On 15Aug2020 1420, Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via tml
list) wrote:
> Well, that's true IF you can buy into that rationale.
>
> And, it also does NOT alter the fact that this "Rule of Man, Not Law"
> is also yet another contradictory later addition to 'canon'.
>
> And, of course, 'canon' has, as far  as the OTU is concerned, pretty
> much declined into more of an affectation than anything else.
>
> The biggest problem I see with 'Rule of Man, etc' is that it
> essentially means that there are hordes of 'nobles' running around the
> 3I holding what amounts to a permanent 'Imperial Writ'. There would be
> constant, unending turmoil & conflict under those conditions.
> Which fits in nicely w/ the insanity of the 'Rebellion' era but I
> can't see how the 3I could possibly have lasted over 1000 years.
That doesn't follow - just because you had a certain amount of power and
authority because of your office doesn't mean you keep it when you leave
that office, and the same would apply in the 3I. Sure, you're a Count,
and at one time you were in charge of Imperial operations, etc., in a
certain system. Now that you've retired, the grateful Emperor (who's
never actually heard of you), via the sector duke (who met you once),
has granted you an inheritable rank of Baron to go with your lifetime
rank of Count, neither of which grant you any power outside of the
little fief you got with your Baronial title. They grant you the
expectation of certain degree of deference from the untitled, and might
open a few doors for you, but your network of contacts from when you
were actually working is probably more useful.

You seem to assume people would keep their power and authority, and that
all of it would be inherited by the heirs to their properties, but I
don't see why that would be the case. It wasn't historically, as a rule.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>