IMTU, there's the Nobility, and the "Local Nobility"

A noble can elevate someone, but it's only recognized within his
demesne as being politically relevant.
Outside of it, it's a social fiction: They're treated politely, but
have no power.
They may have influence, which is a sort of indirect power, but no
ability to do anything directly.
Further, people who weren't ennobled by the Emperor don't have access
to the Moot.

So - Count Ivan is a vassal of the Emperor, and controls a whole star system.
He can knight people and place them in positions, so that Sir Lloyd is
his seneschal over the second planet of the system, for example.
If Sir Lloyd goes outside the limits of Ivan's Star, he's politely
called Sir Ivan, but has no ability to arrest people (or whatever)

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:19 PM Jeff Zeitlin
<xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com> wrote:
>
> It has oft been seen in Traveller past and present that there is
> somewhat of a weight of nobles amongst those who would be Player-
> Characters; and we as often find ourselves, as referees and as players,
> pressed to explain this, and to explain why a noble as such would be
> adventuring.
>
> In such explanation, we often resort to such tired old clichés as the
> heir of the dissolute fiefholder seeking to find a way to repair the
> fortunes of the holding - or at least stave off some disaster; as the
> deposed fiefholder seeking to regain control over his fief; as the
> disgraced heir-potential turned 'remittance man', et multae alia.
>
> Behind all of those lie some assumptions that, if NOT assumed, could
> allow for more possibilities, and more interesting ones, not generally
> thought of.
>
> ASSUMPTION THE FIRST: That all fiefs are held /in capite/, that is, from
> the Emperor direct. Whilst the English system we hold most familiar, and
> upon which most likely the Imperial system is modelled, does appear to
> be an /in capite/ system, other systems do exist, wherein lesser nobles
> are themselves permitted to create still lesser nobles, and grant them
> holdings out of their own, thus making those nobles enfeoffed, but not
> /in capite/. Such creations might well occur where a holding /in capite/
> is of great size, or partitioned disjunctly, and the lesser noble so
> enfeoffed be more than merely a Seneschal, but less (in more than mere
> rank) than the noble from whose holdings his derive; such a noble might
> be accorded the respect of his titular rank, and the fees from tenants
> on such holding, but might not sit with the lords /in capite/, in an
> assembly (or parliament) that the Emperor might call.
>
> Formally, we might express this assumption as "IF the holder is a noble,
> THEN the holding is /in capite/.".
>
> ASSUMPTION THE SECOND: That all holdings are holdings in fee, that is,
> fiefs. Even in the English system named above, there were no less than
> four types of holdings, and perhaps more: the fief, or holding in fee,
> is merely the most familiar.  Others are the holding by scutage, in
> which the holder's obligation to the grantor is not principally the
> remittance of a portion of the production of the fief as fee and the
> maintenance in good order of the lands and peoples of the holding, but
> the performance of peculiarly military service, or in select cases, the
> payment of a fine in lieu of such service; the holding by socage, in
> which the grantor is entitled to a fixed sum from the holder,
> periodically; and finally the holding by serjeanty, in which the holding
> is conditioned on the performance of a service not generally of a
> military nature, or under specific conditions and at specific times.
>
> Formally, we might express this assumptiopn as "IF the holder is a
> noble, THEN the holding is in fee.".
>
> Herewith a digression into the subject of Formal Logic:
>
> The formal expressions of the assumptions above are in the form IF [a] THEN
> [b]. We may characterise this as the Statement. The Statement has two
> elements, the Hypothesis (represented by [a]), and the Conclusion
> (represented by [b]).
>
> The Statement has a truth value, and in the assumptions above, the
> Statement is assumed to be TRUE.
>
> We may alter the Statement in three ways, and each of those alterations
> also has a truth value.
>
> The first alteration is to exchange the Hypothesis and the Conclusion - IF
> [b] THEN [a]. This is called the Converse of the Statement. The truth value
> of the Converse is not necessarily known from the truth value of the
> Statement.
>
> In the assumptions above, the respective Converses are "If the holding is
> /in capite/, THEN the holder is a Noble." and "IF the holding is in fee,
> THEN the holder is a Noble." The truth values of both of these are TRUE.
>
> The second alteration is to negate both the Hypothesis and the Conclusion -
> IF NOT [a] THEN NOT [b]. This is called the Inverse of the Statement. The
> truth value of the Inverse is not necessarily known from the truth value of
> the Statement.
>
> In the assumptions above, the respective Inverses are "IF the holder is NOT
> a Noble, THEN the holding is NOT /in capite/." and "IF the holder is NOT a
> Noble, THEN the holding is NOT in fee." The truth value of both of these is
> TRUE.
>
> The third alteration is to negate both the Hypothesis and the Conclusion,
> and exchange the negated Hypothesis with the negated Conclusion - IF NOT
> [b] THEN NOT [a]. This is called the Contrapositive of the Statement. The
> truth value of the Contrapositive is always the same as the truth value of
> the Statement.
>
> In the assumptions above, the respective Contrapositives are "IF the
> holding is NOT /in capite/, THEN the holder is NOT a Noble." and "IF the
> holding is NOT in fee, THEN the holder is NOT a Noble." The truth value of
> both of these is TRUE.
>
> The digression ends here; it provides sufficient background to consider the
> next Proposal:
>
> I propose that we allow the Converse (and thus the Inverse) of both
> Statements to remain true, but deny the Statement (and thus the
> Contrapositive). That is, IF the holder is a Noble, the holding MAY OR MAY
> NOT be /in capite/, and IF the holder is a Noble, the holding MAY OR MAY
> NOT be in fee.
>
> In doing so, we open up many more potentially interesting opportunities
> for adventure and Travelling for those noble player-characters:
>
> * The player whose character is a Baron does not hold in fee from
>   the Emperor /in capite/; rather, he holds from the Duke of Ellington "in
>   Grand Serjeanty of presenting to His Grace, on the day of Investiture
>   and each anniversary thereof, at the beginning of the State Dinner, a
>   goblet of wine, and the wine shall be of the finest clarity and the
>   color of an emerald when held to the light, and the goblet shall be
>   new-made, and carved and polished by the Baron's own hand, of a wood
>   that under such carving and polishing will possess the color and lustre
>   of a semiprecious stone, being <named stone>, of the first quality, and
>   after the State Dinner, shall receive the goblet as his fee. But the
>   same goblet shall not be presented at another such State Dinner, and
>   shall be marked by the Duke's own hand with the date of presentation."
>
>   In the description of this serjeanty, we have opportunities out of the
>   common for adventuring:
>   * Perhaps the wood that has been used traditionally *used* to grow within
>     the holding, and has died out. The Baron is on a 'quest' of sorts,
>     seeking other sources for the wood, or a substitute that meets the
>     standard.  Or,
>   * perhaps it is the wine that needs to be found. Or,
>   * perhaps that which has been sought is found, and needs to be brought
>     back to the Baron's home, or to the location of the State Dinner, as
>     the day of the duty of the serjeanty fast approaches. Or,
>   * perhaps the Baron has not been performing this duty, and the Duke,
>     seeking to replace him, has summoned him for an explanation, where he
>     shall be expected to additionally pay a large fine for his failure, and
>     shall lose the holding and title (and be homeless and impoverished)
>     should His Grace find the explanation inadequate.
>
> * Perhaps the serjeanty is one whose actual performance is dishonorable,
>   and the noble by serjeanty is going to plead that case, and offer a
>   traditional fine in lieu of performance (an example of such a
>   dishonorable serjeanty is found in English holdings, where the Russels
>   of Hemmingford held by the serjeanty of "on Christmas Day, every year,
>   before...the King...he should perform altogether and once, a Leap, a
>   Puff, and a Fart...").
>
>   Of course, fines in failure of serjeanty need not be in money, and
>   obtaining the requirements thereof provides openings for more 'quests'.
>
> * Perhaps the noble holds by scutage (and thus must pay his own expenses
>   for mustering and for a fixed period of initial service as defined in
>   the condition of holding each time he is called forth to the service),
>   and the noble he holds from needs to send a detachment of troops
>   somewhere, and has summoned him to perform his service.
>
> I've only barely scratched the surface of the possibilities, and that
> only because of unrelated discussion on other forums, which led to some
> links, and more links, and a badly scanned and unproofed e-book, and
> some random connections between neurons in the erratic pudding I
> sometimes dignify with the term "brain" (but which I occasionally doubt
> would provide any nourishment to a zombie).  But that often leads to the
> best kind of Traveller.  So... take the idea, and see where it leads
> you!
>
> Comments?
>
> ®Traveller is a registered trademark of
> Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2018. Use of
> the trademark in this notice and in the
> referenced materials is not intended to
> infringe or devalue the trademark.
>
> --
> Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
> Freelance Traveller
>     The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource
> xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com
> http://www.freelancetraveller.com
>
> Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
> enterprises for hosting services:
>
> onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io)
> The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)
> -----
> The Traveller Mailing List
> Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
> Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
> To unsubscribe from this list please go to
> http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=vSy3NFQJMSbZKrzPfC3XucFBsUCMtKrI