Feudal Hierarchy - Respect/Deference

[Scarlett]

Since Jenred never formally abdicated, technically (or legally, rather) he is still the King of Arcaea and Velax only the Regent. There is not really a good example of this happening in the Middle Ages but if I had to speculate, I'd say that no King of Arcaea who hadn't formally lost the title would ever accept losing the title unless he was willing to abdicate it.

If he did not abdicate and return, what would probably happen socially (at least from the 'kinda sorta actually medieval' POV) is that he would retain formal address, e.g. Your Grace, but nobody who values their head would call him 'King Jenred.'

They would also probably avoid Your Majesty. Your Grace is easy because it's also a generic 'you da boss' address used for Dukes as well as Kings. 'Your Majesty' is more renaissance than Medieval and would probably be avoided even if it had been.

Interestingly, however, Jenred was never crowned Emperor, so even if he has a claim on the Kingdom, he doesn't have a claim on the Empire. This is one reason that the HRE liked having the Pope crown its Emperors - it was a pain in the ass when you had an ornery pope but it kept pretenders in a solidly illegitimate stance.

All of this is pretty tough to translate to BM since Jenred would have to be an idiot to come back from the dead and declare himself King and Velax not-King, at least given the number of magnates who barely have any idea who Jenred is. A historical setting would have lots of families (rather than just individuals) loyal to the House of Bedwyr and there would also be less turnover in lordships than there is in BM. So a 'what would really happen' question is easily misleading.

Summary: Jenred should retain Kingliness but avoid the word 'King' like the plague.

[Stabbity]

Since Jenred never formally abdicated, technically (or legally, rather) he is still the King of Arcaea and Velax only the Regent. There is not really a good example of this happening in the Middle Ages but if I had to speculate, I'd say that no King of Arcaea who hadn't formally lost the title would ever accept losing the title unless he was willing to abdicate it.

If he did not abdicate and return, what would probably happen socially (at least from the 'kinda sorta actually medieval' POV) is that he would retain formal address, e.g. Your Grace, but nobody who values their head would call him 'King Jenred.'

They would also probably avoid Your Majesty. Your Grace is easy because it's also a generic 'you da boss' address used for Dukes as well as Kings. 'Your Majesty' is more renaissance than Medieval and would probably be avoided even if it had been.

Interestingly, however, Jenred was never crowned Emperor, so even if he has a claim on the Kingdom, he doesn't have a claim on the Empire. This is one reason that the HRE liked having the Pope crown its Emperors - it was a pain in the ass when you had an ornery pope but it kept pretenders in a solidly illegitimate stance.

All of this is pretty tough to translate to BM since Jenred would have to be an idiot to come back from the dead and declare himself King and Velax not-King, at least given the number of magnates who barely have any idea who Jenred is. A historical setting would have lots of families (rather than just individuals) loyal to the House of Bedwyr and there would also be less turnover in lordships than there is in BM. So a 'what would really happen' question is easily misleading.

Summary: Jenred should retain Kingliness but avoid the word 'King' like the plague.

Its a bit later than BM's time period, but I feel it gives some precedence for Jenred/Velax. King George III of the United Kingdom never formally abdicated the throne and remained King after a final relapse of the mental illness that had plagued him on and off for years. In that time, his son, George IV ruled as Prince Regent. While George III never recovered, he would have likely taken over again as King had he recovered. Which you can relate to Jenred/Velax, the only difference being that they are not related.

Whether Velax wants to give the crown up is its own issue in and of itself, but by this precedence I'd think it would be fair that Jenred be recognized as rightful King of Arcaea, but not the rightful Emperor of the Empire, depending on how the oaths of allegiance Coralynth and Sorraine swore. If they swore to Arcaea, then Jenred is rightful Emperor, if they swore to Velax, he is the rightful Emperor, but merely a regent as far as Arcaea would be concerned.

This is of course assuming one side doesn't attempt to force the other into something, or one side just drops claim.

[vonGenf]

Sir Jenred or Lord Jenred.

Lord is never, impolite, especially if you use it as "My Lord". It conveys a general feeling of the other character as being of very high rank, without being specific about which piece of land this refers to.

[Dante Silverfire]

Lord is never, impolite, especially if you use it as "My Lord". It conveys a general feeling of the other character as being of very high rank, without being specific about which piece of land this refers to.

If one of my characters is called "Lord" by another noble and my character happens to be a Duke or higher, he will take insult for it. The only nobles able to address my characters as "my lord" and get away with it are my direct vassals.

[Sacha]

Eh... I find that being anally retentive about titles really just makes you look like an uptight jackass to the rest of the realm. It's more likely to win you ridicule rather than respect.

[Dante Silverfire]

I'm pretty sure nobles didn't win respect. They were granted it because they inherently deserved respect due to their stations.

[Chenier]

Eh... I find that being anally retentive about titles really just makes you look like an uptight jackass to the rest of the realm. It's more likely to win you ridicule rather than respect.

Agreed. Lord and Duke aren't mutually exclusive, it's not as if he's out calling you "Noble", like Raoul, the king of Minas Leon, is saying to the King of Minas Ithil.

[Dante Silverfire]

The difference is that "My lord" is an address, "Your Grace" is an honorific.

What's wrong with playing a character who simply wants to receive the respect he deserves?

[Sacha]

I'm pretty sure nobles didn't win respect. They were granted it because they inherently deserved respect due to their stations.

Pfeh, that's not respect. It's the same as a little kid saying 'sorry' because his mom made him do it, but you know he doesn't mean it.

Real respect must be earned. It doesn't come as a perk with the title.

[Dante Silverfire]

Pfeh, that's not respect. It's the same as a little kid saying 'sorry' because his mom made him do it, but you know he doesn't mean it.

Real respect must be earned. It doesn't come as a perk with the title.

Of course, that's right. So if I've earned respect but not shown it, am I allowed recourse?

[vonGenf]

The difference is that "My lord" is an address, "Your Grace" is an honorific.

What's wrong with playing a character who simply wants to receive the respect he deserves?

There has to be a way to say "I respect you, I'm just not quite sure which title you prefer to be called by, so I'm going to use a generic title that means respect."

In other words, there has to be non-ironic way to say "with all due respect".

I am under the impression that "Lord" fitted the bill in BM context, other adresses could be better.

[Dante Silverfire]

VonGenf,

In that part I agree. I always give either new nobles or young nobles the benefit of the doubt. Those that don't know me perhaps. I'm mainly talking about those that are aware of my character, what positions he holds/held and what level of respect to show him.

[Scarlett]

"My lord" would be considered an acceptable inferior-to-superior, equal-to-equal address, and even superior-to-inferior address of general respect. The pig farmer uses it when talking to the sheriff, the sheriff uses it when talking to the bailiff, the bailiff uses it when talking to the count who uses it when talking to the Duke who uses it when talking to the king who uses it when talking to God.

"Lord" is still a nonspecific reference to rank but it is more specific than 'my lord.' Baron/Count//Viscount/Earl Scarlett are all 'Lord Scarlett.' Duke Scarlett is 'Duke Scarlett' and not Lord Scarlett, and King Scarlett is most definitely not Lord Scarlett.

Eh... I find that being anally retentive about titles really just makes you look like an uptight jackass to the rest of the realm. It's more likely to win you ridicule rather than respect.

This is a very 20th/21st century view. In any Western Medieval land, there were few things more important than social rank because it represented civilization - without it you'd just have 'strongest wins' and so even when it sucked it was the agreed-upon system for recognizing authority, excepting of course all of the times you didn't recognize it and had an army at your back.

Real respect must be earned. It doesn't come as a perk with the title.

Of course, but this is not mutually exclusive with the above. Bowing and scraping was very important but these were gestures. Real respect was something else entirely. Everyone is expecting to go through the motions; it's like knowing the rules to football when you show up for a match. It doesn't say anything about how good a player you are - just that you've done the requisite work to be allowed to participate.

The best sword-fighter in the world isn't going to be allowed to rise very far if he craps all over the pecking order because if you get rid of the pecking order all you have is despotism, and even the medievals knew that that wasn't preferable. Tuchman's A Distant Mirror brings this up a lot - it's very easy for us to look back at the 1300s and go 'wow that sucked' but even as corrupt as the nobility and Catholic church were back then, most everybody still preferred that system to the dark ages. Medieval hierarchy was the least bad system available to them at the time, and in some respects was superior to later systems in that you didn't have absolute monarchies or slavery in the West (serfdom was much, much better) as you did in the 1500s and 1600s.

[Scarlett]

Its a bit later than BM's time period, but I feel it gives some precedence for Jenred/Velax. King George III of the United Kingdom never formally abdicated the throne and remained King after a final relapse of the mental illness that had plagued him on and off for years. In that time, his son, George IV ruled as Prince Regent. While George III never recovered, he would have likely taken over again as King had he recovered.

George III came in and out of madness on occasion and did rule in the in-between bits, but this is not quite comparable to Velax and Jenred; in the first place, in BM we don't have anointed successors, whereas everybody knew that the Prince Regent was going to be King anyway and they weren't risking a lot by temporarily advancing him some of the authority he was already due. They also figured (usually correctly) that, if and when George 3 did snap out of it, he'd recognize on some level that it wasn't a bad thing that his heir was making many of the decisions.

BM has no concept of regent, though - you're King until you're not and that's that. But then Galiard's been King'd and un-King'd four or five times now and not once would he have been able to show up and say 'hey everybody I'm King again now right?' and get away with it, even though on one or two occasions he came pretty close. So any discussion of Jenred being 'legally' King is probably academic.

He gets enough advantage just by being royalty. Should anything happen to Velax, or discredit Velax, Jenred wins just by hanging around. 'Oh, what? You need a King? Uh, sure, I guess.'

[Stabbity]

George III came in and out of madness on occasion and did rule in the in-between bits, but this is not quite comparable to Velax and Jenred; in the first place, in BM we don't have anointed successors, whereas everybody knew that the Prince Regent was going to be King anyway and they weren't risking a lot by temporarily advancing him some of the authority he was already due. They also figured (usually correctly) that, if and when George 3 did snap out of it, he'd recognize on some level that it wasn't a bad thing that his heir was making many of the decisions.

BM has no concept of regent, though - you're King until you're not and that's that. But then Galiard's been King'd and un-King'd four or five times now and not once would he have been able to show up and say 'hey everybody I'm King again now right?' and get away with it, even though on one or two occasions he came pretty close. So any discussion of Jenred being 'legally' King is probably academic.

He gets enough advantage just by being royalty. Should anything happen to Velax, or discredit Velax, Jenred wins just by hanging around. 'Oh, what? You need a King? Uh, sure, I guess.'

Also good points. I don't foresee Jenred trying to make a grab for his old seat back, and I don't see Velax just stepping aside. Should Velax ever abdicate though, you know Jenred will grab that up. The Lurian in me wants to see a power struggle for the top seat though.