On 4/7/23 01:16, Jim Vassilakos - jim.vassilakos at gmail.com (via tml
list) wrote:
> Alex, thanks for that quote about Fealty, Homage, and undivided
> loyalty from GT: Nobles, pg. 59.
Np, happy to help.
<snip>
> The quote strongly implies that all oaths are made to the Emperor and
> that all the other nobles derive their authority from the Emperor.

That's what I figured, to maintain the crown's primacy.

GT Nobles, p20 : "the Emperor ... he is not considered to be a member of
the high nobility - rather, he is the _source_ of the high nobility, the
ultimate authority for whom all high nobles are merely representatives
and viceroys."

Likewise, rank nobles trace their position back to HIM via their
particular agency (IN, SPA, Office of Calendar Compliance, Committee of
Underpants Collection, etc).  Honour nobles of baron and up are ennobled
by HIM directly, while archducally-created honour nobles have their
creators likewise tracing back to the crown.

> While, in practice, this is probably not entirely true, I could see
> the Emperor asserting it as a truth and then backing that assertion up
> with the Navy, were it to be ever openly challenged.

Not to mention the upstart noble's more immediate superiors (see
Baroness Giigui, below).  The Archdukes can drop the naval hammer off
their own bats, too.

>
> <snip> However, assuming we accept the quote from GT as valid for
> pledges of allegiance by commoners, does that then mean that a
> Baroness cannot have her population swear an oath of loyalty to her
> because it would be in violation of some Imperial edict pertaining to
> undivided loyalty? Or would it depend on how the oath is worded? Maybe
> she could have oath written in a way that references the Emperor, so
> that people are swearing the oath to her because they recognize her as
> being his local representative. That makes sense, I suppose. At least,
> it underscores that their primary loyalty is to the Emperor, not to
> her, so it keeps their loyalty presumably undivided. Given that quote
> from GT Nobles, I could see that being a stipulation (or loophole,
> depending on how you look at it).

If Baroness Giigui goes for the "oath of loyalty to her personally" _as
an Imperial high noble_, I'd suspect she'd be slapped down _hard_ by the
marquis whose demesne encompasses hers (if only so the marquis doesn't
get similarly clobbered by their higher-ups for being asleep at
switch).  If it goes high enough, perhaps some specimens of _Homo
sapiens bootus bootus_ and/or _Canis sapiens bootus bootus_ , with ranks
like "Fleet Sergeant" and "Brigadier", turn up to explain to her that
ain't how things go.

If the Baroness simply _administers_ the oath on HIM's behalf, that's
part of what she's there for.

If she's also in that fourth estate of Imperial nobility, a _planetary_
noble, things would get murkier.

>
> Indeed, naming all the nobles from the Emperor on down would not only
> be cumbersome, as Robert suggests, but it might create cases where
> Archdukes have more power than the Emperor really wants them to have.
> I mean, if the oaths were property written, Dulinor should have been
> dead meat almost immediately (Phil's contribution to the discussion).
> Maybe Dulinor got himself inserted into every oath by some sort of
> Archducal edict, whether due to conscious preparation for treason or
> simply the yearnings of his own over-inflated ego. Whichever the case,
> it might explain why he was able to get the Domain of Ilelish to
> follow him into rebellion.
>
Not necessarily - Dulinor strikes me as the sort with the gift of the
gab, alongside motive, means and opportunity to put a legitimate spin on
things, plus time to subvert key positions. Interesting behaviour tends
to be over-determined.

After all, he's Strephon's viceroy round these parts.  How much else
would he _need_ to subvert a Domain?

For defending against this, I direct you to William Cameron's "Wounded
Colossus" article on Freelance Traveller.

Alex