Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6069476" data-attributes="member: 6669384">I agree with most of what was said regarding rankings and succession, with one caveat:  Knight was not a position in the chain of command.Knight was an award that was given to a person, not a family, and could be added to any title at all.  So you might have "Earl Sir Jame Sedgewith" (presuming that there was a Earl James Sedgewith who earned a Knighthood.)  At the same time you might have "Sir Marten Stewart" who had no lands or other titles at all, just the Knighthood.  It was an office, with duties, rewards and privileges, but it was completely independent of the noble rankings.The nobility were believed to literally be a breed apart, almost a separate race from the common man, so while the Crown could award a Knighthood to a commoner, it couldn't change his race/breeding.(Note:  Access to a better diet in the formative years, particularly good quality protein and vitamins, makes children grow taller, aids in brain development, and helps them avoid many of the diseases born of want.  The nobles, having been raised in such circumstance, *looked* like a different breed of men, and really were physically and mentally superior to the lower classes.)</blockquote>