Talk:Imperial, royal and noble ranks

Untitled
Most of the content of this page has been moved (copy-pasted in fact) from Nobility. See Talk:Nobility for discussion prior to the move. --Kpalion 10:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Zarempire
Is Zarempire really a word? It redirects to the article on Empire, and I always understood that Tsarist Russia (and Bulgaria, which I am aware once used the title of Tsar) were simply referred to as Empires. Where did this word come from? Walton monarchist89 10:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A perfectly cromulent word! Though the real word, as far as I know, is tsardom.

big erasings should be discussed first
There was an edit awaking concern. Let me remind that this article is about noble ranks as well as royal ranks. And rank does not necessitate any "rulership". But anyway, whatever are pretexts, information about noble ranks, so different as such have been, should not erased. Suedois 19:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The blanking was a Wikipedia error that occurs occasionally from the use of Firefox and the Google toolbar. I was aware of the problem, but did not sufficiently check the article to make sure it hadn't been cut off. Sorry for the error. Charles 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a link regarding it. Charles 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction makes it clear that the article will be about European titles, but several non-European titles are thrown in with little sense of purpose or order. Will this article be a comprehensive list of hereditary titles around the world or just European ones?--Countakeshi 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Freiherr

 * We are compiling an article about ranks, not necessarily titles, in this very article. Therefore that specific quality should be noted, as it qualifies as a distinct rank. I am not unhappy with it being another "baron" with some explanatory words in the listings of the article, but I am against its total suppression. By the way, the existence of the article Free Lord, which I requested to be merged because it is so short, but has not yet been, is an indication that the said term is used at least in some English contexts. Are they technical contexts? Research contexts? would like to know.. Suedois 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Every single item listed is an established English form, except one (Free Lord). They do have some qualities attached, however, the standard English form must be used. In a list of Archdukes, Princes and Counts there is a "Free Lord"... That does not make sense at all. I can count Freiherren amongst people I know and they are never "Free Lord" in English. Always Barons. That is what is established. "Free Lord" may be a part of the history of the title, but it is not its translation. If you are unhappy with there being two Barons listed, then combine them. However, you can't just turn one into Free Lord for the sake of having one of each. Indeed, Free Lord isn't used when taken from Latin to English, although Baron may be derived from liber baro. The English form is Baron and Freiherr comes from the same idea, so it is Baron too. Charles 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would rather keep the two distinct barons. We should explain ranks here, not violently combine them because both may have same translation in English. There are reasons why for axample "Grand Duke" is a long article, explaining several differences between certain varieties of grand dukes. Same with these barons. Suedois 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That gets to my point though. They are different but are called the same thing in English. I am comfortable with two Barons being listed with different "definitions", becuase that's the way it is and how it ought to be presented. They can be listed seperately but aexplained fully elsewhere. Charles 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand Freiherr is the equivalent of the lowest rank of British Lords, i.e. Barons. A Baron in Germany is the equivalent of a Scottish Baron, and so not a Lord, but a Baron Minores. HansNZL (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no precise equivalence between British and Continental ranks or titles. Both Freiherren and Baronin are members of the lower, titled nobility on the Continent, and both are used in German-speaking countries. Although Freiherren were once-upon-a-time vassals who belonged to the Reichstag of the Holy Roman Empire, that privilege had been lost before the Empire was abolished. Moreover the title of Freiherr continued to be conferred by lesser sovereigns (e.g. reigning Dukes and Princes) after there ceased to be a Holy Roman Emperor, and it was conferred on persons/families who had never been vassals and never been "peers" in any Reichstag -- quite aside from the fact that peerages descend by primogeniture whereas the baronial title in German and Baltic states descended ad infinitum to all legitimate male-line descendants of the original title-holder. So by the 19th century there was no longer a substantial distinction between a Freiherr and a Baron: indeed, the titles are often used interchangeably. FactStraight (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Awkward Table
There are currently 16 languages and 14 ranks. Shouldn't this table be transposed so that rank goes across the top, and languages go down the side? Would anyone mind if I changed this? Rwflammang 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I certainly vote to either transpose the table or to break it up into multiple tables with a few languages represented on each table. I really like to avoid any horizontal scrolling at all when viewing tables (as many other people also want to do) so having tables that fit nicely on small screens (like from laptop computers) is very desirable. -Lastingwar 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are the Latin titles at the end of the table? My understanding is that Latin was the root for many of these titles, should that not warrant a spot nearer the beginning of the table? ClixTrek (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

✅ finally. That was painstaking. It still needs a lot of formatting and updating and we should add other languages like Chinese Japanese and Korean. Also, we should discern between whether the title actually existed or whether its a translation.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for doing this. I know that it was a hard task that few wanted to undertake.  Now the table can grow pretty much without bounds.  Further the row with the ranks can also be repeated as needed if the table gets too long.  Thanks again. --L.Smithfield (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Tsar and Kaiser
The listing of Tsar and Kaiser together on the page seems wrong to me. A couple of points:


 * 1) Kaiser is directly equivalent to Emperor, and, in fact, "Emperor" is used in English for most people who bore the German title "Kaiser." Why is "Kaiser" listed separately at all, when numerous completely different titles that are translated as "Emperor" (for instance, the titles of the Chinese and Japanese Emperors, which come from a completely different origin than the western European one), are not mentioned?
 * 2) Tsar in Serbian is considered to be the equivalent of Emperor. Serbian kings in the modern period (which is the only time when you have international recognition of titles being equivalent to one another) bore the title "King" which is something like "Kral" or "Krol" in Serbian, and were not Tsars at all.  This was also the title of various medieval Serbian rulers, until 1355 when Stephen Dushan took the title of Tsar (i.e. Emperor).  Although he was not widely recognized as an Emperor, it was obvious that this was what he was claiming.
 * 3) We should note that the formal title of Russian rulers after 1721 was Imperator (that is, "Emperor," literally) and not Tsar. Russian Tsars were Emperors, certainly, but the international recognition of them as such was not because of their title of "Tsar," but because they explicitly took the title of "Emperor."  After 1721, "Tsar" seems to have been largely considered to be equivalent to "King," although it wasn't really seen as such before 1721 (I would argue that before 1721 the situation was ambiguous, and that the east didn't really have a distinction between King and Emperor, making it difficult to say what exactly "Tsar" meant.).  Thus, the title called "King of Poland" in the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna is called "Tsar of Poland" in the Russian Emperors' official titulary; and the Tsar of the Bulgarians is recognized internationally as a King.  I think we should clarify this.  I should add that we've been arguing back and forth about this at Talk:Tsar, and that User:Imladjov strongly disagrees with me about this.

At any rate, it seems to me that if we mention Kaiser, we should mention other titles that are equivalent to Emperor - notably the Byzantine use of Basileus (a word which is normally equivalent to King), the various East Asian usages, Negus in Ethiopia, and so forth.

It also seems to me that Tsar should be listed on its own. It should be noted that the term has imperial connotations, but that the term was generally interpreted ambiguously, and that the Russian Tsars took the additional title of "Imperator" in 1721 to stake out once and for all their claim to imperial dignity. john k 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Viceroyalty
I've moved Viceroyalty here since it is not a title of nobility. I decided to save it in case anyone wants to move it back. Viceroy, Vicereine Viceroi, Vicereine Vicere', Viregina Virrey, Virreina Vizekönig, Vizekönigin Onderkoning, Onderkoningin Vizekong, Vizedronning Vizekung, Vizedrottning Vizekonge Vizedronning Vice-rei, Vice-rainha

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.149.91   (talk • contribs)   00:54, 4 July 2005

Edler and Baronet
The translation of "Edler" as "Baronet" does not seem right to me, as an Edler von ranked below a Ritter von, whereas in the United Kingdom a Baronet ranks above a Knight. ViennaUK 10:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * They cannot and should not be compared directly to the UK English titles. They should be ranked one above the other. Charles 11:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * An Edler is certainly not translatable as Baronet. It means "noble of" and would most closely approximate an Esquire. HansNZL (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Archduke
Should Archduke be higher than Grand Duke? Also, since when are dukes sovereign? Emperor001 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A grand duke is a sovereign ruler in most cases whereas an archduke is a prince of the House of Austria. Sovereigns outrank princes so no, an archduke does not outrank a grand duke. Also, dukes were sovereign for a very long time... There were Dukes of Saxony, Dukes of Anhalt, Dukes of Brunswick, etc. Charles 17:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Emperor001, you could equally ask "since when is a Duke noble?" Duke is historically a ruler's title that over time was co-opted into a rank of the higher nobility. Like the title of Prince it was both the title of a sovereign, i.e. Prince of Monaco, Liechtenstein, etc. and a noble title, i.e. Prince Yussupov. Archduke and Grand duke (in English) are much the same title. Some were sovereign, i.e., Grand Duke of Luxembourg, and some were Imperial, i.e. Grand Duke of Russia, Archduke of Austria. In general terms a sovereign title of any rank usually takes precedence over any title of a non-sovereign, so the Grand Duke of Luxembourg would outrank a Grand Duke of Russia or an Archduke of Austria. When Archduke of Austria was used by the rulers of Austria prior to calling themselves Emperors it would have been treated as a sovereign title. HansNZL (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

At it's core it's all semantics and linguistics and considering the Russians did use the title of knyaz (kniaź), as well as the 'grand' version of it, they should be treated separately considering they were not sovereign.

A solid example are the dukes of Poland, eg. Mieszko the First, who ruled a considerable country quite larger than in fact some kings had.

To my observation an Archduke was a honour more than a function and did not differ much from a vassal duke. The entire crown prince category (hereditary princes, tsaroviches, etc.) could all be merged into a 'Crown Prince' article which lists various country specific titles. Aezumin (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Duke and Prince
Since when are dukes and princes sovereign? Archduke Franz Ferdinand's wife was made a duchess, but she still wasn't high enough to cancel the morganatic marriage. Emperor001 (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are confusing, or are entirely missing, the difference between noble dukes and princes and sovereign dukes and princes. Where a man with the title of duke or prince was lord of his lands he was sovereign. Where he was simply given the title without territory to rule he was simply noble. The Duchess of Hohenberg was not sovereign because she did not rule a duchy of Hohenberg. Giving her a noble title did not change her birth status. The marriage had already taken place when she was made a duchess. Charles 17:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-English Terms
Why are royalty terms not used in English (like melekh) and terms not used during the Middle Ages included in this list? They should be taken out, unless this article intends to include mere translations of "king" from every other language. Paul Davidson (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this point. Translations of, for example 'King', should be added in the translation table.  Non-English translations for existing English terms do not add information about additional ranks.  It would seem to make sense to rather add them to the translation table rather than listing them as additional ranks in addition to the existing English ranks. -L.Smithfield (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pharaoh was one well-known English word for king, that was left out of this article.--Splashen (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see the terms from other cultures retained, especially when they have an article presence on Wikipedia that demonstrates the idiosyncrasies of the title. However, "Common titles for European and Near Eastern monarchs" then seems like an inaccurate heading. 75.27.30.212 (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Questions
1. Does anyone have examples of sovereign (grand) dukes within Western Europe (with the exception of Holy Roman Empire)?

2. As far as I understand, the only sovereign within Holy Roman Empire is Holy Roman Emperor; Holy Roman Emperor may grant some sovereign powers to HRE nobles (e.g. right to mint coins, right to collect tax), but does that make them sovereign?

Siyac 19:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * With regard to the first of your questions above: Yes, very notable examples of Grand Dukes who ruled a territory that was not within the HRE were all of the grand dukes of Tuscony.  It dated as a grand duchy from the mid-1500s.  Some might also argue that grand-principalities like Transylvania (dating from the late 1600s) or the grand-principality of Muscovy (dating from about 1283) are also grand duchies (by Western European standards).  This stems from the fact that grand-principalities are often equated (in the Western European mind at least) with grand-duchies.
 * With regard to your second question: Yes, the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) might seem a little bit strange by modern standards of statehood (as we think it is understood today) but at the same time the HRE sort of also defines the very idea of modern sovereign statehood. The HRE had what would be called federated sovereignty and federated government.  Sovereignty was federated and existed for at least two levels of government: 1) at the imperial level and vested in the emperor himself, and 2) at the "state" level and vested in the individual rulers of each member state.  This was (in)famously established and codified by treaty in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia.  That treaty is (arguably) the very basis of the definition of "sovereignty" in the modern era (dating from at least 1648).  Whether that treaty actually established the definition of modern sovereignty is open to some debate by modern revisionist historians (although still only a very minor dissenting group).  So in a very real way, the very same governmental arrangement of the HRE that might seem strange to us today also serves to give us the very definition of modern sovereignty.  Welcome to the mired world of what is now called national and  international government! :-)  Although most people do not think of the United States of America (USA) of being anything other than a single sovereign nation, it also (yes, will wonders never cease) technically even today is a prime example of federated sovereignty and federated government.  The United States of America (like the HRE before it) has two principal levels of sovereignty: at the national level with the national government, and at the "State" level with the individual State governments.  But in contrast to the HRE, the idea of modern sovereignty is more associated with the national level of government of the United States of American today, while the modern idea of sovereignty actually started or was defined by the individual state level of government within the HRE; that is, if you hold to the idea (as most political scientists still do) that modern sovereignty started with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648).  As I mentioned already, exactly what the Treaty of Westphalia established might be open to some debate, but historically the governmental arrangement of the HRE (being federated as it was) tends to remain the prime example of what constitutes (or defines) the modern idea of national sovereignty.  Other primary and more recent examples of federated government and federated sovereignty would be the former Soviet Union (USSR) and at some time and in some part perhaps the British Empire starting from about the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  In some respects it could possibly be argued that most imperial governmental arrangements of the past (most all empires of the past) were all really just examples of federated sovereignty as it is known today.  Examples abound but would probably at least include the ancient Persian Empire and the Roman Empire.  Additionally and in particular, the modern USSR was recognized in part by the United Nations (UN) as constituting multiple independent sovereign nations.  Accordingly, the USSR lobbied for one seat in the UN for each of its constituent nations (numbering about 15 or so if I remember).  But the UN only granted (again if I remember correctly) only a total of three seats in the UN (as opposed to a full 15).  These three seats were apportioned by the USSR as one being permanently attached to the top level of the USSR itself and the other two being periodically rotated among the member states of the USSR (someone please correct me if I have some details of the former USSR arrangement incorrect).  So the idea of federated sovereignty is actually not that strange or rare within the history of nations as one might think it is (or was) at first glance.
 * I am sure that others much more knowledgeable than myself might have much more to say on both of your questions.
 * -L.Smithfield (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Table: Edler von & Nobile
Why does the table rank these above Knights? My understanding is that these ranks are the equivalent of an Esquire, and both rank below a knight. HansNZL (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Edler and Nobile rank below Ritter on the Continent, but no they are not the "equivalent of esquire" since they denoted members of the legal nobility in the realms where those titles were conferred, whereas esquire is a title of the gentry, ranking below Britain's legal nobility. In the UK there is no such thing as "untitled nobility" whereas in the rest of Europe, most members of the nobility were and are untitled. Apples and oranges. FactStraight (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @ FactStraight: Just because Esquires aren't noble under the English system doesn't change the fact that esquire is the equivalent rank. Furthermore, Esquires in Scotland are noble just as Edlers are. HansNZL (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rank is a form of vertical categorization of society, the categories rising in status from lowest to highest. Nobility is a category of rank, and as such it does not overlap the lower rank to which the esquire is entitled. "Edler", Nobile" and "Gentleman" may be as similar in original meaning as are "Ritter" and "Knight", but the status to which each evolved had, by the close of the 19th century, diverged, differentiating them from one another. As for the notion that in Scotland (or, more precisely, under the jurisdiction of Lord Lyon) possession of a coat of arms (or of the rank of "esquire") conferred, proved or intimated "nobility" (or carried the possessor to the "port of gentility" or established membership in the Scottish "noblesse"), surely that fraud cleverly perpetrated by Innes of Learney has now been definitively debunked? FactStraight (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

FactStraight, I simply don't share your narrative about rank, nor does the article you cite definitively debunk anything - it is simply another interpretation. Furthermore someone could construct an argument highlighting the differences between a Spanish Conde and an English Earl, but this doesn't mean you can't translate them as Counts or that they don't share a general equivalence. Interestingly there are examples of untitled nobility in the English system, the most obvious of which are people who use the courtesy style of Lord[Forename][Surname]. These people do not have a title of nobility and yet they are regarded as nobles. HansNZL (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The form of the style you have specified (Lord [Forename] [Surname]) appears to be that which is held by younger sons of dukes and marquesses in the British system. The people holding these styles are not noble in the British system.  They are actually technically commoners.  As you stated this sort of style is a "courtesy style" and does not confer nobility on its holder in the British system.  The British system does not implement nobility in the same way that continental Europe does.  Rather (technically) it has a peerage.  One might think of those holding British courtesy styles, or even courtesy titles, as being a part of a sort of British "courtesy nobility" but this still does not constitute real nobility in the British system.  Also, in case you come across these, Lord-of-the-Manor titles (with a title of the form Lord of [Placename]) are also not noble in the British system.  Rather they form part of the gentry and would hold the rank of Gentleman if they had no higher rank.  All dignities below the rank of Baron in the British system (from Baronet on down; and including Knight) are part of the gentry (and not the nobility).  And only the holder of a substantial peerage title itself (and his wife if a man) are considered noble in the British system (some even dispute the status of the wife herself).  Sons of peers are not technically noble (but rather just commoners) unless they hold a substantial (not courtesy) peerage title themselves.  Although there may be obvious similarities between the gentry within the British system and the lower untitled nobility on the Continent, there is no real direct correspondence between the two systems.  The closest rank in common within the British gentry to that on the Continent is that of Knight, and this is never considered noble in the British system.  For completeness, a Scottish feudal Baron is considered (arguably) equivalent to a continental Baron, but even this is misleading at best because a Scottish Baron is not noble in the British system (again would be a rank of gentry) but is considered noble on the Continent.  There does not appear to be articles within Wikipedia (that I am aware of) that actually go into all of these differences (which are many).  One might think that the article on nobility might discuss these sorts of differences, but it really does not go into the subject in any real depth.  Although I have not checked it myself, the article on British peerage might address some of these differences but probably only in a short summary fashion. -L.Smithfield (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @ L.Smithfield, That's interesting. I wasn't aware that being noble was exclusive to being a peer. I thought nobility was a broader category in the British system, of which peers were a part, but also included (commoner) spouses and children of titled (peerage) nobility. It is interesting to note that Princes without peerages are also commoners in British law (yet still remain royalty) as there are only three legal categories, i.e. the monarch, peers, and commoners. I do dispute something you've written though: that being "gentry" is lesser than being a noble. A British knight is higher than an Edler. Noble/Noblesse status doesn't necessarily make you rank "higher" anymore than being a King makes you rank higher than a President just because a King happens to be royal. A Bishop may not be a noble, but Bishops in the UK and continental systems are generally of higher rank than continental untitled nobles and even many titled nobles. HansNZL (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Precedence may derive from dignity of office or personal dignity. Nobility and knighthoods are personal dignities, so whereas a prime minister may outrank a nobleman by virtue of the dignity of his office, that precedence attaches itself to any possessor of the office, is temporary (for the length of incumbency in that office), and his wife does not hold equivalent precedence; whereas personal dignities are hierarchical relative to each other, are permanent once attained, and extend to wives because a wife normally shares the personal dignity of her husband. Technically, all non-British nobles, from princes and dukes down to the un-titled, are only entitled to the precedence of an esquire at the Court of St. James's unless, as is usual, higher precedence is accorded them at the the pleasure of the Sovereign or of those acting on her behalf. But that is true of any noble, from a prince or duke on down to an untitled nobleman, and of course it holds true only for a Continental noble visiting England -- An English peer or knight bachelor could expect reciprocal treatment at a foreign court. Few would argue on that basis that a Continental duke, count or other nobleman ranks below a British knight. If that technicality is not to what you refer, what is the source for your contention that "A British knight is higher than an Edler"? And what is the basis for your contention that a member of the gentry may, per se outrank a member of the nobility in the context of a monarchy's order of precedence? In which monarchy is this true, and according to whom? FactStraight (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Factstraight, you have descended into fluffing. At the end of the day Esquire is the closest (not exact) equivalent to an Edler, and that will remain true regardless of whatever tangents you go off on. You are not only being obtuse, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. It is not possible to rank or compare any royal & noble ranks at all if we employ your style of lawyering. Your descent into minor, irrelevant or misapplied technicalities is a strategy which can be employed to argue that up is down and red is blue: Wikipedia is not a forum for playing games. HansNZL (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No tangents here. I explained my view and the reasoning behind it, and asked you to explain yours. So far I haven't heard anything but reiteration of assertions ("A British knight is higher than an Edler", "Esquire is the closest (not exact) equivalent to an Edler") that something is true because you believe it to be so. I was curious whether there was any other basis you can cite, that's all. 23:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

German titles were abolished in 1919, so if we are talking legal technicalities any German title now has no legal rank at all. Yet we can still equate a Freiherr with a UK Baron or a Graf with an Earl. That a foreign (let's say Spanish) Duke ranks as an Esquire at the British court is completely beside the point of this discussion, can you see this or are you autistic? If you aren't autistic then you are just using Wikipedia to toy with people. Your talk page shows this to be a pattern of yours. In general terms an Edler in the German system ranks below a Ritter and above a simple von. As such its equivalent rank in the British system is an Esquire, ranking above a substantive Mister and below a knight. These are the general British rank equivalents accepting that legal technicalities are inevitably going to exist between different jurisdictions. Some comparable ranks will be included within the nobility in one realm, but not in another, that doesn't stop them from being comparable. An Earl, a Conde, a Hakushaku, a Graf are all titles originating from different realms and so someone can play up all their differences ad nauseum if they seek to play games. However they can still be broadly translated as Counts and given approximate equivalence. Using your mode of operation you can't actually compare anything with anything. Furthermore your understanding of these things seems bookish, lacking any real-life familiarity with these styles & titles or people who hold them. You are going to pick holes in anything just for the sake of it. Despite your claims you offer nothing constructive or of substance for the article, just tangents and fluffing. You'll toy with any citable evidence I provide to prove the obvious, so why bother investing my time in the research. I won't waste any more time on you. HansNZL (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Some questions
1. Is a king able to raise a noble to king ? Are there any examples ?

I seem to remember that Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI created Leo, Lord of Armenia, King of Armenian Cilicia.

2. Is Lord of Ireland a peerage title or feudal title ?

3. Is the title "Herr" a noble title ? Since noble title can't be sold or purchased, only granted by sovereign and transmitted to the descendants

Siyac 09:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as i'm aware the highest title which has ever been part of the nobility in any consistent way is Duke. I have never heard of a noble King - this title is exclusively a sovereign one in my experience. At a guess i'd say your King of Armenia example would be one where the HR Emperor recognised the Armenian ruler as being of Kingly rank. I doubt the person in question was merely a noble - he'd likely have been a ruler with some degree of sovereignty. Furthermore a King is unlikely to create as a noble rank a title equivalent to his own. Historically the Pope crowned rulers as Kings, but never as a noble rank as far as i'm aware. A title such as Lord of Ireland does not conform to the form a peerage takes, so it is unlikely to be a peerage title. Herr means Lord in German, but it tends to translate as Mister these days. I believe Edler Herr is the way of directly translating "Lord" into German. Feudal titles of nobility (the origin of modern titles) traditionally could be bought and sold, but were usually attached to a landed estate, so the title came with the estate. British peerage titles could controversially be bought and sold up until the 1920s. Bona fide Scottish feudal titles of nobility can be bought and sold. I hope this info is useful. HansNZL (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

sub-section headings under the "sovereign" title section
I have some possible suggestions for renaming the sub-section headings under the "sovereign" title section. How about something along the lines of:


 * "Empire Level" -> Imperial
 * "High King Level" -> High royalty
 * "Kingdom Level" -> Royalty
 * "Other Levels Sometimes Sovereign" -> Princely, grand ducal, ducal, and other

Any feedback on this (or similar) idea is appreciated. -L.Smithfield (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea, although I would replace "royalty" with "kingship". Constantine  ✍  06:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Opps! I apologize.  I made one of the very mistakes my suggestion was hoping to fix.  I meant to suggest:
 * "High King Level" -> High royal
 * "Kingdom Level" -> Royal
 * The remaining suggestions being the same as previously mentioned. My intention was that all of the words describing the category of ranks be of the same parts of speech (in the present case adjectives).  So, for example, a consistent set of descriptive words (adjectives) would include: imperial, high royal, royal, princely, grand ducal, ducal, and other. The word "royal" already implies that a kingdom is usually the territory being ruled, although sometimes grand ducal rulers have been considered royal also: historic Tuscany and present Luxembourg being a couple of examples of this.  But I think it is close enough (using the word 'royal') for the present purposes.  There has always been some overlap in the purpose and dignity of these various ranks throughout history.  I don't think that it is the complete responsibility of the present article to clearly enumerate all such variations. Again, I apologize for introducing some confusion with my original faulty suggestion. -L.Smithfield (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Perandor
The article states that "Perandor" stems from Caesar, which seems implausible. My guess would be that it stems from "imPERATOR".

Sixtensson (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Seigneur
hi all, where would the french/channel islands title "seigneur" rank in the hierarchy to the right. i am supposing between "knight" and "baron." technically, it is a baron or lesser baron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.169.17 (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox: Royal, noble and chivalric ranks: Marquis
Why are only French and German titles included here? Do links to "marquess" and "marchioness" belong as well? — Torontonian1 (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See the discussion over at Template_talk:Royal_and_noble_ranks for more on this. --L.Smithfield (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about Belgian Ranks
Does a non-royal Belgian prince, e.g. Prince de Camaran Chimay outrank a duke ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Vicecount: German Burggraf
Hi, I've stumbled across this page during translating a historical chronicle. Apparently the German "Burggraf/Burggräfin" is missing. I would assume it on one level with vicecount (especially due to the similar Dutch title). Could someone who's deeper into this please check if that's right?

F.gerschler (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

these so called "high imperial" ranks
Someone has the idea that there existed a generally recognized category of ranks known as "high imperial." Such a category of ranks never existed in the recorded history of mankind. The closest person to ever hold a rank that might be considered to be of a "high imperial" character might have been Genghis Khan, but he has only ever been afforded the dignity of being (plainly) an imperial. Some historians have but rarely afforded him, and his wife Börte Üjin accordingly, the special rank of "Grand Emperor" but this is entirely unofficial and quite after the fact. Although one or more individual so called "high imperial" titles might have existed (at least in someone's mind) in the past, they would have only been afforded the dignity of being imperial or less, not "high imperial." I think that this whole category of ranks and all of the individual ranks proposed within it need to be properly sourced before being added to this article. Further, each of the proposed individual ranks should suffer and survive having a Wiki article of its own before being added to this present article. Finally, a distinction needs to be made between what might have been a certain title at one point in time and a rank proper. A title may have a rank associated with it, but it is not a rank in and of itself. There is already enough confusion with these concepts as it is. This situation does not have to be exaggerated with one or more -- at the very least quite obscure -- titles that may or may not have actually existed in the past. I want to be as open to any historical case that can be made for this stuff as the next guy, but real life sourcing has to be provided for everything or else this stuff does not belong in this Wiki article. --L.Smithfield (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Scottish feudal Baron
Recent edits (perhaps over the course of the last year or more) have tried to especially distinguish the rank of the Scottish feudal Baron as being among the major nobility of Scotland. This is not at all demonstrated by the history of this rank in Scotland. The very fact that this rank (Scottish feudal Baron) ranks below all of the ranks (in descending order of precedence) of Scottish Lord of Parliament, Baronet, and Knight clearly shows that this rank (again Scottish feudal Baron) is clearly among the ranks of the minor nobility (or minor baronage) of Scotland (otherwise known as the gentry in England). If you want to change this condition, please take your case up with the Lord Lyon of Scotland or with Her Majesty The Queen of the Commonwealth Realms herself. --L.Smithfield (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all I would like to apologize as I am French and I don't speak english very well, but I'll try: I think the words "peerage" and "non-peerage" are much more appropriate for this situation. The words "major" and "minor" nobility don't make sense in the "nobility" context regarding history. The difference is temporal ; Lords of Parliament and English barons are only the current peers. Scottish barons are not minor, they are only not peer nobles. In the continent, for example France, there is no difference between a noble created in 15XX and one created in last Ancien Régime years. Nobility makes sense in continuity, so we could say that the day in which the House of Lords is extinct, all the peers become "minor nobility", minor barons and with the drift of some "little memory" British maybe "gentry", "landed gentry" or "named gentry". When something is newer you cannot deny the Past. Scottish barons are barons as Spanish barons are and French barons are and English barons are. Aude9331 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

In addition, maybe we could compare the situation of the peers with the situation in Spain, where some nobles are, in addition to being Marquesses or Counts, Grandees of Spain. In this particular case, both Grandees and non-Grandees are "full nobles with full Marquisates and Earldoms", but, as an "additional award", some of them are also Grandees. This is, I think, comparable to the nobles in the U.K. Some are Peers, some aren't. I think the political trend to continuously actualize and billet "nobility" to the current Peers is not a good policy. "Nobility" doesn't mean "right to seat in a Parliament". To constrain nobility to this is, I think, a narrow historical form of view and maybe a truncated view of reality. Sorry again for my english. Aude9331 (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am aware of and appreciate the difficulty with categorizing the Scottish barons. Your suggestion to note that Scottish barons are both "noble" and at the same time not within the "peerage" is already incorporated quite nicely and succinctly within the description of the Scottish baronial rank in the list of ranks.  I have no problem with the present description of the Scottish baron being both "noble" but also outside of the "peerage."  I think that this is an important point to make to the reader -- and it has indeed been clearly made so in the article.  But a major difficulty with the rank of the Scottish baron when trying to elevate it to some sort of higher status is that it ranks below knights (and therefore also below baronets), and therefore takes precedence similar to the other minor nobility (otherwise known as gentry) within the British system.  Categorizing some noble rank as being minor is in no way denigrating that rank.  It only serves to show the relative precedence of the rank among all of the others.  Even minor nobility is still nobility! No one is denying this. Although the two main lists of noble ranks (major and minor) are not in any sort of strict order of precedence (since that is not generally even possible across all of history, circumstances, and realms), the characteristics of the Scottish baronial rank itself can only justify it being listed among the other minor nobility and gentry of the world.  The precedence of the rank itself does not really allow it to be listed among the major (higher) nobility ranks. Also, for those readers who want to know more about the rank of Scottish Baron, they can simply click through to the Wiki article on it.  Nothing is being hidden or kept back from the reader about this rank.  The reader can find out for themselves the nuances associated with this dignity without having to put a good part of the article on the Scottish Baron within this present article. I am completely open to suggestions on how to categorize this rank better, but any solution still has to deal with the fact that the rank of Scottish Baron only takes precedence below Knights, Baronets, Lords of Parliament, and the British (non-Scottish) Barons. This fact will always place the Scottish Baron among the gentry (minor nobility) within the British system.  I welcome and look forward to comments on this matter from other contributors as well.  --L.Smithfield (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but I think I still don't understand the classification of "minor" and "major" nobles, especially the made in the article, I don't understand the rule for classification. What is the difference between a major and a minor noble? I assume that nobility is held by those who were granted political or jurisdictional powers for example. So then is it the position in the order of precedence? So then arbitrarily, from which position in the orders of precedence a noble is "minor"? I think that in the second category "minor nobility, gentry and other aristocracy" are included titles that did never confer any political or jurisdictional power, and were only recognition of existing situations or mere "awards" (lairds, esquires, gentlemen, (and baronets?)), but also titles like "Principalías" which seem to have been very important. Aude9331 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, your question now is: What distinguishes the major nobility from the minor nobility? I am by no means an expert on this question but these two works (below) address this issue (at least somewhat) and may be of help to you:
 * Thomas Wilson, "The State of England" (1600), edited by F.J.Fisher, Camden Miscellany, 16 (1936): i-vii, 1-47.
 * John Dodderidge, "The Magazine of Honor, or, A treatise of the severall degrees of the nobility of this kingdome with their rights and priviledges," London: William Sheares, 1642.
 * Other writings by Dodderidge (above) may also be helpful on this issue. There are also a few works that describe the minor nobility of Britain (and comparing it to the minor nobility on the continent) and one of the best of these is:
 * Larence, Sir James Henry (1827) [first published 1824]. "The nobility of the British Gentry or the political ranks and dignities of the British Empire compared with those on the continent" (2nd ed.). London: T.Hookham -- Simpkin and Marshall. Retrieved 2013-01-06.
 * I am aware of a few other works that also address the issue of either minor nobility alone or the distinction between the major and minor nobility. You should be able to search the web and find one or more of these (often about the nobility of a specific nation or set of nations in the past).  Also, getting back to the issue of the rank of the Socttish baron, the Lord Lyon himself (in the past) has issued some declarations or decisions wherein he refers to the feudal nobility of Scotland as constituting its minor nobility (or Barons Minor; or similar language). In general, you will find that all of the works that you read will categorize ranks such as Patrician, Esquire, Baronet, Gentleman, Nobile, Junker, Jonkheer, Seigneur, and the other usual suspects (such as feudal or manorial lordships, and various cognates of these already listed) as all belonging to the minor nobility of their respective nations. This issue does not appear to be addressed in any depth by any existing Wiki article, that I am aware of.  If you are so inclined, this is an opportunity for you to research the matter and to either write an article on it, or to enhance either the Wiki article on Nobility or this present article.  If you do research this, remember your sources and include them as references in your work. Thanks for your interest in this issue. --L.Smithfield (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I'll try to read those texts, thank you..! Aude9331 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand all that is written here on the status of the Scottish Baron and how confusing it can be within the British system, However one needs to be aware that it is also noted by various sources and recognized that a Scottish Baron is treated as equal on the European continent with other barons and is placed above Knights and Baronets (which do not exist in Europe)in protocol. Thank you for all you are doing. Editorxx12 (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The "High Royal" ranks
The high royal ranks seem to be a category that has been created mostly from the words' etymology and not from any common significance. Some of the titles, namely Shahanshah/Padshah and Khagan should probably be moved to the Imperial category and the rest dropped to the royal level. Both the Persian and the Turko-Mongol titles were considered to embody the supreme authority for their respective civilizations, ruled empires as important as the European empires, and the former was formally translated as "Basileus" in the Roman-Persian diplomatic correspondence. The rest of the high royal titles would probably fit a lot better in the royal category. Taewang, Bretwalda, Ard Ri, Maharaja and the Malaysian and Georgian ones do not imply anything beyond the sovereignty of a king and most simply include the "high-great" prefix to indicate superiority over local rulers whose titles are rendered in English as king. I know little about the Sumerian and Mycenaean culture and titulature so I am not sure where these should go, and am unsure whether "Pharaoh" is royal or imperial(probably the former). Netczar (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this could use a cleanup. After all, the neighbouring sovereign states did not care how somebody preferred to self-style their own title.

A high king reigning over lesser kings is no different than a king reigning over dukes or earls. More so, it's often a matter of language specific terminology, as is the case with the Lithuanian Grand Duke (which can in fact be translated as a high king as well).

I vote for merging part of the high royal into the imperial category, and the other part into the royal category. Aezumin (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Personal website as reliable source
Recently I deleted from several articles the inclusion of a private website as a link to this article, which implied a Wikipedia consensus that it is to a useful, reliable and appropriate source for further information on this article's subject matter. Unfortunately, that website is not suitable for linking because: Therefore, until the above criteria can be satisfactorily addressed, it is subject to removal. FactStraight (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an anonymous, personal web page, in violation of Unacceptable links #11
 * It is impossible to determine if it is has editorial oversight which includes fact-checking because there is no evidence that anyone is involved in the website's content selection but the webmaster
 * Most of its assertions lack references, and the site entirely lacks inline citations
 * It contains glaring errors which suggest amateur rather than professional authorship (e.g. "According to traditions of most European noble families only one person at a time could bear the same title", whereas prevalent usage in Germany, Russia, Slavic & Hungarian Europe & Scandinavia is for all males of a family to share a title, and that is often so in Italy, Belgium, Netherland)
 * It is being retained as a link on the article at the desire of one editor over the objections of another (me), despite the fact that on Wikipedia, the burden of proof to retain content falls upon the editor who wishes to keep the content in the article.
 * I strongly suspect that much of the webpage's content has been used without attributation from a widely known royalty site maintained by a Franco-American academic.

The response.


 * The site "Titles of European hereditary rulers" provides several thousand samples for researchers interested in the chronology and historical development of the European title system.
 * The site is not anonymous (see the copyright).
 * The site’ pages cover various European countries and territories (kingdoms, duchies, principalities, counties, etc.). Each sample has detailed references (volumes, pages, document numbers, etc.) to printed books from where it was taken (most of the books available on Google Books).
 * There is no any evidence that "the webpage's content has been used without attributation from a widely known royalty site". Actually, this "royalty site" has a reference to the site in question (it uses its old location on GeoCities) and the Franco-American academic calls the site's content "extensive and well-documented" (the section "Resources on Styles" http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/).
 * There are printed books that refer to the site (i.e., Anales de la Real Academia Matritense de Heráldica y Genealogía, Die "Europäische Union" des vorindustriellen Zeitalters etc.).
 * 'Glaring errors' seem because the text was not completely read and understood. The original quotation includes the following "However, traditions of the German Ancient Nobility (Uradel) were different". ... In Germany, many individuals bore the same titles". As can be seen from the samples, in France, the Low Countries, Lorraine, etc. only one territorial ruler used the same titles; in Germany, all members of a ruling family could share the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliographe (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal and noble ranks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041213144833/http://hereditarytitles.com/ to http://www.hereditarytitles.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fictional Titles
I see that someone is a fan of Game of Thrones. They added in Kahlesee and Kahl to the list of Sovereigns. I am pretty sure these should be removed. If this list allows fictional titles then it will explode. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.78.3.131 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh my YES. I would agree! Those ranks should be removed from the list. However, I would not be opposed to a separate high-level section (not under some other section heading) titled something like Fictional ranks in literature and entertainment or some such. L.Smithfield (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Overflowing the page
Section Corresponding titles of nobility between languages contains a table which overflows the entire page. Should something be done to it? Overflow is not nice. Perhaps make it fit by decreasing font-size or just removing section completely, after all, I keep being told: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", thus I have to question to the relevance of such table, especially if it overflows the page. Or maybe converting the table to an SVG would do the trick? Go-Chlodio (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

European and Near Eastern?
At this point it seems like Common titles for European and Near Eastern monarchs no longer applies to the contents of that subheading, since we have titles from Imperial China, the Inca Empire, Yoruba, Mali, and Tibet. 2603:3005:702:C700:E527:8D4E:B10F:2412 (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a silly subheading to begin with, because other cultures also have names for those titles. What was the specific reason for calling it that and why Europe and the far east specifically?That whole section needs a total renaming. The lead section is also misleading. This article is not just about Europe.Tamsier (talk)

Requested move 13 January 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Unopposed and seems reasonable. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Royal and noble ranks → Imperial, royal and noble ranks – Distinction. Per WP:CONSISTENCY with Imperial, royal and noble styles, and Template:Imperial, royal, and noble styles. PPEMES (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merging or redirection of separate section on titles used in the Maratha Empire
The whole section on the titles used by the Maratha Empire seems unnecessarily separated from the other two about analogous ranks in different places and historical eras. It should either be merged into the other sections, or if it really is impossible to find equivalent titles for the ones given, it should be made into a separate page with a redirection on this one. DhruvPanday (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

"King of Kings" titles such as "Basileus ton Basileon" and "Shahanshah" belong on the imperial section, not the kingly one
The first emperor in history, Sargon of Akkad, is recognized as such because he ruled as king over other kings (the sumerians). There are titles which translate to "King of Kings" in the Royal section, such as for example 'Basileus tōn Basileōn' and 'Shahanshah'. 'Basileus' means literally 'King' in Greek, so 'Basileus of Basileis' is obviously meant to be something above it, the exact same is true for 'Shahanshah' which was the title for Persian emperors. Khagan, which is a "King of Kings" type of title is already recognized as imperial on the imperial section, so why the inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.250.203.246 (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Add the oxford comma to the title
While this may seem like a minor detail, I think it's important to add a comma right after "royal" but before "and noble" to denote that they are separate ranks. Just Your Average Stellaron Hunter (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)