Forums of the Megaverse®

Here's a pressing question for all you Palladium Fantasy people...

A widowed Countess marries a King (her second marrige, his first).

1) What is her title (countess or queen)?
2) When the considerably older King dies, will she automatically become sovereign, or would rulership pass to one of the King's other realitives (like a brother, cousin, or nephew/niece)?

Thanks, all!

1) Both. But she's named Queen.
2) Depends upon rules of succession in the monarchy, and what power brokers have in mind. Yay for bloody power struggles.

1. She is a born noble
2. No. The King has been a bachelor for the past 76 years and has no heir.
3. The Free City of Worldgate, on Wormwood

1. She would be named queen.
2. If there is no heir born of the kind the rulership will fall to the next "blood" relative. Which is why nobility depends on Heirs to retain familial control of a territory.

Did the king have any siblings? If so, rulership would fall to one of them after his death. If not, then she is QUEEN! I've actually had this situation with an NPC in my game, the current ruler of the city state in which my characters are based (a city of my own creation called Peacehope), became ruler when her husband, the former ruler, died. He had a son, but the populace of the city voted her in because he was an untrustworthy lout. This has lead to her and her step-son having many issues. Adds some spice to my games, on occasion.

So she would be commonly refered to as "the Queen of Worldgate". Excellent.

Look for her in Rifter #43.

Being commonly refered to as Queen isn't necessarily the same thing. If she became married to the king, but was in the line of succession for another throne, AND the country she married into had a tradition/possibility of reigning queens, then her title might be "Princess Consort", or something similar... indicating that she is royal, but out of the line of succession (though her offspring may be).

However, there would be times when she would be Countess, not whatever her other titles may bear. If she's the ruler (for lack of a better term) of a county in her own right (i.e. the current holder of the succession), then she would properly sign documents as Countess when acting as the ruler of that county, as opposed to the ruler of the nation, though she would include those titles afterwards.

And that assumes they follow a European model.

Leave it to Mark Hall to clear up muddy waters by adding more mud!

Mark Hall wrote:And that assumes they follow a European model.

I don't. They're too skinny.

Natasha wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:And that assumes they follow a European model.

I don't. They're too skinny.

Ouch. Pull in the claws, kitty.

Um...I thought Free Cities weren't ruled by nobles. That's why they are called Free or freeholdings. I mean obviously the queen rules a free city in her kingdom but she wouldn't rule a free city as a kingdom (Kingdom as City-State). a city state kingdom would be considered a Principality I believe, or possibly something other name but it would never be called a Kingdom of the Free City of whatever. Nor would the ruler maintain a residence (castle) there, nor grant noble titles/holdings over a free city. Right?

Well, according to Wormwood, page 38, Worldgate has a King. His name is Luke Shrombek. There is also a Ruling Council of some kind, which sure sounds like a monarchy to me.

In this case, I believe "Free City" actually means "Independant City-state", as in it is not a part of the Cathedral, Ezud, Reortith Province, or the Dark Domains. Also, as is being fleshed out in the Wormwood Addenda, Worldgate is actually run by the 9 Lords of the Exchequer... they simply created the position of King about 900 years ago so that they would be free to presue their own mysterious agenda.

What size of land do each Noble title gets?

What is the Differences between the Noblility of each Kingdom?

Okay a way old thread, but since it has been brought up I will throw in my 2 cents for the heck of it.

Depending on the country some would name her Princess (example, Queen Elizabeth and her husband Prince Philip). Some would name her queen. In general she is not eligible to inherit the crown in the event of the death of her spouse. It is basically only blood relatives in most cases. Even if there was no direct decendant of the reigning sovereign it would likely be passed to a cousin, sibling, nephew, etc.

Example countess marries king, king has a living nephew who is a duke (title doesn't matter, but lets just call him a duke), no other living 1st order or 2nd order relatives. The kind dies in battle leaving no heir of his body, the queen/princess could not hold the crown as she is not blood related to the kind, the nephew would be corinated as the new king.

Other example, there is a child of the marriage between the king and countess. The kind dies before the crown prince is eligible to hold the crown. The queen or princess depending on her title would generally hold regency for the crown prince or likely be the head of a regency council (though in some countries women couldn't do any kind of ruling no matter their title, so they might have been excluded from that entirely). Upon their entry to adulthood the child would be named king. The countess title would have been queen/pricess, upon the death of her husband she would then become the dowager queen or dowager pricess indicating that she doesn't have a right to rule on her title, or she may revert to countess, her old title.

Same thing happens with other titles of nobility. If I was an earl and a commoner married me, or even say lady of minor nobility married me upon my death she would change from being the countess (female version of earl in England) to being the dowager countess and my son would be known as the Earl of Maryland. In some countries she would lose title altogether, especially if we had no children and the title went to another relative like a cousin or sibling. In the event of my death, unless ruling as regent for a minor child she would have no claim to rule my realm or lands of my title upon my death. While alive she would have the right to rule in my absence.
-Matt

azazel1024 wrote:Okay a way old thread, but since it has been brought up

It's Halloween... the one day of the year when dead threads return to walk amongst the living

Braden Campbell wrote:

azazel1024 wrote:Okay a way old thread, but since it has been brought up

It's Halloween... the one day of the year when dead threads return to walk amongst the living

To true.
-Matt

Braden Campbell wrote:Here's a pressing question for all you Palladium Fantasy people...

A widowed Countess marries a King (her second marriage, his first).

1) What is her title (countess or queen)?
2) When the considerably older King dies, will she automatically become sovereign, or would rulership pass to one of the King's other relatives (like a brother, cousin, or nephew/niece)?

Thanks, all!

If the country is following the medieval inheritance laws then
1) unless she has absolutely no male relatives and her husband has no male relatives, she would not be a countess, only a lady.(Basically no woman ruled unless there were no male claimants to be found, even bastard claimants ranked above any female claimant)
If he married her as a full equal, sharing his sovereignty, then she would be The Queen. If he didn't share his title then she would be technically a Princess Consort, but could still be called the queen.(no caps)[the current Queen of England is married to the Prince Consort "Prince Philip"]

2) If she is The Queen (note the caps) then she would already be a sovereign, but she would still have to face the male claimants / pretenders of the throne (rebellion and war of assassins). If she is a Princes Consort, she would stand fully outside the line of succession, but might be a prize of the those seeking the throne.

In the medieval times noble women only had what power they were give by their father's and then their husband's, or what they could manipulate their father's and husband's into doing.

As I mentioned though, women only ruled in the absence of their husband or possibly children, say in the example of the a dowager pricess (IE mother of the king) if the king was unmarried and off to war. This was powered granted by husband/son/father.

Women ruling as sovereign or even holding primary title was rare outside of England, and didn't happen in England to often even. Yes it happened, but the total number of Queens or Empresses holding the ultimate sovereignty in a country probably ran to about 1 in 8 through out history and for those of more minor titles probably not much better (IE 1 woman holding it for every man who did).
-Matt

sword-dancer wrote:EMPRESS Theophanu ruled the German Empire together with her Husband OttoII and after his death till her death for her son Otto III, after her death her Stepmother EMPRESS Adelheid ruled till he was grown up.
And their was Male relatives at hand.

Eleanor of Aquitaine ruled in her own right marrying two kings, or think on Margarete Atterdag Queen of Skandinavia

2 Difference to male rulers?

ho do you think ruled the fiefs when the men where on war, crusade or dead ..., who managed the business when see above

Yes, there were exceptions.

Except for the exceptions, Their husbands gave them the authority to do so. To say it a bit differently 'they ruled in their husband's name, not their own.'

The main reason for that was that women could not legally hold property and only had the rights their husbands gave them.

In Spain, though male primacy was the practice, women could fully inherit. Its one reason for the Spanish practice of multiple family names, which include the matrilineal, as part of one's full name as opposed to the English practice of only taking the father's family name.

1. I think it would be both countess and queen. But, the title would depend on said king, if he chose to make her queen.

2. Basically, it is your call! But, if he has brothers or cousins or the like there could be a play for power.

To expand on this a little bit:

Remember that many royals and nobles will have multiple titles. For example, the full style of Princess Di was "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales & Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland." She was, technically, princess of Wales & Scotland, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay, Countess of Carrick and Chester, Baroness of Renfrew, and Lady of the Isles, all at the same time, in the same person. She would usually be referred to as Princess because that was her highest title, but she might act, at some point, as Baroness Renfrew, and thus sign documents in that name.

Mark Hall wrote:To expand on this a little bit:

Remember that many royals and nobles will have multiple titles. For example, the full style of Princess Di was "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales & Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland." She was, technically, princess of Wales & Scotland, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay, Countess of Carrick and Chester, Baroness of Renfrew, and Lady of the Isles, all at the same time, in the same person. She would usually be referred to as Princess because that was her highest title, but she might act, at some point, as Baroness Renfrew, and thus sign documents in that name.

She let me call her Di.

The Dark Elf wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:To expand on this a little bit:

Remember that many royals and nobles will have multiple titles. For example, the full style of Princess Di was "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales & Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland." She was, technically, princess of Wales & Scotland, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay, Countess of Carrick and Chester, Baroness of Renfrew, and Lady of the Isles, all at the same time, in the same person. She would usually be referred to as Princess because that was her highest title, but she might act, at some point, as Baroness Renfrew, and thus sign documents in that name.

She let me call her Di.

Well, she was "The People's Princess".

(I have no idea. I read the Wiki because she was the first royal to come to mind.)

Well, to go to the extreme....

Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart of Spain, has the most noble tittles of anyone in the world. She is simultaneously:

18th Duchess of Alba de Tormes
11th Duchess of Berwick
Duchess of Arjona
Duchess of Híjar
11th Duchess of Liria and Jérica
14th Countess-Duchess of Olivares
Marchioness of El Carpio
Countess of Aranda
Countess of Lemos
Countess of Lerín and Condestablesa of Navarra
Countess of Miranda del Castañar
Countess of Monterrey
Countess of Osorno
Countess of Palma del Río
12th Marchioness of la Algaba
Marchioness of Almenara
14th Marchioness of Barcarrota
Marchioness of Castaneda
19th Marchioness of Coria
Marchioness of Eliche
Marchioness of Mirallo
Marchioness of la Mota
Marchioness of Moya
Marchioness of Orani
Marchioness of Osera
Marchioness of San Leonardo
Marchioness of Sárria
Marchioness of Tarazona
Marchioness of Valdunquillo
Marchioness of Villanueva del Fresno
Marchioness of Villanueva del Río
Countess of Villalba
Countess of San Esteban de Gormaz
Countess of Santa Cruz de la Sierra
Countess of Andrade
Countess of Ayala
Countess of Casarrubios del Monte
Countess of Fuentes de Valdepero
Countess of Fuentidueña
Countess of Galve
Countess of Gelves
Countess of Ribadeo
Viscountess of la Calzada
and 29th Dame of Moguer.

And mind you....this is after she gave each of her six kids some of her titles for their own. Generally, though, she goes by her highest tittle, that of Duchess of Alba.

As both of us have already said, yes there are exceptions, that was not the rule until fairly recently. Some medieval societies allowed women full equality in holding titles and ruling, most did not.

Also she never ruled in her own name. She was Emperess crowned when her husband was crowned holy roman emperor. Her son Otto the II succeeded his father when Otto I died. Later Adelaide was appointed Co-regent with Theophano (wife of Otto the II and mother of Otto III).

She was an emperess in her own name, but she never excerted imperial power on her own.

Theophano had lots of machinations, but she never ruled the holy roman empire, she was wife to Otto the II and mother of Otto the III (and co-regent and later regent for him).

I assume you are refering to Emperess Adelaide and Princess Theophano.

Plenty of women who ruled, look at Queen Elizabeth. It was still the exception, not the rule.
-Matt

Definitely exceptions, but frequent enough to warrant mention and viable options for how a scenario in an RPG might play out.

I figured, to many spellings. For the ruling, they probably did co-rule, but if she was regent for her son, that sounds to me like she was not able to rule without her husband even if she had equal authority as the co-secular and temporal head of the holy roman empire.
-Matt