etc. It holds no meaning but GRRM chose to replace the count with it, probably because of the whole count/earl thing. While petty lord would probably be analogue to historical baron or baronet.

Now until very late in medieval period knights were gray area of nobility, but were always landed, and there is much nuance about their hold on "their" land, but obviously it's all non-factor in the story since knights are frequently encountered as retainers paid in room, board and one assumes cash and in precarious hedge knight position which has no historical analogues (historical knights errant in the extant they existed in chivalric romance kind of sense, were regular landed knights with penchant for wandering about, not beggars in chain-mail) 

I gotta say I am content with how titles are done. King - Lords Paramount - Lords. Titles aren't only thing GRRM oversimplified and made more consistent (in space and time) than it was in medieval Europe. It's effective and he saved himself a lot of headache, by not boxing himself in with various concrete power and rank scales he would than had to keep track of. Any, even previously mentioned or seen, lord with timber keep and three sheep to his name could be vassal of Lord Paramount or some other lord as the story requires at the moment, there is no need to track who is his viscount and who is his viscount's count and who is his count's duke and what does marquess even mean and where do they come into play. 

Really interresting and you bring alot of great points. I can see how you feel about it even if I dont see it the same way. 

I agree that Aegon would have likely not chosen to be a emperor, but from what the early Targaryens seem to be seen and act they do have a "closer to gods then men" feel to then, between the doctrine of exeptionnalism and how they cant get sick (until they did) so to me the divine aspect of a empire would have been there.

For all the other titles I agree that the situation in Westeros is very different to the one in real life and that those titles were products of they're environment. I used those titles because most people have some familiarity with them but G.R.R Martin could have invented completely different title I would not have had a problem at all. I just think that a bit more diversity titles wise would have been a good idea.

I agree it would have made it a bit more complicated but I think it would have added quite alot to the story and the world in it. It just makes more sense to me that they would have more then just 4 titles in a area the size of South America with a feudal structure in place for thousands of years. The same could be said with the linguistics, each of the kingdoms should have they're own dialect, with similarities and the nobility could use valyrian as a lingua franca after the conquest but that would have been alot more complex then just add a couple titles.

[zajaz]

Imagine, if you will, that GRRM decided to go full bombastic title-wise, and wrote Aegon as having crowned himself Emperor of Westeros / Emperor of the Seven Kingdoms. Imagine, also, that he decided to use the more modern and bombastic forms of address for the nobility and royalty. Lastly, imagine if GRRM wrote the name of the Great (or former royal) Houses of coming from the places the nobles rule (as was much more common in real life), instead of coming from their 'surnames'.

His Imperial Majesty Aegon of Dragonstone, by the Grace of the Seven Who Are One, Emperor of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, and King of Dragonstone.

By the time Robert's Rebellion happens, and Robert becomes the new monarch, he could really having bombastic titles.

His Imperial Majesty Robert of Storm's End, by the Grace of the Seven Who Are One, Emperor of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, King of the Stormlands, Duke of Storm's End, and Defender of the Faith.

His Lordship Matthis Rowan, Earl of Goldengrove (which should be addressed as either 'Lord Goldengrove', 'my lord', or simply 'Goldengrove').

His Lordship Walder Frey, Viscount Frey (addressed as 'Lord Frey', 'my lord', or 'Frey'.

His Lordship Petyr Baelish, Baron Bealish (addressed as 'Lord Baelish', 'my lord', or 'Baelish'.

As for the Great Houses of Westeros:

The House of Dragonstone / The House of Storm's End-King's Landing as the Imperial House.

The House of Storm's End-Dragonstone as the Great House on the Narrow Sea.

The House of Storm's End as the Great House of the Stormlands.

The House of Winterfell as the Great House of the North.

The House of Pyke as the Great House of the Iron Islands.

The House of the Eyrie as the Great House of the Vale.

The House of Riverrun as the Great House of the Riverlands.

The House of Casterly Rock as the Great House of the Westerlands.

The House of Highgarden as the Great House of the Reach.

The House of Sunspear as the Great House of Dorne.

Now, going back to canon, and following real life rules, there was nothing stopping Robert from being both King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, and Lord of Storm's End. GRRM was indeed right when he said that Robert giving Dragonstone to Stannis, and Storm's End to Renly was a showing of his careless generosity.

[Aebram]

On 8/31/2022 at 4:04 AM, Vaegon the dragonless said:

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Asshai.com_Forum_Chat should be here if you scroll down a little.I remenber im to be more critical of it but I migth be miss remenbering.

Well I wouldnt say that the lack of distinction is preventing enjoyment of the story or anything, it really changes nothing but for me it would make the universe alot deeper and ad nuance to the different families and show the difference in power and status between the families of Westeros.

Sure Vassal, Liege and Bannermen help but for the first two it only discribe the relation between two lords, and two lords who have different liege can be of different power, after all lord Rosby is directly under the King but seem alot less powerfull then the Manderly's, having a different title would show that. 

Found it:

Quote

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 prefered 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.

So both our memories were partly correct.

[Arthur Peres]

The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that Martin is a great writter, but a terrible world builder...

[Aebram]

6 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that Martin is a great writter, but a terrible world builder...

"..." he wrote, in a forum section with 2.5 million posts, which was just one section of a much larger forum, which itself was just one part of a much larger Web site, which was completely devoted to discussion and exploration of that world.  

[The Mourning Knight]

On 8/29/2022 at 10:04 AM, Vaegon the dragonless said:

The noble ranks of Westeros dont make sense, you are either the King, a lord or a knigth. G.R.R Martin as already gone on record saying that it is one of is biggest regrets and he would change it if he could go back in time but it is now too late.

So I was curious on how you would change it, what titles and rank would you have and also wich family would you give what rank ?

Firstly for ranks I would propose:

-King, that would not change the king would stay the king for me.

-Prince, Lord Paramount is the closest we get to a variation of title but I think it is too close to lord, and more often then not the more important landed noble of the middle ages were called prince so to me it would make since for the lord paramount to be prince's.

-Duke, for the more important lords of each region, it could also reflect that some of those houses were at some point and time a royal house, even if it was in the age of heros.

-Marquess, as a intermediary between the old and more important houses of each region and perhaps newer but still important houses

-Count, for most of the second tier lords who still seem to have a certain level of power, you could also add a variation like count in the north being earls and in the iron islands jarls.

-Lord, for most of the landed nobility that still has some amout of rigth but that are clearly lesser powers

-Knigth of, for the lowest of nobles but still landowners, you could also have some of them being very powerfull but lacking a "true" title.

What would you gals and guys think ?

As for what house would go were my non exhaustive list would be:

Kings: Targaryen and Baratheon of Kingslanding

Prince: Targaryen of Dragonstone, Baratheon of Dragonstone, Baratheon of Storm's End, Tully, Stark, Martell, Tyrell, Greyjoy, Arryn, Lannister

Dukes: Umbers, Bolton, Dustin, Manderly, Royce, Hunter, Belmore, Corbray, Mallister, Blackwood, Bracken, Vance of Wayfarer's Rest, Harrenhal, Reynes, Crakehall, Lydden, Serrets, Lefford, Farman, Darklyn, Hightower, Redwyne, Oakheart, Florent, Tarly, Rowan, Merryweather (pre-rebellion), Peake (pre-blackfyre), Tarth, Estremont, Connington (pre-rebellion), Velaryon, Massey, Yronwood, Dayne, Fowler, Blackmont, Harlaw, Goodbrother, Blactyde, Orkmont, Drumm, Saltcliff.

Marquess: Karstark, Ryswell, Reed, Glover, Frey, Piper, Darry (pre-rebellion), Butterwell (pre-blackfyre), Waynwood, Grafton, Sunderland, Westerling, Brax, Rosby, Bar Emmon, Swann, Dondarrion, Caron, Footly, Caswell, Crane, Osgrey (before they lost all they're lands), Uller's, Allyrion.

Count: Cerwyn, Tallhart, Flint's, Lockes, Mormont, Borell, Coldwater, Redfort, Vance of Atranta, Mooton, Ryger, Lychester, Goodbrook, Botley, Pebbleton, Wynch, Farwynd, Volmark, Kenning, Sunderly, Stonetree, Kenning of Kayce, Prester, Marbrand, Plumm, Swift, Tarbecks, Jast, Hayford, Stokeworth, Farring, Celtigar, Penrose, Buckler, Grandison, Cafferen, Wylde, Beesbury, Mullendore, Ashford, Costayne, red apple Fossoway's, Ambrose, the Shield lords, Santagar, Jordayne, Wyl, Manwoody, Gargalen, Toland.

I will stop there but interested in what you think, also just to be clear the title would not be a representation of the power of the house but of its status, so the Frey could still be the most powerfull lord of the Riverlands but its title would not reflect that, same with the Velaryon, they could still be Dukes but would not be alot more powerfull then many count by the reign of Robert.

This is a pretty impressive feat. I imagine a great deal of thought went into organizing the houses and ranking them as you have. Well done. 

I get what you’re saying, however I actually like things the way they are. (Sorry to dodge your question.) I think the Wardenship (is that a word?) and pecking order of “great houses”, prestige, wealth, age, etc., it’s all sufficient for me. There is a point where the intricacy of the world building begins to detract from the story. For me, this degree of ranking would hit that limit. 

[Vaegon the dragonless]

4 hours ago, The Mourning Knight said:

This is a pretty impressive feat. I imagine a great deal of thought went into organizing the houses and ranking them as you have. Well done. 

I get what you’re saying, however I actually like things the way they are. (Sorry to dodge your question.) I think the Wardenship (is that a word?) and pecking order of “great houses”, prestige, wealth, age, etc., it’s all sufficient for me. There is a point where the intricacy of the world building begins to detract from the story. For me, this degree of ranking would hit that limit. 

Thanks.

I can see why people like it, and for me it is the contrary, the "lack" of different means that I think more about how the different houses are compared to the other then I think about the actual story. But as I said before I went for what I think would be the maximun you could go without making it too complicated but I think that just making Great Lord and Lords Paramount actual title would do quite a bit in aiding that all the will staying very simple because for me some it is hard to evaluate some house. For example House Cerwyn is very close to house Stark and does seem to have quite a few men, but its not clear if they would be considered a great lord or not, because it depend on who you are talking with. Many people could consider that the only great houses are the Lords paramount and maybe the Hightower. But when people like Baelish that could muster maybe a dozen people for war are at the same rank has the Hightower that can muster tens of thousand it just seems weird to me and breaks a bit the immersion.

[Craving Peaches]

I think as a reasonable compromise between having too many ranks and having too few, there could be one more rank above landed knight but below lord, and having Lord Paramount as a separate title from just lord. So it could look like:

King

Lord Paramount

Lord

Minor Lord (Count, Earl?)

Landed Knight

[kingofcombos]

Emperor - The sovereign of the 7 Kingdoms

Empress - The sovereign of the 7 Kingdoms wife

Prince/Princess - children/siblings of the emperor. Also Dornish nobility.

Lord Paramount - Rulers of their respective regions. Used to be called Kings before Aegon. 

Lord - Same as in the book. From little Finger to Leyton Hightower. They all share this title.

Knight - Landed, Hedge, etc they all have the same title. 

 

 

King - The old title that was used in the 7 kingdoms before Aegon. The title has not been used since Aegon took Westeros.  During the course of the series characters such as Robb Stark, Balon Greyjoy, Mance, etc will resurrect this old title.

[Vaegon the dragonless]

8 hours ago, kingofcombos said:

Emperor - The sovereign of the 7 Kingdoms

Empress - The sovereign of the 7 Kingdoms wife

Prince/Princess - children/siblings of the emperor. Also Dornish nobility.

Lord Paramount - Rulers of their respective regions. Used to be called Kings before Aegon. 

Lord - Same as in the book. From little Finger to Leyton Hightower. They all share this title.

Knight - Landed, Hedge, etc they all have the same title. 

 

 

King - The old title that was used in the 7 kingdoms before Aegon. The title has not been used since Aegon took Westeros.  During the course of the series characters such as Robb Stark, Balon Greyjoy, Mance, etc will resurrect this old title.

Im not sure what you are getting at, because the OP was about adding more tiers in between the lords paramount and the lords, because to me it does not make since that Baelish and Hightower have the same title. I can see the argument for having a emperor but I am also not bothered with the King of the 7 Kingdoms to stay a king.