Page 1 of 3

What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 3:17 pm
by Erik Mortis
So. We have Dukes/Margraves with their vote in the Landsraad and Major house status.
We have Barons with their voice in the Landsraad and the Minor House Status.
Then we have Counts, they are nobles, and do gain Minor House Status. But do we have anything else we might wish to tack on to them to give some more umph to the title, without making it quite as cool as Barons?

Do we wish to give any further status to the other titles. Would we like to allow the title of Count to be Purchased from the crown with Erb?

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 3:24 pm
by Kaiseress Anandja II
I think that one should be allowed to buy the non-hereditary Thane and Jarl titles from the Crown.

Countships could be given to people like those you mention, but also to very deserving individuals that do not qualify for Minor House status.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 3:25 pm
by Erik Mortis
I like the idea of buying Thane and Jarl titles... *adds that to the list of things to put into law*

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 8:07 pm
by Jadie Kelb
Just to bring this up....

Counties...and counts/countesses...confuses me. :P

I have a county...but I am not a countess...I am a governor...confuzzles me...but maybe that is just me.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 8:16 pm
by Andreas the Wise
Jadie, it's because traditionally everyone was at least a count and had a county. Probably counties should have a different name now because apparently count will be an extremely rare designation, given to house leaders who are not good enough for Barons but better than nothing. (Yeah, hereditary titles not given to houses get weird fast).

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 9:26 pm
by Erik Mortis
I meant to give hereditary titles to Houses.

Well, we started using the title Count because we called them counties. I'm actually not sure when we officially adopted it as a title...

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 9:38 am
by Jadie Kelb
what would we call them instead of Counties?

Minor Houses? Cottages? (:P)

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 9:40 am
by Kaiseress Anandja II
Minor House is something else, but perhaps... Provinces?

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 9:47 am
by Jadie Kelb
Governor of a Province would make more sense to me personally...

and sorry for the Cottage pun...I couldn't help it. :)

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:04 am
by Erik Mortis
I Honestly like the traditional County. They are kinda small and numerous for Provinces. And that's a rather mundane name.

Maybe something more esoteric. Nome? Then the head could be a Nomarch. We could ask Nick for the Shirerithian translation of County. We could also steal the british, Shire.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:05 am
by Kaiseress Anandja II
Ask him for the translation of both county and province. And they aren't small really, they just look small. They are actually huge.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:08 am
by Erik Mortis
Fair enough.

I've just asked him, but he's "slumbering" so.. it might be some time before I can get back to you.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:08 am
by Kaiseress Anandja II
Goodie.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:15 am
by Jonas
Don't... take... away... the name... county... :p

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:15 am
by Daniel Farewell
I kinda like the name "shire"

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:22 am
by Kaiseress Anandja II
Jonas, I like county too, but they aren't really counties when they aren't ruled by counts...

*Thinks about England and the US*

Well, if they can have counties without counts, why can't we?

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:27 am
by Jonas
Kaiseress Anandja II wrote:Jonas, I like county too, but they aren't really counties when they aren't ruled by counts...

*Thinks about England and the US*

Well, if they can have counties without counts, why can't we?
Forgive me if Kildare will stay using 'county', but don't really mind if it's changed officially.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:31 pm
by Erik Mortis
Kildare being annoying and problematic as usual? Not surprised.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:35 pm
by Andreas the Wise
Erik Mortis wrote:Kildare being annoying and problematic as usual? Not surprised.
Oh come on, calling the land divisions "counties" is almost as traditional as the old flag, and at least that got changed by a specific vote (as opposed to as an unnoticed consequence of a larger change).

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:41 pm
by Erik Mortis
They got called counties by bill when he broke up all the lands for New Feudalism. The title Count came about as a result. Before that all we had was Baronies and Duchies. And some weird things like a Thanedom. It was a name of convenience. I see no Tradition behind it. Counties have existed for Maybe 3 years. Maybe 4. if you push it. The flag lasted almost 10 years. Bit of a difference.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:55 pm
by Andreas the Wise
A bit of a difference to you, sure. To us younger Shirithians, anything dating back to Mors V is highly traditional.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 3:19 am
by Scott of Hyperborea
I like Counties, but I fully approve of harassing Nick until he gives us more language.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 3:32 am
by Falkner van der Sluijs
Scott of Hyperborea wrote:harassing Nick until he gives us more language.
I like this idea. Very much

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 7:33 am
by Jonas
Erik Mortis wrote:Kildare being annoying and problematic as usual? Not surprised.
What? I gave my approval to the idea when it would get a majority. But the same time, I announced that nobody should be surprised if it would still use 'County'.
You're just being a bit grumpy now, Erik. :p

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:10 am
by Erik Mortis
Yes I am. You guys built a reputation for yourselves since the change. I'm just running with it...

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:16 am
by Jonas
Erik Mortis wrote:Yes I am. You guys built a reputation for yourselves since the change. I'm just running with it...
So, what you're saying: we shouldn't even try to be constructive, as it doesn't work. Good to know. :rolleyes

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:16 am
by Erik Mortis
Mostly I'm just being a pest.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:17 am
by Jonas
Erik Mortis wrote:Mostly I'm just being a pest.
:p :thumbsup

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:40 am
by Scott of Hyperborea
Then we have Counts, they are nobles, and do gain Minor House Status. But do we have anything else we might wish to tack on to them to give some more umph to the title, without making it quite as cool as Barons?
Wait...why not make "count" mean "a person who has a county" just as before?

Thus, people who do enough development work that the Kaiser is willing to award them a county get a nifty title. It could even be handled so that the Kaiser can provisionally assign counties to people who are interested in cultural development, and then after the person has done a lot of development they get the "count" title as a reward.

Then Baron is for head of a minor house, and Duke is for head of a major house, as currently.

Re: What to do with Counts.

Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:53 am
by Kaiseress Anandja II
Count should be for sub-houses, that is, houses within major houses. I understand where you are coming from with this suggestion, but it would be too much hassle to keep track of. It's hard as it is.