This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fereldan royalty and nobility article.
  • General discussions not pertaining to the improvement of the article should be held in Discussions instead.
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes! (~~~~)
  • Do not edit another editor's comment.

Moira Theirin Edit

Moira Theirin was only self-proclaimed as the Queen of Ferelden. She never held this position before her death. Subsequently I'm moving her to the princes section of the article. Viktoria Landers 22:15, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Consorts Edit

I think consorts should not be mentioned in the same list as the nobles who actually hold the title/position. Mentioning in the nobles' description to whom they are married to is the best solution I believe, since the consort is mentioned while still not listed with the others. Viktoria Landers 01:09, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

The subtitle is 'known royalty and nobility'. Consorts are royalty and nobility, just as much as their spouses. It's not for us to pick and chose who can be classed as Fereldan nobility, and who can't. You use the words "actually hold the title/position"; these spouses do actually hold the title and position. If Dragon Age has seen it that wives of nobles become entitled to equal rank as their husband, as is true in real life, they hold equal rank to their husband. It's not for us to decide otherwise.
This is somewhat akin to you deciding that Isolde and Eleanor Cousland must instead by titled 'Lady' rather than Arlessa and Teyrna. Alexsau1991 25px-Goddammit.svg.png (talk page) 13:30, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
Actually it is quite apparent with the case of the Human Noble. They are the consort, not the actual ruler. I am not saying that they are not nobility, but surely they do not have the full powers of that rank as long as their husband/wife rules. Hence they should not be listed in the same way as the non-consorts. Viktoria Landers 17:46, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
So long as they're labeled as consorts (which they are), I don't see a problem with listing them in that section. It seems logical to place them in the same section as their spouses, and where people would naturally look for them. Not everyone understands what a consort is, after all. Kelcat (talk) 17:54, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
They were indeed listed in that section before the page was reversed. Viktoria Landers 18:03, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

The term 'consort' applies ONLY to the spouse of the ruler, doesn't it? For every other case, the spouse holds the power and title equally with their husband or wife. If their husband or wife died, the spouse would continue to hold that power, and would retain their title. For the consorts of the ruler, if the ruler died, the consort might retain power if the nobility were okay with that (as was the case with Anora), or a Landsmeet would be called and they would be replaced. I've seen no indication that an equivalent of that latter process applies to arls or banns. -Sophia (talk) 18:24, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

This whole thing about titles for nobility is so confusing. If the term Consort is going to be used, can't a section be added explaining what it means? Rowan is described within the canon (and on the wiki) as Queen Rowan, and while I sort of understand now why she would be described as a consort, there's nothing anywhere on the wiki denoting that distinction. I can forsee this getting changed back and forth because people don't understand what the difference is. I don't support separating them out if there's not going to be any explanation as to why consorts are different from kings and queens, and why, within the article, they are not allowed to be grouped together.

As for "surely they do not have the full powers of that rank", I personally don't understand that assumption. We've got a few regular contributors who are obviously well-versed in the functions of nobility, but it's frankly a disservice to assume that everyone else understands it. Kelcat (talk) 18:30, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

I think the difference between Rowan and the Human Noble, say, is, 'because the writers said so'. I agree that it is much simpler to keep them under one heading, particularly as we can't point to a canon definition. -Sophia (talk) 18:35, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
It's not an assumption as it becomes quite clear in the case of Anora and a King-consort. Anyway, based on the consensus here, I've made some small tweaks on the page. Viktoria Landers 22:27, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Viktoria, I am in no doubt that Eleanor Cousland is not the ruler of Highever, but that wasn't my point. My point was that these consorts do "actually" hold the position/title, their marriage affords them equal rank to their husbands. Obviously that doesn't mean they rule their husbands territory, but it does mean that they are (in Eleanor's case) Teyrna of Highever. And as Teyrna, she is rightly listed under that section.

I do agree however that they should be noted as two whom these consorts, are consorts of. And quite honestly if people don't know what consort means, they can look it up. This game is rated 18 afterall.

And Sophia, the difference between the Human Noble and Rowan is inconsistency on the writers behalf. A female-noble is denoted as princess-consort at once instance, and as Queen of Ferelden at every other, matching Rowan and Anora. I think that one writer may have been so overeager to stress that the noble wasn't monarch, that s/he contradicted every other source. Alexsau1991 25px-Goddammit.svg.png (talk page) 22:33, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

My problem with using wife-of/husband-of over consort is that it doesn't denote which is the titular holder by right, and which by marriage. Alexsau1991 25px-Goddammit.svg.png (talk page) 22:35, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps that doesn't need to be mentioned? I say that because of the inconsistency within the game. Alistair is king by 'right' (blood), and Anora is referred to as Queen if she marries him. The male HN is prince-consort by marriage, but Anora is Queen, even though it is the Landsmeet's decision that they both rule, and she is of common blood, and the HN is of noble blood. She just "decides" that she will be the main ruler, despite the ruling of the Landsmeet. As the writers don't follow any sort of canon, perhaps insisting on a distinction between holding a title by right or by marriage is an unnecessary one? As an aside, I see that Mairyn, Rowan, and Anora are all referred to as consorts in the article. May I ask where that comes from? I thought every mention of each of those characters was as a queen, once they were married to their respective kings. -Sophia (talk) 22:46, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely. I see absolutely no reason to distinguish consorts from the ruling monarchs if they are not labeled as such within canon. It's confusing an uneccessary, again, especially because there is nothing anywhere explaining why these people are given the title of consort on this page, or why they need to be labeled as such rather than just king/queen. Kelcat (talk) 22:54, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we give these people the title consort, I'm suggesting we use it as a word of differentiation. Because that's what it is, a word. It only becomes a title if we put it immediately after King/Queen. But if consensus is against me on this, I won't push. Alexsau1991 25px-Goddammit.svg.png (talk page) 23:21, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Alamarri among the titles Edit

The title list lists Fereldan nobles as well as Alamarri ones. I wonder what is the consensus regarding that. Are we adding all the nobles we know that occupied the lands, or just Fereldan ones? Henio0 (talk) 08:33, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

That is correct, Alamarri nobility should not be listed in a page titled "Fereldan nobility". There is one exception of course, to the Alamarri nobles who became Fereldan nobles after the unification (such as Calenhad). Viktoria Landers 17:46, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Age of Landsmeet Edit

The article is on purpose vague regarding how long the Landsmeet has been around in Ferelden. Various timeline sources state that the Alamarri arrived in Ferelden in -1220 TE, so it cannot be held for 3000 years. Even the humans arrived in Thedas, 2800+ years ago. Subsequently, I think it should remain like this (vague), while a note about the inconsistency of Codex entry: Politics of Ferelden should be placed in the page of the codex entry. Viktoria Landers 16:58, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but -1200TE is some ~3350 years before 9:30 Dragon. You have the 1200 years of TE, then you have 1195 of Ancient Age, and 930 (or 939 or what have you) years till 9:30 Dragon. That leaves over 300 years for the Alamarri to hold the first Landsmeet and then continue to hold it for generations to come. Henio0 (talk) 17:58, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
You're actually right. I was in a hurry so I had confused the minus TE with minus Ancient. Okay the case is dropped :-P Viktoria Landers 11:53, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Title in list of title holders Edit

I just noticed that on the Orlesian royalty and nobility article we list the full name and title for each entry but on the Fereldan royalty and nobility we just list the name. I can't think of any reason both articles shouldn't follow the same style. I personally prefer the stlye we use for the orlesian page, but I wouldn't want to try to establish a style without a broader consensus. What do you think?

-HD3 Sig 07:22, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! You've been rocking the edits lately.
I'm a huge stickler for uniformity, so I agree it would be good if they looked similar. Personally, though, I think it's redundant to list the titles for each character like on Orlesian royalty and nobility, seeing as how they're all under title headers. --Kelcat Talk 08:09, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
See that was my original position as well, but then it occured to me that in some cases we only know the surnames of and titles of some nobles/royals. So if we used the Fereldan model we could wind up with situations where it is ambiguous. Baron Arlange for instance, under the model we use for the Orlesian page, we've got

Barons and Baronesses Edit

Baron Arlange

but under the one we use for fereldan

Barons and Baronesses Edit


so its unclear.

Whereas the model we use on the orlesian page avoids that. -HD3 Sig 08:15, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's true. Gender is difficult to tell on some of them without the title. I think it might be best to open the conversation up to a wider group, maybe on one or both of the talk pages. --Kelcat Talk 01:33, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

Arls Edit

So far I've found in Inquisition references to two former arls of Redcliffe: Arl Jacen Guerrin and Arl Tiranon Guerrin. I can't tell when they ruled, though, so I can't add them to the list since it's ordered chronologically. --Kelcat Talk 23:22, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.