Talk:Imperial, royal and noble ranks

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Here is a link regarding it. Charles 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  big erasings should be discussed first 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Freiherr 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Awkward Table

message: The listing of Tsar and Kaiser together on the page seems wrong to me.  A couple of points:
#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?
#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.
#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)
thread_title:  Tsar and Kaiser 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edler and Baronet 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Duke and Prince

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-English Terms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: @ 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: @ 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Table: Edler von & Nobile 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some questions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Perandor 

message: 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)
thread_title: Seigneur

message: 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)
replies: text: See the discussion over at Template_talk:Royal_and_noble_ranks for more on this. --L.Smithfield (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: Royal, noble and chivalric ranks: Marquis 

message: 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)
thread_title: Question about Belgian Ranks

message: 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)
thread_title: Vicecount: German Burggraf

message: 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)
thread_title:  these so called "high imperial" ranks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The "High Royal" ranks 

message: 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: 
* 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.
Therefore, until the above criteria can be satisfactorily addressed, it is subject to removal. FactStraight (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal website as reliable source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fictional Titles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overflowing the page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging or redirection of separate section on titles used in the Maratha Empire 

message: 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)
thread_title: "King of Kings" titles such as "Basileus ton Basileon" and "Shahanshah" belong on the imperial section, not the kingly one

message: 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)
thread_title: Add the [[oxford comma]] to the title