Peerage of Themiclesia

The Peerage of Themiclesia is a system for organizing titles of nobility in Themiclesia. While the defining characteristic of a peer is participation in the House of Lords, most peers are not entitled to a seat.

Peers

Titular lords

Titular lords (倫侯, grun-go) occupy the lowest rank in the peerage. Etymologically, the word grun means "rank, parity", meaning the peer enjoyed the rank and style of a peer but did not possess his own fief, which is the substantive part of a title. Titular lords are also called "demesne lords" (內侯, nubh-go), meaning that they lived in the demesne land and derived income from taxes collected there. Amongst titular lords, relative position is determined by the number of "households", whose taxes would stand in lieu of a fief's income. There is no minimum or maximum number of households for titular lords, though the smallest ever assigned was 50 households, and the largest, 1,000 households. Such titles were not actual households, but the average household in terms of taxes remitted. The size of the entitlement was largely determined by the crown before the Peerage Act of 1847; this law provided an initial entitlement of 300 households, reduced by 50 for each succession, though not to decrease beyond 50. Holders of the title were called kljul (君) and had a monicker attached before it. In Tyrannian this is rendered as "The Lord X", where X is the monicker of the peer.

Customarily, any civil servant who achieved the high rank of Third Class in the civil service would be made a titular lord. As cabinet ministers were also Third Class, they were also invested as titular lords as soon as they are appointed. The lordship was inheritable, and the number of titular lords grew significantly during the long life of the current dynasty. The income provided by title was modest by most standards—an entitlement of 50 households enabled one to live a comfortable life, retaining a handful of servants, but not much besides, and entitlements over 500 households were uncommon. The true privilege of the title came in positioning one's children in the civil service; the holder of the title could report to the Marshal of Peers (主爵中尉, tjo′-tsjakw-trjung-′judh) upon attaining the age of 30 for his initial appointment. While this entry was deemed less seemly than to compete in local elections to the Protonotaries, it nevertheless produced a large quantity of successful administrators and politicians.

Ordinary lords

Ordinary lords (徹侯, r′jêt-go) rank higher than titular lords and receive a true fief. The word r′jêt means "to separate", meaning that the holder had a fief that was "separate" from royal power. Whereas titular lords received a certain number of "households" as their entitlement, ordinary lords originally took income from a geographical area according to much the same principle. Unlike Casaterran counterparts, Themiclesian peers did not have any sort of manorial power over their fiefs. Only the taxation revenues from the fief would be handed over to the peer, who otherwise was not permitted to interfere in its administration. Conversely, they rarely lived at their fiefs, enabling them to participate in government. The size of the fief, like titular entitlements, was also decided by the crown until the Peerage Act. While they ranked higher than titular ones, their income was not necessarily greater. The smallest fief granted was the Nuk Hamlet in Kien-k'ang, which had only four houses on it, of which one was occupied, and largest fief granted in the modern period was Sngrak-lang County, which counted 13,220 households in its census.  

Titular lords who render some significant service to the state could be expected to be promoted to an ordinary lord; this was usually military accomplishment. Generals were invariably made titular lords upon appointment, as this invested him in the survival of Themiclesia, and could be made an ordinary lord if he was successful. The prime minister was either an ordinary lord or made one as soon as he was appointed. Cabinet ministers who have performed well could also be made an ordinary lord at the end of their tenures. As a rule prime ministers, should be ordinary lords when appointed, since most prime ministers have been successful cabinet ministers under previous prime ministers. Whenever the emperor married his empress, the empress' father would be made an ordinary lord, and her brothers titular lords.

Like titular lordships, ordinary titles can also be inherited and carried the same appointment privileges. Under the Peerage Act of 1847, which was passed in view of increasing government revenues, ordinary lords were granted the public land in their fiefs, which they would be responsible for running successfully.

Lords superior

Lords superior (特進侯, nLek-tsjinh-go) are lords especially respected by the court. Generally, a person must have demonstrate qualities above what an ordinary lord are expected to hold to be given a title as lord superior. It should be noted that this does not always means exceptional acts or service to the state; the title can be given for good character alone. While what good behaviour was varied from dynasty to dynasty, or even monarch to monarch, it seems quite clear that an ordinary lord who allowed his retainers to breach the law was ineligible for preferment as lord superior. As the choice was made by the civil service, lords who did not interfere with local government or made too many enemies at court were also more likely to be given this honour. As a mark of this advancement, lords superior were permitted to have an extra mattress when they sat in waiting to the emperor (four mattresses, above the three customarily given to lords).

House of Lords

Main article: House of Lords (Themiclesia)

Reforms

Abolition of fiefs

The most important of peerage reform laws in the 19th century is the Peerage Act of 1847, passed by the inaugural Liberal government. At one time, each oridnary lord and prince would have been officially assigned a heritable fief, a portion of revenues of taxation whence becoming part of their income. They were, from a very early time, not allowed to exercise public power in their fiefs and, in Casaterran terms, had no manorial rights. Through the period of consolidation in the 10th century, the portion of revenues becoming peers' income was decreased from around half to an eighth, higher entitlements possible from royal grace. Liberal thinkers believed this was a form of feudalism that, amongst other ill effects, reflected poorly on the country; moreover, in the 18th century, many peers used this automatic source of income to bribe civil servants and obtain unreasonable rights to interfere in commerce. On a platform guaranteeing peers that their income, a portion of the commons in each fief was granted to the enfeoffed peer to replace his share in the local revenue. On the one hand, some peers were enthusiastic to receive a parcel of land that they privately owned and could run, rather than passively receiving income; on the other, this allowed for a small but noticeable saving in appointing household officials to peers, which was regarded as a waste of money to uphold the façade of a feudal tenure, since peers had long lost any public right over their lands whose exercise would require household officials. New peers would receive public lands until the Peerage Act of 1874, by which point commons have largely disappeared: it was the dogma of the Liberals that the state had no interest in land, which should be given to potential entrepreneures.

Previously, a fief would also be renamed from a county or (in rarer cases) prefecture to state to reflect its nominal status as alienated land. By the Act of 1847, since new peers no longer had manorial rights of any kind, becoming landowners in fee simple, the locale of their land would remain counties and prefectures. However, existing places called "states" retained this designation, though their administration is in all wise similar to counties or prefectures.

Personal rights

By tradition, a peer may not be arrested, detained, or tried without the assent of the monarch. He usually decided this with the advice of the Marshal of Peers. Additionally, anyone assaulting peers or impugned their reputation was punished, on the pretext that they had upset the social order. Similar offences usually resulted in civil recovery of damages, if between commoner and commoner or peer and peer. By the House of Lords Act of 1844, the power to arrest, detain, and try peers was vested in the House of Lords exclusively. For a brief time, commoners had no civil recourse if a peer infringed their rights, since a peer had the formal right to disallow civil proceedings against himself, in the House of Lords, by a person of lower status. The Penal Code of 1853, which abolished capital punishment, ended public prosecution of those who offended peers, though they still retained the right to launch private prosecutions. The Judicial Privilege Act of 1875 mandated peers to allow recovery of damages when sued by a commoner, though he still may not be called as a witness or arrested for trial.

After the establishment of the House of Lords, peers obtained additional protection when Parliament was sitting. This was modelled on Casaterran parliamentary prerogatives to allow deliberation against executive infringement and was separate from traditional immunities. When Parliament sat, peers may not be arrested without the permission of the House of Lords. Historically, this was used quite frequently, as peers ordered their agents to squat on unused land to claim as their own in the mid-1800s or simply evicted commoners.

In the Civil and Military Service Segregation Act of 1915, peers and their families lost the privilege to obtain positions in the civil service. Since the Act also created the Consolidated Army as a legal category, the sale of commissions was also terminated. While the law was momentous in its wording, its effects had been emergent for several decades. While the upper rungs of the civil and military services were heavily biased towards aristocratic appointees, commoners often outperformed their aristocratic counterparts. While the traditional method of dealing with such commoners had been to give them titles after three generations of breakthrough, Liberals considered this a form of corruption and sought to prevent it. The formalization of the House of Lords also prevented the monarch from creating peerages totally at will.

Trial and degradation

While peers and princes may only be tried by the House of Lords after its establishment in 1845, peers have been deprived of their titles for crimes for many centuries. Generally, it is held that a peer must be clear of all criminal activity, and conviction of any crime was sufficient to deprive his title. The same can occur for princes, though their punishment was usually degradation to a peer for the first offence. In periods when governments sought income, even domestic scandals and other minor excuses were used to deprive titles. The average title in Themiclesia lasts around three to four generations before it is deprived for whatever reason. As princes and peers led households of considerable size, it was comparatively easy for them to be implicated in a crime, which need be committed by themselves personnally; their titles may be cancelled as long as they were involved in some way or failed to report it.

See also

• Themiclesia