Renaissance Italy

[Guest]

 

[smutpen]

Not my area of particular expertise, but...

I'm not so sure duke is inappropriate.

Although the titles of nobility were much more fluid than modern people suspect, I believe Duke was the title of most rulers of Italian city-states.

Cosimo de Medici was the Duke of Florence, at least, and Francesco Sforza (who began as a condottieri) was the Duke of Milan.

 

[gauchecritic]

these titles are equivilent of the Roayal dukedoms in England Like Yorkshire, Kent & Windsor. They are extremely high and extremely rare titles.

-Colly

Excepting that these were political rather more than geographical titles. The Houses of York and Lancaster had land and/or fiefdoms in both Yorkshire and Lancashire and were often the main contenders for any available thrones that were knocking about. (Hence the Wars of the Roses)

Gauche

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Excepting that these were political rather more than geographical titles. The Houses of York and Lancaster had land and/or fiefdoms in both Yorkshire and Lancashire and were often the main contenders for any available thrones that were knocking about. (Hence the Wars of the Roses)

Gauche

Quite right. The Dukedoms were all held by people with bloodlines to the King.

-Colly

 

[Marsipanne]

Quite right. The Dukedoms were all held by people with bloodlines to the King.

That's what my confusion was about. Since renaissance Italy had no overall king, indeed, it wasn't a whole country until ...? Ok, have forgotten. Is the date 1890? I can't seem to remember. Well, anyway, due to the nature of the city-states, 'Duke' seems more like a title to symbolise power than closeness to a king.

I decided to scrap titles and refer to them as the X family or something instead.