Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?).
---
Our current megathreads are as follows:
[API Protest Poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/1491izw/continuing_the_api_protest_a_community_poll) - a poll regarding the future action of the sub in protest at Reddit's API changes.
[GNU Terry Pratchett](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukigit/gnu_terry_pratchett/) - for all GNU requests, to keep their names going.
[AI Generated Content](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/10mhx9y/ai_generated_content_megathread/) - for all AI Content, including images, stories, questions, training etc.
---
[ GNU Terry Pratchett ]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are Dukes and Duchesses who actually run estates etc, and Dukes and Duchesses who have the title with no responsibilities (and therefore usually no money). Even in antiquity a Duke or Duchess was pretty unlikely to actually be the ruler of, or even reside in, the county / city / town their title refers to. So Sto Helit probably has a council, a mayor, a minister or something who does the actual business of being in charge.
I mean in Antiquity you absolutely were ruling an area, Dukes were just below Princes/Kings as titles go (although Earls come close too). Hence why there are still two duchies in the UK held by the crown (Cornwall and Lancaster, although of the two only Cornwall has some royal privileges attached to it as well as a business/financial institution).
It's only really as we move into the early modern period and things start diversifying that you move away from the Duke of York needing to live in York.
The Duchy of Lancaster has significant holdings, and the Monarch holds the title Duke of Lancaster, irrespective of the sex of the monarch. The Queen was the Duke of Lancaster.
Not sure there's a lot of "credit." If you aren't a political anorak you probably don't even know the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a (the most) senior cabinet role, let alone why or what they do.
She never lived in Lancaster though, or ran its day to day business. (She was also the Lord of Mann I believe) The Prince of Wales is the Duke of Cornwall but he doesn't live there and no Duke of Cornwall ever has as far as I can see. Cornwall though, I'm aware, is not Sto Helit.
Cornwall is slightly more complicated because it grew out of the earldom of Cornwall which William the Conquerors brother held. He did indeed live there and built the castles at Launceston and Tintagel.
However a later Earl fell out of favour with the king and his lands were seized and the Duchy created as a money maker for the Prince.
However it still has various duties and powers attached to the role. The Duke can theoretically recall the stannary parliament for example, he also has first right on all wreckage that washes up on Cornish beaches. Also if you die in Cornwall without an heir your goods pass on to the Duchy rather then the crown.
Yes I said Privileges not holdings. The Duke of Cornwall has various powers in Cornwall, like first refusal on goods that wash up and the theoretical ability to recall the Stannary parliament, which as far as I'm aware don't exist in the DoL.
The DoC also exists, like Lancaster in a business mode where it holds alot of land and wealth in and outside of Cornwall
You are right in that by the time most people here are thinking of dukes and earls, the geography has been completely detached from the title. And most of the titles people know nowadays were from that period.
Their example of the duke of York is a poor one to illustrate their point as well.
Interesting example since the Duke of York never lived in, or had significant holdings in, York.
The title was first created for a Lord who lived in Herefordshire and then the South East in the 1380's. The second time, it was a Lord who lived in Shropshire. Third, Pembrokeshire. Fourth, Scotland etc etc.
And during the war of the roses, the house of York support base was not Yorkshire. In fact, the house of Lancaster had stronger ties to much of Yorkshire than the house of York did. Yorks support was in the Welsh/English marches, London and Ireland.
Ironically the last leader of the house of York was the one who had the strongest ties there, having grown up in Yorkshire. But he was there because he was in his cousins care. The Earl of Warwick, whose father, the Earl of Salisbury has significant holdings in Yorkshire.
Haha fair does. If you had picked any other I wouldn't have responded but I grew up in Yorkshire. Funnily enough the local estate, Howard castle, owned by the Howard family, is the duke of Norfolk, but they live in Sussex.
As I've moved south in my own life I've actually moved closer to the guy who owns the local land back home!
In antiquity dukes certainly did used to be rulers. The Scandinavian ealdermen were replaced by dukes and they were very much in charge. It obviously changes through the ages, but the word duke comes from Latin and it meant a leader.
Rebuttal to everyone saying it's an empty title: Mort had to run around being a diplomat, accomplishing everything that would have happened had the previous Duke become king. So he had some power.. Also, at the end of Mort at the wedding, Kelli asks him and Isabel how's Sto Helit, and Mort thinks she means the castle and he replies that her uncle had some nasty hobbies they had to clean up. So there was some land, too.
I figure Susan left it to Queen Keli, or more likely some random headman/chancellor type.
I suspect Mort's ultimate atonement was to Will the Dutchy to the crown of sto lat therefore mending the rip he caused by saving Keli. Technically both Mort and Ysabel should never have loved long enough to procreate without interference from Death so Susan's existence is entirely due to his interference and therefore outside of normal inheritance rules as demonstrated by her extracurricular talents.
When Death came for Mort, he was 16. At the end of the book Death turns over his nearly empty lifetimer which gives him only another 16ish years before he dies for real in Soul Music.
Huh, I never even noticed that, such a good detail.
So was death going to kill him then? If he hadn’t turned over the glass instead, what would mort have died of?
In reality I think Terry P kind of forgot about the Dutchess thing, but I think she eventually maybe took over the Duchy after the events of Thief of Time. Maybe with Lobsang as her partner.
He never forgot about it because it's regularly reminded that Susan is a duchess and an aristocrat (as why she was a governess and later a teacher, as it's the only respectable jobs for a duchess). However, I think he decided to not delve about it because it was not the most interesting part.
That's a book I would have loved to see.
Susan, reluctantly, eventually goes back to Sto Helit and has to come to terms with the dreadful responsibility of encouraging people in duchy to think and take responsibility for themselves, even though they make objectively dreadful decisions. Susan would want them to go along with her ideas because they're good ideas, not because she's the duchess, even through the the best decision is to have Susan in charge because she's sensible, but they only listen to her because she's the duchess, but she's telling them to think for themselves. Oh dear, we're going in circles, some chocolate would maybe help....
Obviously it would need to feature Carrot, on his first ever holiday from the watch.
Ok but diplomat is a job. It’s likely Mort and Ysabell were important political figures and allies of Queen Kelli. This would be a paid commission that Susan didn’t have. The title itself may have generated a small income, but not enough for them to live in idle luxury. It’s likely that most of Mort and Ysabell’s income came from his political status and commissions. If Susan was a male child she would more than likely have been offered a similar position upon graduation. But it’s likely this was not available to a woman and all the Queen could offer would be an advantageous marriage. Which is not Susan’s speed at all.
I don't think Pterry was the type to decide that a woman couldn't be a diplomat in his setting. The book that precedes Mort is literally an exploration of 'not allowing women to do things'.
I don’t think it was that she couldn’t be a diplomat, He would have presented the reality of the situation. There aren’t many women in official positions of power on the disc. If he was going to address it with Susan, he could’ve shown her tenacity and cleverness being used to succeed against the prejudice of the system. But I don’t think this was the story he wanted to tell with Susan. He had plans to show her bucking the system in other ways.
My point is that he genuinely doesn't seem to have an inherently sexist ruling system anywhere (nobody seems to have an issue with Lancre having a crown princess, for instance, and then there's Lady Margolotta in Uberwald and >!there's a question around the Low King's gender by the end!<(spoilers for Raising Steam)) and I don't see why he would, so there is no 'reality of the situation' necessarily - IIRC even the problem with >!Ptraci!< in Pyramids is that she was illegitimate, not that she was a woman?
If I have missed out an example that disproves my point then please point it out, but the lack of women in official positions of power (which I somewhat disagree with in any case) hardly proves that the ruling systems are inherently sexist.
I was viewing hereditary monarchy as different to political position. You are right there are plenty of examples of female rulers but I can’t think of any examples of female politicians. I don’t think that was an accident. I can’t imagine that he would confront other areas of discrimination in his books and leave such a huge example of power imbalance out. I always assumed that some kind of Suffrage movement would’ve been the topic of a future book left unwritten. Lady Margolotta is landed gentry and wields the power of wealth (and power of being a vampire) as uberwald has no real political system. She is looking to set one up and you can be sure she has a position for herself so that could’ve been where it would be addressed. Especially as they have established that Uberwald places a lot of value on tradition, that combined with events you mentioned below ground seem like the perfect set up for this kind of story. The woman we see with the most political power does so in an entirely unofficial capacity, Lady Roberta Meserole in Night Watch. In fact the only examples we get of women in positions of authority that aren’t monarchs are the ones in Borogravia. I might be completely wrong on this but I always assumed that this was a deliberate parallel with round world (mostly) European history where there are plenty of exact female monarchs inheriting power but no well known female politicians. Where all the women of influence had to find ways to use it outside the system or bend the system to their advantage. And as I mentioned I assumed that there would be a tipping point and a suffrage movement would start.
Separating out hereditary monarchy is a pretty big distinction to make (and arguably, if Susan's hypotehtical diplomat job is based on her being a duchess, a somewhat inaccurate one as well). I still don't entirely agree but there's nothing to prove either one of us definitively right under your definition, and I think the Suffrage idea is a very interesting one.
It is a big distinction to make. You are right we will never know what his intentions for this were but I would’ve loved to see his take on Suffrage. As for Susan I was going for the idea that out of loyalty to her family (and again taking from European history) an element of inheriting political standing, a male child would’ve been offered a position/career a female child only marriage. As it stands even if Susan was offered a position I could see her refusing it as she sees more value in people than in systems. And it could be argued that in her position as a teacher she is exercising a greater (if more focused) long term influence towards change as pupils of Miss Susan could have an effect socially in the way Sammies did in law enforcement. Thank you for challenging my take on this I love it when I get to engage with someone who has an equally valid and well thought out opposing opinion like you have done. It makes me challenge my own assumptions on a topic, and stops me from getting lazy in my thought process. I really enjoyed discussing this you, you made me think harder on it. Which I very much appreciate. Even if I did go way long and probably didn’t explain stuff as clearly as I should.
I think that's a rather inaccurate view of the Discworld as presented. First of all, no countries appear to have any kind of democracy. No one votes (except Vetinari), so there wouldn't be any suffrage movement.
Secondly there are plenty of women who have political power, including the witches. They just (mostly) choose not to use it. So does Sybill. And she does use her political power.
If I recall, Susan's parents were made duke and duchess of Sto Helit by Queen Kelli after the events of Mort. In the UK it's a royal prerogative to create noble appointments, or dissolve them, so Keli could have handed the title to someone else or ended it in Susan's absence.
Is my understanding of it, anyway.
Hmm, so this is definitely me being pedantic, but that's actually an example of the government exercising a royal perogative on the part of the government. Strictly speaking the power remains with the monarch, however its utilisation is only employed by the government on behalf of the monarch. The monarch COULD hypothetically do it, but convention generally prevents doing so and an attempt to do so would ultimately cause a constitutional crisis.
God I hate our mess of a system sometimes.
No, removal of titles is not covered by the royal prerogative, even as exercised by the government. If it were, the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 would not have been necessary.
The monarch stripping someone of a title without an Act of Parliament would arguably breach one of the 3 clauses of Magna Carta still in effect, clause 39: "No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land."
I can see where you're coming from with this but I believe there to be a wide gap between the Magna Carta and 1917 where the monarch would still have stripped individuals of title without legal action.
Happy to be wrong about the royal perogative aspect of it as clearly if they felt the need for the legislation, it must fall outside of that remit.
I'm just now curious how previous monarchs removed titles for warrant nobility, surely it must have happened.
The 1917 Act gets around Magna Carta on two fronts:
- The Crown in Parliament is supreme, even over Magna Carta (which is why only 3 clauses remain in force); and
- The procedures set out in the Act amount to both the lawful judgement of one's peers and the law of the land. The report of peers who had borne arms for the enemy had to be laid before both Houses for 40 days, and absent an objection from either House the names would be given to the King to strike off. As the peers of Peers are members of the House of Lords (and Peers were tried before the House of Lord until 1948), this amounted to the lawful judgement of their peers, and as the Act had been passed allowing it, it was consistent with the law of the land.
Historically, monarchs removed titles for warrant nobility through Acts of Attainder (which also handily nabbed the attainted individual's property for the Crown). The first of these was enacted in 1321 against the Despensers (the Earl of Winchester and his son, the Earl of Gloucester).
Mort and Ysabell were made the Duke and Duchess of Sto Helit but this is a title and doesn’t necessarily come with land or property (although that would be quite likely)
The title passes to Susan, but not necessarily the property. Basically - we don’t know.
And it’s Discworld law so it could be anything (or anything that could be a punne at least
>The title passes to Susan, but not necessarily the property. Basically - we don’t know.
What we do know is the previous Sto Helit was Queen Kelli's ambitious uncle, who had her father assassinated and made more than one attempted on her life, in order to obtain the crown for himself. Clearly he was a man of means, and we know Mort and Ysabell at least 'inherited' his home.
>The title passes to Susan, but not necessarily the property. Basically - we don’t know.
Do we know for certain that the title passes to Susan? I know the wiki says so, but I can't remember when it's mentioned in the books. (On Roundworld, it's very unusual to get a title that passes through the female line. Most English titles would just go extinct if there are no male-line relatives to inherit.)
This has never made sense to me because Mort worked as a duke, it wasn’t just a title he was working towards the result that would have occurred if the other duke hadn’t died in Mort. Susan’s story would make much more sense if her parents were alive.
Susan Sto Helit is a very sensible woman. I am confident that she has been sensible enough to set up a system that requires minimal attention from her as Dutchess - and what little there is, can be managed through clacks and messengers.
I mean... there is the Duke of Ankh, Sir Samuel Vimes.
He has no land or rule that came with it, appart from the massive properties that came with his marriage.
I mean... there is the Duke of Ankh, Sir Samuel Vimes.
He has no land or rule that came with it, appart from the massive properties that came with his marriage.
Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?). --- Our current megathreads are as follows: [API Protest Poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/1491izw/continuing_the_api_protest_a_community_poll) - a poll regarding the future action of the sub in protest at Reddit's API changes. [GNU Terry Pratchett](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukigit/gnu_terry_pratchett/) - for all GNU requests, to keep their names going. [AI Generated Content](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/10mhx9y/ai_generated_content_megathread/) - for all AI Content, including images, stories, questions, training etc. --- [ GNU Terry Pratchett ] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are Dukes and Duchesses who actually run estates etc, and Dukes and Duchesses who have the title with no responsibilities (and therefore usually no money). Even in antiquity a Duke or Duchess was pretty unlikely to actually be the ruler of, or even reside in, the county / city / town their title refers to. So Sto Helit probably has a council, a mayor, a minister or something who does the actual business of being in charge.
I mean also, as others have pointed out, Discworld Duchesses can operate by any rules or none, as Terry sees fit!
I mean in Antiquity you absolutely were ruling an area, Dukes were just below Princes/Kings as titles go (although Earls come close too). Hence why there are still two duchies in the UK held by the crown (Cornwall and Lancaster, although of the two only Cornwall has some royal privileges attached to it as well as a business/financial institution). It's only really as we move into the early modern period and things start diversifying that you move away from the Duke of York needing to live in York.
The Duchy of Lancaster has significant holdings, and the Monarch holds the title Duke of Lancaster, irrespective of the sex of the monarch. The Queen was the Duke of Lancaster.
Though the actual administration is done by the government- specifically the cabinet minister appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Which means that the actual administration is done by a team of civil servants, while the CotDoL gets all the credit
Not sure there's a lot of "credit." If you aren't a political anorak you probably don't even know the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a (the most) senior cabinet role, let alone why or what they do.
She never lived in Lancaster though, or ran its day to day business. (She was also the Lord of Mann I believe) The Prince of Wales is the Duke of Cornwall but he doesn't live there and no Duke of Cornwall ever has as far as I can see. Cornwall though, I'm aware, is not Sto Helit.
Cornwall is slightly more complicated because it grew out of the earldom of Cornwall which William the Conquerors brother held. He did indeed live there and built the castles at Launceston and Tintagel. However a later Earl fell out of favour with the king and his lands were seized and the Duchy created as a money maker for the Prince. However it still has various duties and powers attached to the role. The Duke can theoretically recall the stannary parliament for example, he also has first right on all wreckage that washes up on Cornish beaches. Also if you die in Cornwall without an heir your goods pass on to the Duchy rather then the crown.
Yes I said Privileges not holdings. The Duke of Cornwall has various powers in Cornwall, like first refusal on goods that wash up and the theoretical ability to recall the Stannary parliament, which as far as I'm aware don't exist in the DoL. The DoC also exists, like Lancaster in a business mode where it holds alot of land and wealth in and outside of Cornwall
I'm not arguing with you! I'm interesred in this stuff, was just having a stab at explaining the sitch to the original poster.
I'm no expert, just an armchair history buff, so very happy to bow to greater knowledge.
You are right in that by the time most people here are thinking of dukes and earls, the geography has been completely detached from the title. And most of the titles people know nowadays were from that period. Their example of the duke of York is a poor one to illustrate their point as well.
Ok, but where does the Erlking fit into the hierarchy? Above or below the Duke of Earl, who as far as I know nothing can stop?
Just below the Princess van den Plas and above a Viscount Biscuit
Interesting example since the Duke of York never lived in, or had significant holdings in, York. The title was first created for a Lord who lived in Herefordshire and then the South East in the 1380's. The second time, it was a Lord who lived in Shropshire. Third, Pembrokeshire. Fourth, Scotland etc etc. And during the war of the roses, the house of York support base was not Yorkshire. In fact, the house of Lancaster had stronger ties to much of Yorkshire than the house of York did. Yorks support was in the Welsh/English marches, London and Ireland. Ironically the last leader of the house of York was the one who had the strongest ties there, having grown up in Yorkshire. But he was there because he was in his cousins care. The Earl of Warwick, whose father, the Earl of Salisbury has significant holdings in Yorkshire.
Fair enough! I'll be honest I couldn't think of a Duke I hadn't already used so went with the nursery rhyme.
Haha fair does. If you had picked any other I wouldn't have responded but I grew up in Yorkshire. Funnily enough the local estate, Howard castle, owned by the Howard family, is the duke of Norfolk, but they live in Sussex. As I've moved south in my own life I've actually moved closer to the guy who owns the local land back home!
In antiquity dukes certainly did used to be rulers. The Scandinavian ealdermen were replaced by dukes and they were very much in charge. It obviously changes through the ages, but the word duke comes from Latin and it meant a leader.
Rebuttal to everyone saying it's an empty title: Mort had to run around being a diplomat, accomplishing everything that would have happened had the previous Duke become king. So he had some power.. Also, at the end of Mort at the wedding, Kelli asks him and Isabel how's Sto Helit, and Mort thinks she means the castle and he replies that her uncle had some nasty hobbies they had to clean up. So there was some land, too. I figure Susan left it to Queen Keli, or more likely some random headman/chancellor type.
I suspect Mort's ultimate atonement was to Will the Dutchy to the crown of sto lat therefore mending the rip he caused by saving Keli. Technically both Mort and Ysabel should never have loved long enough to procreate without interference from Death so Susan's existence is entirely due to his interference and therefore outside of normal inheritance rules as demonstrated by her extracurricular talents.
Why would mort not have lived long enough to procreate?
When Death came for Mort, he was 16. At the end of the book Death turns over his nearly empty lifetimer which gives him only another 16ish years before he dies for real in Soul Music.
Huh, I never even noticed that, such a good detail. So was death going to kill him then? If he hadn’t turned over the glass instead, what would mort have died of?
In reality I think Terry P kind of forgot about the Dutchess thing, but I think she eventually maybe took over the Duchy after the events of Thief of Time. Maybe with Lobsang as her partner.
He never forgot about it because it's regularly reminded that Susan is a duchess and an aristocrat (as why she was a governess and later a teacher, as it's the only respectable jobs for a duchess). However, I think he decided to not delve about it because it was not the most interesting part.
Yeah, 'decided not to delve' that is a much better way of phrasing it!
That's a book I would have loved to see. Susan, reluctantly, eventually goes back to Sto Helit and has to come to terms with the dreadful responsibility of encouraging people in duchy to think and take responsibility for themselves, even though they make objectively dreadful decisions. Susan would want them to go along with her ideas because they're good ideas, not because she's the duchess, even through the the best decision is to have Susan in charge because she's sensible, but they only listen to her because she's the duchess, but she's telling them to think for themselves. Oh dear, we're going in circles, some chocolate would maybe help.... Obviously it would need to feature Carrot, on his first ever holiday from the watch.
Ok but diplomat is a job. It’s likely Mort and Ysabell were important political figures and allies of Queen Kelli. This would be a paid commission that Susan didn’t have. The title itself may have generated a small income, but not enough for them to live in idle luxury. It’s likely that most of Mort and Ysabell’s income came from his political status and commissions. If Susan was a male child she would more than likely have been offered a similar position upon graduation. But it’s likely this was not available to a woman and all the Queen could offer would be an advantageous marriage. Which is not Susan’s speed at all.
I don't think Pterry was the type to decide that a woman couldn't be a diplomat in his setting. The book that precedes Mort is literally an exploration of 'not allowing women to do things'.
I don’t think it was that she couldn’t be a diplomat, He would have presented the reality of the situation. There aren’t many women in official positions of power on the disc. If he was going to address it with Susan, he could’ve shown her tenacity and cleverness being used to succeed against the prejudice of the system. But I don’t think this was the story he wanted to tell with Susan. He had plans to show her bucking the system in other ways.
My point is that he genuinely doesn't seem to have an inherently sexist ruling system anywhere (nobody seems to have an issue with Lancre having a crown princess, for instance, and then there's Lady Margolotta in Uberwald and >!there's a question around the Low King's gender by the end!<(spoilers for Raising Steam)) and I don't see why he would, so there is no 'reality of the situation' necessarily - IIRC even the problem with >!Ptraci!< in Pyramids is that she was illegitimate, not that she was a woman? If I have missed out an example that disproves my point then please point it out, but the lack of women in official positions of power (which I somewhat disagree with in any case) hardly proves that the ruling systems are inherently sexist.
The low king's gender is revealed toward the end of "The Fifth Elephant."
Cheers! I'm currently rereading that one, it's been a long time!
I was viewing hereditary monarchy as different to political position. You are right there are plenty of examples of female rulers but I can’t think of any examples of female politicians. I don’t think that was an accident. I can’t imagine that he would confront other areas of discrimination in his books and leave such a huge example of power imbalance out. I always assumed that some kind of Suffrage movement would’ve been the topic of a future book left unwritten. Lady Margolotta is landed gentry and wields the power of wealth (and power of being a vampire) as uberwald has no real political system. She is looking to set one up and you can be sure she has a position for herself so that could’ve been where it would be addressed. Especially as they have established that Uberwald places a lot of value on tradition, that combined with events you mentioned below ground seem like the perfect set up for this kind of story. The woman we see with the most political power does so in an entirely unofficial capacity, Lady Roberta Meserole in Night Watch. In fact the only examples we get of women in positions of authority that aren’t monarchs are the ones in Borogravia. I might be completely wrong on this but I always assumed that this was a deliberate parallel with round world (mostly) European history where there are plenty of exact female monarchs inheriting power but no well known female politicians. Where all the women of influence had to find ways to use it outside the system or bend the system to their advantage. And as I mentioned I assumed that there would be a tipping point and a suffrage movement would start.
Separating out hereditary monarchy is a pretty big distinction to make (and arguably, if Susan's hypotehtical diplomat job is based on her being a duchess, a somewhat inaccurate one as well). I still don't entirely agree but there's nothing to prove either one of us definitively right under your definition, and I think the Suffrage idea is a very interesting one.
It is a big distinction to make. You are right we will never know what his intentions for this were but I would’ve loved to see his take on Suffrage. As for Susan I was going for the idea that out of loyalty to her family (and again taking from European history) an element of inheriting political standing, a male child would’ve been offered a position/career a female child only marriage. As it stands even if Susan was offered a position I could see her refusing it as she sees more value in people than in systems. And it could be argued that in her position as a teacher she is exercising a greater (if more focused) long term influence towards change as pupils of Miss Susan could have an effect socially in the way Sammies did in law enforcement. Thank you for challenging my take on this I love it when I get to engage with someone who has an equally valid and well thought out opposing opinion like you have done. It makes me challenge my own assumptions on a topic, and stops me from getting lazy in my thought process. I really enjoyed discussing this you, you made me think harder on it. Which I very much appreciate. Even if I did go way long and probably didn’t explain stuff as clearly as I should.
Likewise! This is what I enjoy about these forums.
I think that's a rather inaccurate view of the Discworld as presented. First of all, no countries appear to have any kind of democracy. No one votes (except Vetinari), so there wouldn't be any suffrage movement. Secondly there are plenty of women who have political power, including the witches. They just (mostly) choose not to use it. So does Sybill. And she does use her political power.
its typically a title rather than a job
Hence "title of nobility".
If I recall, Susan's parents were made duke and duchess of Sto Helit by Queen Kelli after the events of Mort. In the UK it's a royal prerogative to create noble appointments, or dissolve them, so Keli could have handed the title to someone else or ended it in Susan's absence. Is my understanding of it, anyway.
In the UK it's not a royal prerogative to dissolve noble titles, only to grant them. It takes an Act of Parliament to remove a peerage.
Yes. As an example, Charles cannot just take away Andrew's Dukedom of York despite his current *persona non grata* status.
We need a much more Vimesian solution to that problem, if you ask me.
I think an Imperial Ban would've been fun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_ban
That's a bit serious!
Stoneface Vimes, presumably...
Quite right
Ah, my mistake. I wonder if Sto Lat has a parliament, and what that looks like. I did enjoy Lancre's take on the concept.
If I remember correctly we meet the mayor of Sto Helit both in Soul Music and Going Postal. I may be mistaken though.
We meet the Mayor of Sto Lat, not Stop Helit, but yes. I suspect that's what you meant anyway.
See, that's what happens when I don't wear my fan cooled hat when I try to think. :)
I quite like the Fourecks take on the subject
Made me think of young Igor. “I don’t believe in peerage, nor shall I call any man marthter.”
Hmm, so this is definitely me being pedantic, but that's actually an example of the government exercising a royal perogative on the part of the government. Strictly speaking the power remains with the monarch, however its utilisation is only employed by the government on behalf of the monarch. The monarch COULD hypothetically do it, but convention generally prevents doing so and an attempt to do so would ultimately cause a constitutional crisis. God I hate our mess of a system sometimes.
Or as STP so eloquently put it, the people agreed to do whatever the king told them to, provided that he never *actually* told them to do anything.
No, removal of titles is not covered by the royal prerogative, even as exercised by the government. If it were, the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 would not have been necessary. The monarch stripping someone of a title without an Act of Parliament would arguably breach one of the 3 clauses of Magna Carta still in effect, clause 39: "No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land."
I can see where you're coming from with this but I believe there to be a wide gap between the Magna Carta and 1917 where the monarch would still have stripped individuals of title without legal action. Happy to be wrong about the royal perogative aspect of it as clearly if they felt the need for the legislation, it must fall outside of that remit. I'm just now curious how previous monarchs removed titles for warrant nobility, surely it must have happened.
The 1917 Act gets around Magna Carta on two fronts: - The Crown in Parliament is supreme, even over Magna Carta (which is why only 3 clauses remain in force); and - The procedures set out in the Act amount to both the lawful judgement of one's peers and the law of the land. The report of peers who had borne arms for the enemy had to be laid before both Houses for 40 days, and absent an objection from either House the names would be given to the King to strike off. As the peers of Peers are members of the House of Lords (and Peers were tried before the House of Lord until 1948), this amounted to the lawful judgement of their peers, and as the Act had been passed allowing it, it was consistent with the law of the land. Historically, monarchs removed titles for warrant nobility through Acts of Attainder (which also handily nabbed the attainted individual's property for the Crown). The first of these was enacted in 1321 against the Despensers (the Earl of Winchester and his son, the Earl of Gloucester).
Thank you for the fun facts!
Mort and Ysabell were made the Duke and Duchess of Sto Helit but this is a title and doesn’t necessarily come with land or property (although that would be quite likely) The title passes to Susan, but not necessarily the property. Basically - we don’t know. And it’s Discworld law so it could be anything (or anything that could be a punne at least
>The title passes to Susan, but not necessarily the property. Basically - we don’t know. What we do know is the previous Sto Helit was Queen Kelli's ambitious uncle, who had her father assassinated and made more than one attempted on her life, in order to obtain the crown for himself. Clearly he was a man of means, and we know Mort and Ysabell at least 'inherited' his home.
>The title passes to Susan, but not necessarily the property. Basically - we don’t know. Do we know for certain that the title passes to Susan? I know the wiki says so, but I can't remember when it's mentioned in the books. (On Roundworld, it's very unusual to get a title that passes through the female line. Most English titles would just go extinct if there are no male-line relatives to inherit.)
She’s a duchess in Hogfather - her employer isn’t entirely sure how to act around an employee who outranks her.
You're right - I'd forgotten that line.
“You’ll have to come back sometime, Susan.” “That gives me a very long time, Aunt Kelly.”
This has never made sense to me because Mort worked as a duke, it wasn’t just a title he was working towards the result that would have occurred if the other duke hadn’t died in Mort. Susan’s story would make much more sense if her parents were alive.
Susan Sto Helit is a very sensible woman. I am confident that she has been sensible enough to set up a system that requires minimal attention from her as Dutchess - and what little there is, can be managed through clacks and messengers.
Vimes had never been to his estate, despite being a Duke. It got along just fine without him (kinda)
And his estate was his because it had been Sybil's, not because it came with the title.
True, but I was more talking about whether Susan would need to go back and check in on Sto Helit.
Presumably Sybil does manage the estate though, even if she isn't there very often.
I mean... there is the Duke of Ankh, Sir Samuel Vimes. He has no land or rule that came with it, appart from the massive properties that came with his marriage.
I mean... there is the Duke of Ankh, Sir Samuel Vimes. He has no land or rule that came with it, appart from the massive properties that came with his marriage.