Template talk:Imperial, royal, noble and chivalric ranks

Hidalgos

It is necessary to incorporate the term Hidalgo (nobility) to level of Baronet. Heroearaucano1 (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Flaws

Did nobody else notice the title? King and Emperor are not title of the nobility. Also where are all the other numerous titles of nobility? Earl isn't listed, to mention just one...--Cameron* 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're right! I've noticed the title Ranks of Nobility, as well as the royal and imperial titles, but haven't realised that tose two don't go together. So, shall we remove King and Emperor or rename the template? Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If we switch count with earl we can keep it as "British Ranks of X", however as it is it is rather Eurocentric. All of the titles in the following category need to be included really! See how many there are! Category:Noble titles --Cameron* 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Too many indeed. Can we have Template:Ranks of European Nobility, Template:Ranks of Chinese Nobility, etc? Do we need such templates at all? Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer national ones. That way they can stay at their current size...--Cameron* 13:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please no. There are already far too many templates which subtly deviate from one another in the royalty / nobility domain - if this really gets someone's goat then a parameter should be added to selectively show or hide the disputable entries, rather than forking the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Baronets are not nobility. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC) how many barons can a king like king john have —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.211.107 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't 'Lord' and 'Lady' be on this table?

No, Lord and Lady are not ranks but styles. --L.Smithfield (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is, in Britain at least, the nobility comprises peers (earls, dukes, viscounts, marquesses, barons) and gentry (baronets, knights, and 'gentlemen'). It doesn't included royalty.--204.40.1.129 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The ranks of Baronet and below are not noble in the British system. However, they (or their equivalents) may be considered as part of the lower nobility elsewhere (like in continental Europe). --L.Smithfield (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It would perhaps be useful for this article also to include the ranks of ecclesiastical nobility and to indicate their equivalence, in Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and other Christian communions, and in Islam. Even though these titles are only "life peerages" as far as I am aware, they do have orders of precedence which apply not only in their own communions but also across civil and diplomatic society. A cardinal cannot be an hereditary title, but HE is is a prince of the church. An archbishop, styled "your Grace", presumably equates to a duke. It becomes quite interesting down amongst the lower orders: if a bishop equates to an earl or a baron, what about a canon or a monsignor? And where do ordinary priests, pastors, vicars and imams come in relation to lay people? ````Trendev — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.2.57 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My own view is that ecclesiastical ranks do not belong in this template. Rather a separate, or new, template should be used for that. Other articles and templates can and should be created to address the hierarchy in various religions. Maybe each religion (and possibly even each denomination of each religion) should get their own articles and templates on how they are hierarchically organized. --L.Smithfield (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Raul654 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Infante should be omitted or replaced by Duque

I'm not sure Infante belongs here. It is not a rank, but an attribute of a person who is of the Spanish blood royal. It is somwhat like a Royal Duke in the UK, or the British meaning of "prince" as a close descendent of a sovereign. No one in the UK carries the style of prince except those in the Royal Family. It is not a rank.

In Austria and some other areas, the rank of Duke did not exist, and the title "Prince" was used as the name of the rank above Count. It is only for that reason that Prince is included in this table.

Spain has a rank of Duke: Duque, and I think we should be using that here in place of Infante. There are many Spanish families ranking as Duques, only one has Infantes. --StanZegel (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC) <3

It makes no sense having duke and duque at the same time. Why include duque and not duc or herzog or vojvoda? Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Duke ahead of Prince

Why is Duke ahead of prince as in many countries the title of Duke ranks below Prince in every circumstance? --Lemonade100 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Because in many countries is Prince below Duke.--Yopie (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is Prince below Duke? Perhaps a ruling Duke would outrank a nonruling Prince, but within a country (at least within Great Britain), Prince outranks Duke every time.RapunzelaTX (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)RapunzelaTX

• In the Continent...--Yopie (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that in the UK "prince" has only been used legally by members of the Royal Family: it was never granted as a title of nobility. Thus, probably most English-speakers think that all princes are royalty and therefore outrank all dukes. On the European continent, prince is used both to describe members of the ruling dynasty and as a title for certain members of the high nobility. In some countries (e.g. Russia, Hungary) there were noble princes and royal/imperial princes, but no dukes. In Scandinavia, all princes and dukes were royal. In other countries (e.g. the UK, Spain) all princes were royal, but dukes could be either royal or (more often) noble. But in most Continental countries (France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium), there were both royal and noble princes and dukes, distinguished from one another by their style ("Grace" or "Serene Highness" for nobles, "Imperial/Royal/Grandducal/Serene" or plain "Highness" for dynastic royalty (including mediatized families who ranked as equal-in-birth to royalty). In Italy, sovereign dukes (e.g., Parma, Modena, Ferrara, Massa and Carrara, Urbino, Guastalla, Mirandola outranked sovereign princes (e.g., Piombino, Masserano). In France, legally duke-peers outranked princes etrangers, but socially the princes were of higher status. In Germany, a reigning duke always outranked a reigning prince, but the status of a noble duke (Herzog) was only nominally higher than that of a noble prince (Furst) (since these titles only dated from the late 1700s and the 19th century, and were relatively rare). In Belgium, the head of the family was Duke d'Arenberg, Duke of Croy, Duke of Looz Corswarem, Duke of Beaufort-Spontin, Duke of Ursel and the cadets were princes or counts, so clearly the ducal title was of higher status, whereas the heads of the Houses of Ligne, Chimay and Merode were princes yet their cadets were either also princes or counts, so clearly the Dutch/Belgian title of duke ranks higher than that of prince historically -- although legally it is the reverse. FactStraight (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobile

Given the article gives the definitions of Nobile as "an Italian title of nobility ranking between that of baron and knight", should not this be moved above Knight & Dame in the template? 78.26 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 156.98.14.252, 14 September 2011

Please remove the cross symbol from the logo on the right of the page. Mirza's were not christian's to depict the cross.

156.98.14.252 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: It's just a fancy hat representing the fancy titles on this template. It doesn't mean anything with regard to the article you found it on. — Bility (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And all titles listed are European.--Yopie (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

Night and Dames are not noble title and the holder of such a title is a commoner not a member of the nobility. Information from my general knowledge and it has come up in my studies. Harrymallett (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Although Knights (and Dames) are not noble in the British system, they are considered noble (if only a part of the lower nobility) in some continental European nations. The lowest rank that is considered noble can differ in different nations. -L.Smithfield (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done. Happy to reconsider if consensus changes. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that Baronets, Knights and Dames not "noble", rather "chivalric", which adjective is listed by Collins Dict. Have therefore expanded title of infobox to include the latter. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC))

Viceroy

I propose deleting Viceroy, as this is royal official, not noble title.--Yopie (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So do I. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edler von/von/nobile vs. knight/lady

I have changed the list, so the title edler von is above the knight - the title knight is given only to one person for a life and can not be passed to his sons or daughters. On the other hand Edler von (or simply von, or nemes in hungarian language) is title of a person that is noble by birth, or they have received title of nobility from emperor/king and can be passed to their sons, daughters (or his wife received it with marriage). User:eton_vs_harrow

Cleanup

I try not to edit things that are on the margin of acceptability. I try to leave those cases for other editors to decide upon. But this template has been left in something of a confusing mess after the last few edits (I did not investigate exactly when this template got so messed up). Some of the problems that I see that should be corrected are:

1. Some ranks list female versions and some do not -- How about either list all ranks with both the male and female versions, or just list the male versions alone (preferred)? Currently some ranks list only male versions and some list both the male and female versions. My suggestion is to only list the male versions of the ranks; this will make for a much simpler presentation and cleaner appearance. Further Dame is the female style (and sometimes title) for a female Knight and should, in my opinion, be eliminated also. It is not a separate rank from that of Knight.
2. Some entries are not ranks but only titles -- The entry containing Queen mother is not a rank but simply a title. A person given that title usually holds the rank of Queen (the female equivalent of King) but even this is not strictly required. The point is that that entries that are not ranks should be eliminated from the template. Likewise Queen dowager is not a rank and is usually not even a title but rather only a style by custom or tradition. This might be an official title in some Asian traditions but it is still not a rank unto itself. Usually the person holding this style or title holds the rank of Queen (to state the obvious). Likewise -- for completeness -- the entries Prince consort, Princess consort, King consort, and Queen consort are not ranks but rather just titles. People holding these titles have the ranks of Prince/Princess or King/Queen respectively. Again, all entries that are not strictly ranks should be removed.
3. Multiple words for the same rank -- In the case of the rank Count, the British version of Earl should also be listed (as it currently is), but the entry for Marquess needs to be cleaned up. It properly lists Marquess and Margrave as equivalents for that rank but leaves out Marquis, which I feel should be added. The listed rank Marquise is actually the French word for the feminine of Marquis, and in my opinion should be removed (along with all of the other female equivalents of the ranks). Non-English words for the various ranks are listed in the table of translations for the ranks included in the article Royal and noble ranks, where they should remain along with their individual articles describing them (if any).

The whole subject of ranks, titles, honorifics, and styles is confusing enough for most; we do not need to necessarily add to that existing confusion with more mess like what currently exists in this template. Thanks to the other editors for consideration of these present problems. --L.Smithfield (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to those who cleaned this up a bit. It seems at least marginally acceptable now. --L.Smithfield (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 September 2012

PRINCESS NICOLA CAMPBELL

217.33.68.164 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Royal, noble and chivalric ranks: Marquis

Editor Torontonian1 wrote elsewhere:

Why are only French and German titles included here? Do links to "marquess" and "marchioness" belong as well?

It was felt by an editor recently (you can look back in the history to see who it was) that since marquess is only an English word for marquis that it can be left off of the info-box. I do not disagree with this. The British use both terms, Marquis (the older) and Marquess (the newer), completely interchangeably in terms of their degree of dignity as far as I know. The particular term used seems to be up to the family holding the rank. I am content to leave the box as it is in this regard. However, a case can be made that the rank margrave (and its female equivalent) be left on the info-box because (in short) in some circumstances in history (mostly in lands in or near the HRE) a Margrave served somewhat like a Marquis-Palatine than simply as a mere Marquis, even though these situations were sometimes confused by calling that person a Marquis nonetheless. This is a fairly small and somewhat obscure distinction that is not made very clear elsewhere, so neither would I mind if even the term Margrave (and its female equivalent) was removed. I do appreciate the problem for British and Commonwealth people since they are (fairly) used to seeing all three terms (Marquis, Marquess, and Margrave) in their historical records. But this is just mostly a historical problem of how the English differently translated the term (which originated on the continent) over time and circumstances. --L.Smithfield (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

...in Europe

It does seem fitting to append "in Europe" to this template and the title of the box it produces. There are other systems of royalty and nobility in the world. Please share objections or support. Ijon (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fairly fitting to me. Although these ranks (in one form or another) have been somewhat copied or incorporated into the nobiliary systems of many nations that did not originally have them, they are still primarily of European origin. Identifying them with a word like 'Europe' or 'European' would seem quite reasonable to me. But I am still open to other opinions. --L.Smithfield (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 May 2013

Seherzada (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE READ:

The picture showing the crown is not right. Please change to a PROPER PERSIAN CROWN PICTURE.

Persians are muslims, not christians. That is a Christian Crown.

Not done: This template is used in a number of articles representing nobility from many regions and countries, not just articles about Persians. If you know of a different picture that would more neutrally represent this template, feel free to suggest it and it will be evaluated, but simply changing this template to show a Persian crown doesn't fix anything. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Freiherr, Graf, and Herzog

Should these be added? Bearian (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinions will certainly differ, but I would say NO. The reasons are:

Freiherr is fairly close enough to Baron to afford it being left out

Graf is close enough or otherwise identical to Count and therefore does not need to be specifically mentioned

Herzog is essentially identical to Duke and thus does not need to be included

The basic idea is to only include the English language representations of these ranks. Translations of these ranks to other languages are available at Royal and noble ranks. Of course, this basic goal is and will be broken by good faith editors (feeling that their particular favorite language offers some unique rank not easily translated into English) but whether these non-English additions remain is more a consensus decision among interested editors. --L.Smithfield (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Burgrave

should burgrave be classified under the count/earl line? 210.86.3.230 (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

Requesting Marcher Lord be included on the list of noble ranks. It shares equivalence with Marquis.

Berenal254 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of trying to keep this template as short as possible, adding Marcher Lord would seem to be unnecessary since it is pretty much self evident that it would be essentially equivalent to one of the marcher ranks (Marquess, Marquis, or Margrave) already. I am open to what other editors think about this, but I think that trying to keep the template as short as possible is a strength of the template rather than a weakness. --L.Smithfield (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Whilst agreeing with the sentiment of brevity, I am not sure the similarity is particularly "self-evident".
A WP search for "Marcher Lord", gives 202 matches, whilst Vidame only gives 89 - is Vidame not equally self-evident?
Other titles with low use are Landgrave (2197), Fürst (2459) and Margrave (3923) so there is clearly a large gap in the usage of Marcher Lord and Vidame and the other titles.
I would support the inclusion of Marcher Lord, rather than the removal of Vidame. - Arjayay (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mz7 (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: The above message is purely procedural. The change may be implemented if consensus is reached. Mz7 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

For myself, I think that Vidame should not have been added. Further I think that for the reasons that I have stated above (brevity), the rank of Vidame should be removed. Maybe someone will remove it in the future for this reason. --L.Smithfield (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus (sultan)

Hi I would like the title of Sultan and queen regnant added to this table because they are both royal and nobility titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan11989 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• This template is for Western - style ranks and titles, and sultan is not this. As you can see in the article Sultan, there is specialised infobox for oriental noble ranks.--Yopie (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Yopie above. Further Queen (regnant or not) is the female counterpart of King. Previous consensus has been that female counterparts of ranks would be omitted in favor of brevity and clarity. --L.Smithfield (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017

After the 'Prince/Infante' slot, please add 'Pope', because if the Pope is the monarch of the Vatican City, then he should be included here. 31.53.237.179 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is an edit that not everyone will agree with. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2018

Change: Archduke/Archduchess To: Archduke / Archduchess Corvanphoenix (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done The other ranks listed provide the spaces on either side of the slash so this one should, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Huge flaw -- Scottish feudal Barons do NOT rank w/ actual UK Baronets, they rank below Knight! Uhggg!

Who is watching this crap? Someone just added Scottish feudal Barons onto this template and put them (that Scottish rank) in the same template slot as Baronets!

+ Scottish feudal Barons rank BELOW Knights but ABOVE Scottish Lairds

+ therefore (duh) Scottish feudal Barons rank way BELOW Baronets (itself ranking ABOVE a Knight) and ABOVE a Scottish Laird

Come on people, I can hack this template up if someone wants -- but the results will not be pretty (by some people's liking)! This template has acquired a boat load of crap, but I think ranking Scottish feudal Barons the same as Baronets is going too far. Someone should clean this crap up or someone else might -- and you might not like the result.

Some other things wrong with this crappy template (just glancing over it quickly):

+ position of Laird is incorrect: should be Scottish Laird ranks BELOW Scottish feudal Baron but ABOVE Esquire

+ position of Esquire is incorrect: should be Esquire ranks BELOW both Knight and Laird but ABOVE Gentleman

Is not anyone knowledgeable watching this crap? --L.Smithfield (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

excellent points L.smithfield I agree with all of them.

Tsesarevich is not one, but TWO ranks too low.

As currently stated: Tsesarevich is placed as an (approximately of course) equivalent rank to Prince and below Grand Prince and Grand Duke. I assume this confusion has come because a Tsesarevich is a type of prince.

Why Tsesarevich needs to be moved above Grand Prince and Grand duke, i.e. at least two moves upward:

A Tsesarevich is an imperial crown prince, i.e. the heir apparent to the Russian empire. Meanwhile the younger legitimate brothers of a Tsesarevich are Grand Princes/Dukes, holding a distinctly lower rank than the Tsesarevich. Therefore the move is essential.

Crown Prince should potentially be above, not equal, to Prince as well. This is because a Crown Prince is at least the heir apparent to a kingdom if not an empire in every circumstance, while a Crown Prince's younger legitimate brothers are in every circumstance a Prince and in this title hold a distictly lower rank than the Crown Prince. The Archduke can also be effectively an imperial heir apparent and thus I would argue that both Crown Prince and Tsesarevich aught be moved above grand prince and in the same status bracket as archduke. HistoryRevellations (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryRevellations (talk • contribs) 05:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

Tsesarevich needs to be moved up one level to grand prince. This is because in the Russian Empire, the Tsar of the empire's eldest son and heir apparent would be the "Tsesarevich" while his younger sons and younger brothers and his fathers younger brothers etc would have the title 'Grand Prince'. Therefore, it is impossible to rank Grand Prince above Tsesarevich. HistoryRevellations (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The requester was correct. In the more modern (more recent) context (Imperial Russian Empire) where we see the title-rank of Tsesarevich, it is always ranked above a mere Grand Prince. The real situation is more nuanced though in reality and in all of history. The original title Tsar did not necessarily connote that the associated territory was an empire, but merely "imperial" in some way. Yes, it is directly (and correctly) derived from "Caesar" blah, blah, blah. But it did not necessarily mean that the holder was a ruler over an empire (as the term Caesar originally did), but rather just "imperial" in some sense. The original Tsar actually connoted something which we might describe as an "imperial king." Over the last several hundred years, what I called the more recent context above, there could be both imperial and non-imperial Grand Princes, but there were only imperial Tsesarevichs. Further, since 1721 the ruler of the Russian Empire was an imperial Emperor rather than merely an imperial king (Tsar). So at least over the last three hundred years or so, Tsesarevich is more correctly similar to Archduke. A lot more could be said about this whole matter, but an inquisitive reader can research the history of civil polity and rulership in Europe and all of these associated titles and ranks for themselves.

Incidentally, there are several other problems with this current template, both subtle and not so subtle, but they will not be addressed today. --L.Smithfield (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Archduke was a title associated with all senior members of the House of Habsburg, not just the actual rulers and their designated heirs. I was under the impression that there could only be one Tsesarevich at any given time. Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, completely true. The rank of Archduke was held by all senior members of the imperial House of Habsburg, and the title-rank of Tsesarevich was only held by the heir apparent to the Russian Empire. Given this fact, it could be argued that Tsesarevich is a more senior designation than a mere archduke. This is (one of) the problem(s) in trying to precisely put all of these ranks into a single table. But I do not think we want to necessarily expand the template just to place Tsesarevich above the rank of Archduke. I think that a reasonable compromise is to consider that the ranks of Archduke and Tsesarevich are unequivocally senior members of an imperial empire and to thusly place them together in that capacity, while the rank of Grand Prince did not necessarily connote either a senior member of either an empire or even a kingdom (although in the case of the Russian empire, they indeed were the secondary members of the imperial family after the Tsesarevich).

I am not a fan of the now-very-cluttered template in the first place. For myself, I would not have even put the title-rank Tsesarevich in the template to begin with, for brevity reasons. But someone has added these many other and more obscure ranks, and have made a number of mistakes in doing so. I leave it (for now) for others to clean up this whole template at some point. ---L.Smithfield (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Primor

I believe the Szekler title of primor deserves mentioning on the list. As the highest title of Szekler nobility, in Hungary it was legally recognised up until the abolition of nobility in 1947. When comparing the primors, most author liken them to barons (although it is popularly held to rank between baron and count). Most probably, it should be situated within the bracket of the barons, seeing it already holds other congruent, but not identical titles like lendmann, Thane_(Scotland), Lord of Parliament.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

21st Century Roaring 20s Alliances Telekineticist (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

Add 'Don/Doña' to the second to last category. The honorific 'Don', used in Spain as an honorific for 'hidalgos' amongst other classes in the same way that Jonkheer is in the Netherlands, should appear next to the aforementioned category of ranks in this hierarchy. It has been traditionally used as a preffix for members of the untitled nobility and in it is in essence the same as a 'Lord/Lady of the manor' and Jonkheer, etc. Gloriainexcelsisdeo3 (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Streamline sovereign rulers and crown princes

In my opinion there's a rather large overflow of monarch titles in this table, as well as their hereditary sons and daughters, the crown princes. They should be cleaned up (which involves removal of excessive titles created based on different people translating different titles in many various ways), unified to a single standard (most if not all of the crown princes were there just for the succession rights and other than that were roughly as influential as vassal dukes, if not less in some cases) and reorganised (mostly looking at almost everything above a sovereign duke and a sovereign king).

The primary issue is the order of precedence being highly inaccurate and assumptional. Neither high king nor great king had any influence on neighbouring sovereign states possibly bearing what could be interpreted from this table as a 'lesser royalty status' (king, grand duke, duke). Many of those line-separated categories could as well have been merged. A lack of such interactions and the scarcity of such titles (they were uncommon enough to not be a standard) creates a difficulty in establishing the authenticity of who's higher and who's lower on the said ladder.

Further reinforcement of this is the Lithuanian Grand Duke being able to be translated as a high king. I believe that the fact of splitting a high king reigning over lesser kings and a grand duke reigning over dukes is bearing no difference at all other than at a translational level, which is not significant enough in my opinion to be split and placed at a higher or lower tier (which is debatable to start with). Aezumin (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Boyar as equivalent to baron

This was the case in Serbia, but in much of the rest of Eastern Europe it was equivalent to or just below a duke. — Red XIV ^(talk) 04:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2024

Landgrave should in the template be moved to same level as Margrave and equal titles since it as the wikipedia page for landgrave states "The German titles of Landgraf, Markgraf ("margrave"), and Pfalzgraf ("count palatine") are of roughly equal rank, subordinate to Herzog ("duke"), and superior to the rank of a Graf ("count").". right now it is in the same bracket as viscount 93.167.76.125 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Scope change

Why is the scope of this template change to included social ranks, contravening its title? The addition of peasant, vagabond, serf and slave make no sense to me. As this change was undiscussed before adding, I like to start a discussing now to see if the changes have support. The Banner talk 11:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)