Jump to content

Titles of the Seven Kingdoms


Alden Rothack

Recommended Posts

the Seven Kingdoms has Kings, Princes, Lord Paramonts, Wardens, Lord Commanders, Lords, Knights and Masters.

However about only Lords, Knights and Masters are used Extensively with no official difference between Baelish and Manderley or Osgrey and Templeton despite many real titles which would fit

King

Prince  for Martel, Duke for Stark, Arryn and Baratheon (Martels get to be socially equall to the Dukes without being as powerful)

Marquess/Marchion for the Wardens

Earls for the Strongest second tier houses plus the Tullys and Greyjoys because they aren't Wardens either.

Barons for very powerful vassal houses

Banneret for knights who are particularly powerful

Lord for Lords who have little to no land

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

the Seven Kingdoms has Kings, Princes, Lord Paramonts, Wardens, Lord Commanders, Lords, Knights and Masters.

However about only Lords, Knights and Masters are used Extensively with no official difference between Baelish and Manderley or Osgrey and Templeton despite many real titles which would fit

King

Prince  for Martel, Duke for Stark, Arryn and Baratheon (Martels get to be socially equall to the Dukes without being as powerful)

Marquess/Marchion for the Wardens

Earls for the Strongest second tier houses plus the Tullys and Greyjoys because they aren't Wardens either.

Barons for very powerful vassal houses

Banneret for knights who are particularly powerful

Lord for Lords who have little to no land

 

Lannisters should be of equal position as Stark and Arryn.

Keeping Tully and Greyjoy as Earls still has the problem that they are using the same title as Houses sworn to them. They need a higher title to keep things clearer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the text makes it clear the Tullys and Greyjoys aren't of a higher level than their most powerful vassals, the Tullys are actually weaker and the Greyjoys are lords of a tiny realm to boot, neither should rank with the Wardens because nothing about them justifys that, they are above their fellows only by royal command

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seven Kingdoms:  Reach, Vale, North, Isles (Iron Islands), Rock (Westerlands), Storm (Stormlands) and Dorne.

Riverlands were part of the Kingdom of The Isles so somewhat ambiguous: we had a River King but also a Marsh King if you go back far enough before the "kingdoms" consolidated but the eight Lords Paramount are the current top tier of the feudal pyramid.

Starks have Boltons looking over their shoulder, the Tullys have the Freys but this is relative strength not rank.  Reynes and Tarbecks also challenged Lannisters etc...

Wardens are military titles only though it's probable that this would in time develop under stress into a top tier of nobility in terms of title not just status or strength.  After all the feudal system is a pyramid based on vassals providing troops to their Lords so all it takes is a few conflicts with calamitous military inefficiency because the other Lords Paramount refuse to take orders form Wardens to have the system streamlined.  Of course that leads to the problem of overmighty nobility threatening the crown but that's the inherent flaw in the feudal system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2022 at 1:45 PM, Alden Rothack said:

the only real oddity is Warden of the East, it doesn't guard the realm from attack by Essos, Dragonstone and the Royal Fleet does.

Technically, the Warden of the East would be the ultimately authority. The Prince of Dragonstone and the royal fleet would have to answer to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember hearing once that Martin regrets making the titling system so "flat", and that there should be more tiers to the nobility.

With that said, I think wardens sit alongside the nobility rather than within it. They appear to be a parallel arrangement for managing military responsibility for the kingdom, and don't confer any additional land or income.

Where the Wardens seem to command more respect, that may be due to the combination of Warden wth Lord Paramount, but more likely it's because the Wardens are already the richest and most powerful and prestigious houses in the realm. The Starks, Lannisters and Arryns are ancient, being descended from famous heroes of the First Men or Andals, and have held their positions for thousands of years. The Tyrells command what is in population if not in land area the largest of the seven kingdoms.

By comparison, the Tullys, Greyjoys and Baratheons are both recent "upstart" houses, and much less powerful in their own terms.

It is likely I think that were the nobility to be stratified, Winterfell, Casterly Rock, the Eyrie, Highgarden, Storm's End, Riverrun and Pyke would be dukedoms, with Dragonstone and Sunspear being principalities of the same rank. The dukes would probably roughly rank in the order given above: i.e. oldest houses first.

There would then be an intermediate level of houses including people like the Boltons, Velaryons, Hightowers, Blackwoods, Royces, Yronwoods, Corbrays, Darklyns and Reynes (RIP) and so on: i.e. houses that are powerful (and often ancient) but not of the first rank. These would probably be earldoms or similar. Again, they would have their own internal ranking so there wouldn't necessarily be the need to distinguish by title between, say, the Hightowers and the Tarlys: the Hightowers would take precedence any time it came up.

Remaining lords would be of baron rank.

I don't think there's much need to stratify further with marquess and viscount-equivalent titles, given the way that Westeros seems to work. Worth noting that the marquess and viscount ranks were relatively late introductions to the English title system, so peerages can function fine without them, albeit England was never quite as "feudal" as France anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Adelstein said:

With that said, I think wardens sit alongside the nobility rather than within it. They appear to be a parallel arrangement for managing military responsibility for the kingdom, and don't confer any additional land or income.

 

Indeed. I would say that Wardens are similar to Hungarian captains, and are likely based on the historical title of Lord Warden of the Marches. In both cases, the title was not a feudal title, but was rather a royal title - which is to say, it was an office of the government that could be conferred or removed at will, and did not bring any lands or income with it. In fact, holders of the title often spent their own income in order to perform the duty of the office. If situation is similar for the Wardens, then they would have to be rich in order to hold the office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2022 at 1:32 AM, Adelstein said:

I seem to remember hearing once that Martin regrets making the titling system so "flat", and that there should be more tiers to the nobility.

With that said, I think wardens sit alongside the nobility rather than within it. They appear to be a parallel arrangement for managing military responsibility for the kingdom, and don't confer any additional land or income.

Where the Wardens seem to command more respect, that may be due to the combination of Warden wth Lord Paramount, but more likely it's because the Wardens are already the richest and most powerful and prestigious houses in the realm. The Starks, Lannisters and Arryns are ancient, being descended from famous heroes of the First Men or Andals, and have held their positions for thousands of years. The Tyrells command what is in population if not in land area the largest of the seven kingdoms.

By comparison, the Tullys, Greyjoys and Baratheons are both recent "upstart" houses, and much less powerful in their own terms.

It is likely I think that were the nobility to be stratified, Winterfell, Casterly Rock, the Eyrie, Highgarden, Storm's End, Riverrun and Pyke would be dukedoms, with Dragonstone and Sunspear being principalities of the same rank. The dukes would probably roughly rank in the order given above: i.e. oldest houses first.

I'd put Baratheon 'above' Highgarden if not second place, its both the continuation of a ancient line and a targ offshoot, putting it below houses they defeated or put in power belittles them unnecessarily

On 11/2/2022 at 1:32 AM, Adelstein said:

There would then be an intermediate level of houses including people like the Boltons, Velaryons, Hightowers, Blackwoods, Royces, Yronwoods, Corbrays, Darklyns and Reynes (RIP) and so on: i.e. houses that are powerful (and often ancient) but not of the first rank. These would probably be earldoms or similar. Again, they would have their own internal ranking so there wouldn't necessarily be the need to distinguish by title between, say, the Hightowers and the Tarlys: the Hightowers would take precedence any time it came up.

Hightowers likely have vassals as strong as most Earls but they are at twice as strong as Boltons or Freys

On 11/2/2022 at 1:32 AM, Adelstein said:

Remaining lords would be of baron rank.

I don't think there's much need to stratify further with marquess and viscount-equivalent titles, given the way that Westeros seems to work. Worth noting that the marquess and viscount ranks were relatively late introductions to the English title system, so peerages can function fine without them, albeit England was never quite as "feudal" as France anyway.

they do clearly as lords below Baron as we know some lords of just one manor, there are also some Knights who are Baron level, I suggest Bannerett/ Knight Bannerman for those

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

I'd put Baratheon 'above' Highgarden if not second place, its both the continuation of a ancient line and a targ offshoot, putting it below houses they defeated or put in power belittles them unnecessarily

Hightowers likely have vassals as strong as most Earls but they are at twice as strong as Boltons or Freys

they do clearly as lords below Baron as we know some lords of just one manor, there are also some Knights who are Baron level, I suggest Bannerett/ Knight Bannerman for those

Regarding Baratheon vs Tyrell, I don't really have a dog in that fight, but the Tyrells are an old Andal house with ancestry going back to Garth the Gardener, who were both relatives to and right-hand-men to arguably the most prestigious house in Westeros prior to the Conquest. The Baratheons were newly created at the time of the conquest for a bastard who Arrec Dundarron didn't consider worthy of his daughter. In Westeros snobbery terms, the Tyrells have a rather better pedigree.

Re: barons and other ranks, I should note that "baron" is in England and France at least the lowest title of nobility. Knighthoods, banneret or otherwise, aren't hereditary, and baronets aren't really nobles. As I say above, I don't think there's actually a need to stratify everything into tiers. Real-life nobility isn't neatly carved up by power level, with wide disparities between power levels of nobles of the same rank, and carrying that across to Westeros makes the world feel more lived-in. The system as it is works ok, but a minor tweak or two could help a lot. I think a formalisation of the superior rank of the LPs and an intermediate tier for their most powerful vassals is all that's needed to clarify the system as it is. And that's all it would really be, a clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Aegon did rate him extremely highly, certainly above a house who even the rest of the reach don't rate as the best among them and two houses He and his sisters defeated one in battle one without a single sword being drawn, yes they are ancient as were the Durrandons but if bloodline alone had decided things Aegon would stayed on dragonstone.

Baronet is inheritted despite not being lords and Banneret exists to identify those including knights who are entitled to fight under their own banner (Bannermen may mean this already), Lords of the Manor for those like Baelish who are nobles but do not have the right to high justice as Barons do and all ranks of knight do not.

the problem with the system as it is this, currently Hightower and Baelish are both lords despite the fact that in the real world one is three or four levels lower than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

But Aegon did rate him extremely highly, certainly above a house who even the rest of the reach don't rate as the best among them and two houses He and his sisters defeated one in battle one without a single sword being drawn, yes they are ancient as were the Durrandons but if bloodline alone had decided things Aegon would stayed on dragonstone.

Baronet is inheritted despite not being lords and Banneret exists to identify those including knights who are entitled to fight under their own banner (Bannermen may mean this already), Lords of the Manor for those like Baelish who are nobles but do not have the right to high justice as Barons do and all ranks of knight do not.

the problem with the system as it is this, currently Hightower and Baelish are both lords despite the fact that in the real world one is three or four levels lower than the other.

Well, as of AFFC Lord Baelish is the Lord Paramount of the Riverlands, so actually higher-ranked than the Hightowers...

Much in such a system would depend on when it was created. These things tend to evolve over centuries rather than being invented out of whole cloth, and it's probably not something Aegon would create from scratch: rather it would work in the context of what was alraedy there. Thinking about it more carefully, families like the Hightowers used to be kings in their own right before being reduced. So in a pre-Conquest Westeros, they might hold the title of duke or equivalent. There might well also be some differences between the titles used by the First Men (notably in the North, but possibly also in the Reach and Westerlands) and more heavily Andalised kingdoms like the Vale and the Riverlands.

In that case, to set up the lord paramount system, Aegon might be obliged to come up with a new title - "grand duke" or the like - to signify that the seat in question holds dominions over those which already hold the rank of duke.

Titles are traditionally ranked, within their own tiers, by antiquity. In Westeros, that probably means Highgarden at the top, as the oldest of the First Men kingdoms, followed by Winterfell, Storm's End and Casterly Rock, then the Eyrie, as the oldest Andal kingdom, then Dragonstone, a new but still pre-Conquest seat, with Pyke and Riverrun not really existing prior to the Conquest as paramountcies. The question in the Conquest's case would be whether Aegon required the kings to surrender their titles and then re-granted the new ones, or whether he just "converted" the titles across. In the former case, he would probably still try to retain the rough precedence that existing families had, but it would give him more freedom to reshuffle titles for families like the Tyrells and Tullys.

Under a "continuation and conversion" policy, the Tyrells would inherit the precedence of Highgarden, but might be bumped down a notch for never having been a strictly royal family (so below Winterfell, Casterly Rock and the Eyrie). The Baratheons would also inherit the precedence of Storm's End, with a similar caveat playing it below the three mentioned above, but still remaining below Highgarden, which is the older title.

In practice these things are messy and don't necessarily make a lot of sense ab initio. But I do think it's worth pointing out that being relatives of a new royal line does not in itself necessarily confer status among the nobility or a higher level of precedence, especially if that status is illegitimate. In England, during the later 17th century, the dukes of Monmouth, Grafton, Cleveland, Richmond, Northumberland and St Albans, and the earl of Plymouth, were all descendants of Charles II. But they were outranked by all the pre-existing dukes and, in Plymouth's case, earls, most of which had no royal lineage, because those creations were older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but I would prefer if it made more sense and was more to my liking

Well Aegon did grant them all new titles anyway so i don't think the ranking would go like that

Highgarden wouldn't be first as their title as lord of the reach isn't older than the others even if they are (And they aren't the oldest anyway, the Starks are)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

No but I would prefer if it made more sense and was more to my liking

Well Aegon did grant them all new titles anyway so i don't think the ranking would go like that

Highgarden wouldn't be first as their title as lord of the reach isn't older than the others even if they are (And they aren't the oldest anyway, the Starks are)

I think we may have a fundamental difference of opinion on the first point, since I prefer a world to feel more "lived in" and messy and less like it's been laid out according to the author's plan. This is something that Martin - in Westeros at least! - is very good at. (Essos has been, overall, much less successful, imo).

As to who is older, there is disagreement between the Reach and the North. According to the southrons, Garth Greenhand led the First Men to Westeros, became High King of the First Men, founded Highgarden and planted the Oakenseat in Highgarden. House Gardener are descended from his eldest son. Brandon the Builder is another, more distant descendant, as was Lann the Clever.

According to the northmen, it was the First King who brought the First Men to Westeros. But, importantly, the First King is not cited as the first ancestor of the Starks or the founder of Winterfell; that's Brandon the Builder. Brandon may or may not have been a contemporary of Garth's or a descendant of his, or a companion of the First King.

By either account, both houses go back before time immemorial and are impossibly ancient. But the Gardeners seem to have a sounder claim to (marginally) greater antiquity and prestige than the Starks. Of course, the Gardeners are extinct, so the Starks are probably the oldest remaining house in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

So the Starks are the senior under the Targs regardless as while the Tyrells are descended from the Gardeners they are not them, they aren't the senior cadet line as for example the Baratheons are for the Durandons

As I say, it depends on how the title transition is handled. If the LPs are taken as being the continuations of the kingdoms under a reduced title (e.g. by retconning a ducal title onto the kingdoms) then Highgarden would arguably take precedence, although it's debatable. If it's done by order of creation under the Targs, then Highgarden would still come first, as it was created first (being conquered before Torrhen Stark bent the knee). This is the sort of thing that would have to be worked out, and it might be that Aegon felt (in this parallel universe) that he could afford to prioritise the interests of his new allies in the Reach over those of his half-brother who is already loyal and who he's done plenty of favours for.

Or perhaps this kind of nonsense is why he decided not to get into the business of tiering titles and just called everyone "lord", letting them sort it out between themselves.

A cadet line isn't "descendant through the female line", generally: it's a junior branch of the male line. The Baratheons (post-Orys) are a new house, which was nothing until the Durrandons were extinct. Later Baratheons are descendants of the Durrandons, but not a cadet line. Nor are the Tyrells a cadet line to the Gardeners, but they were already an old, titled and well-stationed house with Gardener descent by the time they were made lords of Highgarden. We don't know who the "rightful" hereditary successors to the Gardeners are, but the Tyrells seem to have as good a claim as anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...