Rank

Ken Oleson wrote:
> On Dec 24, 8:59 pm, David Alex Lamb <dal... DeleteThis @cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> OK, but the Kaiser wasn't considered an emperor after Germany was
>> unified, was he?  
>
> If I remember my German correctly, "Kaiser" = "Emperor". "King" is
> "Koenig"
> Could be mistaken.

This is the usual translation. The Kaiser of Austria, that was Emperor
of germany, before it became united still was Emperor of Austria and
Hungary (The K&K Monarchy "Kaiser und König"). The House of Prussia was
made german state leader, (Kaiser) to show independence from Austria.

Greetings
Johannes


--
IT Service Bretscher | Partner:
Landsberger Str. 20 | http://www.lebeschoen.de/
82266 Inning | http://www.lebeschoen.com/
Tel: +(49)8143 8390
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

On Dec 25, 8:40 pm, David Alex Lamb <dal....DeleteThis@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> Rob Kelk wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:59:33 -0500, David Alex Lamb
> > <dal....DeleteThis@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> >> At the point at which his Japanese title got translated into English,
> >> was he really an Emperor in the dictionary sense?
>
> > Probably not.  However, his title translates literally as "heavenly
> > sovereign" or "heaven king" (depending on the translator), which implies
> > a higher rank than a merely mortal king.  Ruling by the grace of God
> > isn't as impressive as ruling God, after all...
>
> True.
>
> So the only comparison I can think of would be with the Pharaoh, who was
> also a divine king/emperor, and the Chinese emperor who was also divine
> IIRC -- but ancient China was more culturally diverse than Japan, also
> IIRC.  I think the Egyptian title meant "Great House" which doesn't
> sound very emperor-ish.  The middle eastern emperors took titles like
> "king of kings" which fits the dictionary version.

The (pre-Christian) Roman Emperors were considered deities.

--
Oly.
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

Ken Oleson <oleansvenknut.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 8:59?pm, David Alex Lamb <dal....DeleteThis@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> OK, but the Kaiser wasn't considered an emperor after Germany was
>> unified, was he? ?
>
> If I remember my German correctly, "Kaiser" = "Emperor". "King" is
> "Koenig"
> Could be mistaken.

You're not. Kaiser is the exact German translation of emperor, and I
think it even comes from "Caesar", which according to some pronunciations,
is pronounced "Kaisar".

>> nor the kings-of-all-England who conquered the "kings"
>> of various tiny territories? ?They were culturally and linguistically
>> quite uniform, whereas the empires I listed all had collections of
>> distinctly different cultures.
>
> Well, the is the legend that the semi-mythical Arthur sacked Rome and
> briefly became Emperor there...

Sounds unlikely. According to GURPS Camelot he fought alongside the
Romans. Or at least against the same enemies.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

David Alex Lamb <dalamb RemoveThis @cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> Rob Kelk wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:59:33 -0500, David Alex Lamb
>> <dalamb RemoveThis @cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>> At the point at which his Japanese title got translated into English,
>>> was he really an Emperor in the dictionary sense?
>>
>> Probably not. However, his title translates literally as "heavenly
>> sovereign" or "heaven king" (depending on the translator), which implies
>> a higher rank than a merely mortal king. Ruling by the grace of God
>> isn't as impressive as ruling God, after all...
>
> True.
>
> So the only comparison I can think of would be with the Pharaoh, who was
> also a divine king/emperor,

Yet I often get the impression pharaohs are generally considered kings.
Although I doubt someone like Ramses II would appreciate being treated
as the equal of some lowly foreign king.

> and the Chinese emperor who was also divine
> IIRC -- but ancient China was more culturally diverse than Japan, also
> IIRC. I think the Egyptian title meant "Great House" which doesn't
> sound very emperor-ish. The middle eastern emperors took titles like
> "king of kings" which fits the dictionary version.

I think in an around Europe, the position of emperor only arose due to
the Roman empire. Before them, I think a king who conquered or united
a bunch of other kings was just a bigger king.

As for the divinity of emperors, I believe all emperors of the Holy Roman
Empire (which was later to crumble into Austria/Hungary), all had to be
crowned by the pope. I imagine kings could be crowned by lower clergy,
if they were crowned by clergy at all.

Of course Napoleon crowned himself, so the pope wouldn't be able to
uncrown him.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

Johnny1a <shermanlee1 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 4:51?am, mcv <mcv... RemoveThis @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> David Alex Lamb <dal... RemoveThis @cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > Steven Jones wrote:
>> >> Who would have higher GURPS rank, Australia's Prime Minister or its
>> >> Governor-General?
>> >> While the GG's role is mostly ceremonial, he can sack the PM (and vice
>> >> versa). ?This famously occured in 1975 when GG John Kerr sacked PM Gough
>> >> Whitlam and appointed then opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as PM.
>>
>> > Whatever rank you pick should be about the same as any monarch in a
>> > constitutional monarchy, since that's pretty much what a GG is aside
>> > from how s/he is appointed. ?Status would be lower, though -- I can only
>> > remember the names of a few of the Canadian GG's I've lived through.
>>
>> It sounds like the Australian GG has more power than the Dutch queen.
>> The only political power that our queen has is to listen to all party
>> leaders and based on that advice, appoint a new formator for a new
>> government after elections.
>>
>> Nevertheless, she has much higer status than the PM, despite this
>> almost complete lack of political power (although she actually has
>> quite a bit of financial power, being one of the richest women in the
>> world).
>
> How free is the Dutch queen to _exercise_ her financial power? Are
> there any legal or customary limits on how she uses it?

I have no idea, really. She's certainly not an aggressive investor who
breaks up and downsizes companies. I suspect she mostly owns land,
houses, and stock in large Dutch mainstream companies. Perhaps she
owns stock in companies that are allowed to carry the title "Royal"
(like Royal Dutch Shell or KLM), but perhaps she doesn't. I wouldn't
be surprised if some information on this is availlable somewhere, but
I wouldn't know where.

Ofcourse being conservative with her money doesn't necessarily mean
she's not technically allowed to be much more aggressive with it.
And she might even be more aggressive with it. She is known to be
well organised and businesslike, so I wouldn't be surprised if she's
a smart investor.

>> Status is a bit fuzzy, I'm afraid. It often amounts to comparing
>> apples and oranges.
>
> It also depends on the audience. A highly anti-monarchical republican
> culture might regard a President as higher status than a mere Queen
> because he was elected (in some manner or other) while the Queen was
> born in the right place and the right time.

It's a fuzzy subject. Status can be a formal nobility-related issue,
but even centuries ago, successful Dutch merchants had effectively
the same or even higher status than Dutch most Dutch nobility. No
doubt respect is part of it too. Both respect for the person and
respect for the office, and I get the impression that the office of
president of the US gets a lot more respect in the US than some
monarchs in other countries.

> A highly theocratic
> society might question either's Divine right of power, or not. (Does
> the Dutch queen have any theoretical religious role?)

I'm not sure. I know king Willem I (the first Dutch king, just after
Napoleon) was actively involved in the organisation of the Dutch
propestant church, and that church may have been the official state
religion for some time, but wikipedia doesn't mention anything
official about it. Apart from one princess who became catholic, the
entire royal house is member of the largest protestant church, but
I doubt this is actually technically required. It's just tradition.

> It even depends on the details of the individual, depending on the
> audience, a general who 'came up from the ranks' might be seen as
> higher Status than an equivalent rank who was never an enlisted man.
> Other audiences might be more impressed by whatever connections got
> him started and see 'coming up from the bottom' as lower-status.
>
> It's _very_ slippery to put a number to.

It is. Best be a bit flexible about what Status actually means. On
the other hand, how can you charge cold hard character points for
something as fuzzy as that?


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

mcv wrote:
[...]
> Of course Napoleon crowned himself, so the pope wouldn't be able to
> uncrown him.

Didn't he also abduct a pope once?

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

Peter Knutsen <peter.DeleteThis@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> mcv wrote:
> [...]
>> Of course Napoleon crowned himself, so the pope wouldn't be able to
>> uncrown him.
>
> Didn't he also abduct a pope once?

I wouldn't be surprised. I don't have my GURPS Age Of Napoleon with me,
unfortunately.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

In article
<79e917c4-37d0-4a77-8cf3-ceb834bdb629.DeleteThis@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> on
Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:25:28 -0800 (PST), oleansvenknut.DeleteThis@yahoo.com (Ken
Oleson) wrote:

> On Dec 24, 3:25 am, mcv <mcv....DeleteThis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> > In their own country, of course the local head of state is more
> > important
> > than a foreign one. But if the king of Sweden dies, at the
> > funeral the
> > emperor of Japan will have the highest status, then all kings,
> > queens
> > and other noble heads of state, and all presidents, including the
> > one
> > of the US, come last. Royal funerals tend to be pretty old
> > fashioned in
> > that regard.
> >
>
> Not surprising, I guess.
>
> Hm. I wonder if Akihito is the only actual Emperor left? That
> butcher
> Bokassa's safely dead, and Elizabeth II was a few years to late to
> be
> "Empress of India".
>
> And the Pope? Head of state (The Vatican), nominally elected, but
> aren't high-level chuchmen considered noble, if not royal?

ISTR that this is something still argued over. The traditional Papal
position was that the Nuncio should automatically have precedence over
other diplomats, but they do seem to have lost this struggle; both the UK
and the USA award precedence by time in post, and their practice has been
widely adopted.

My guess would be that the Pope would be given precendence amongst kings
in a Catholic country, and would be given precedence between kings and
ruling princes in a non-Catholic monarchy.

The normal order would be:
Family of the deceased (at a funeral, the family of the deceased hold
precedence over all others)
Royalty of the country where the funeral is occurring (if it's a royal
funeral, these are the family of the deceased, of course)
Emperors and Empresses
Kings and Queens
Pope
Ruling Grand Dukes (Luxembourg)
Ruling Princes and Princesses (Monaco and Liechtenstein)
Presidents
non-heads of state

Note that while order of precedence is not the same thing as GURPS Status,
it's also the case that Status is mostly about deference - and Presidents
do defer to royals.


--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

On 27 Dec 2007 10:26:35 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv.TakeThisOut@xs4all.nl> wrote:

I get the impression that the office of
>president of the US gets a lot more respect in the US than some
>monarchs in other countries.

the americans wrap both their head of state and their political leader
into the same person which is was and always will be a terrible idea.
the characteristics needed to reach such a political office mean he's
a conniving weasel who'd sell his mother into a barbary brothel pretty
much. pols are low creatures indeed and the higher the office the
lower the character seems to sink getting there.
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:18:09 -0800 (PST), Ken Oleson
<oleansvenknut.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:


>If I remember my German correctly, "Kaiser" = "Emperor". "King" is
>"Koenig"
>Could be mistaken.

the root of kaiser is Caesar. seems the romans made a pretty profound
effect on the germans.
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

In article <dbokq359l3firvrmpup6rsj5s5heoodeap.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
Brian McDonald <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote:

> the root of kaiser is Caesar. seems the romans made a pretty profound
> effect on the germans.

And the Russians.

Tsar (Bulgarian, Serbian, Russian), occasionally spelled Czar or Tzar in English
(Zar in German), is a Slavonic term designating certain monarchs.
Originally, and indeed during most of its history, the title Tsar (derived from
Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term.
--
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts and minds of men? The Shadow do!
--Flip Wilson
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

On Feb 6, 5:35 pm, Brian McDonald <Brian_knowspam.McDon... DeleteThis @shaw.ca>
wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2007 10:26:35 GMT, mcv <mcv... DeleteThis @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>  I get the impression that the office of
>
> >president of the US gets a lot more respect in the US than some
> >monarchs in other countries.
>
> the americans wrap both their head of state and their political leader
> into the same person which is was and always will be a terrible idea.
> the characteristics needed to reach such a political office mean he's
> a conniving weasel who'd sell his mother into a barbary brothel pretty
> much.  pols are low creatures indeed and the higher the office the
> lower the character seems to sink getting there.

So how does seperating the offices of President and Prime Minister, or
having a hereditary but semi-ceremonial head of state change this?

--
C.

Power does not necessarily corrupt; it's just that the corrupt are
more inclined to seek power.
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

On 2008-02-11, C. Woolard <rhymeswithsatan.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So how does seperating the offices of President and Prime Minister,
> or having a hereditary but semi-ceremonial head of state change
> this?

A hereditary head of state doesn't have to be a conniving weasel to
achieve the position. (This is not a general endorsement of monarchy,
but I think it is one point in its favour)


> Power does not necessarily corrupt; it's just that the corrupt are
> more inclined to seek power.

Exactly. If you have a system whereby acquiring power means you have
to lie, cheat, and steal to get there, you'll end up with liars,
cheaters, and thieves in power.


- Tim
 >> Stay informed about: Rank