OBT Forum

Cool I got to look at my copy

Feudal? I don't think so or not a pure feudal thing.
It looks more like a mix between feudal, the Church and the Roman Empire.

The "feudal system," or Peer List as it existed in the Hegemony—you were correct with M. Cameron being the progenitor of its creation—was titles & rewards for service rendered.

The service was broadly defined to include anything that improved the Hegemony or its people.

The Peer List is really the furthest thing from a true feudal system as one can get. It's a faux feudalism that simply offers incentive (and fun titles with land grants) for individuals—of their own volition—to improve the nation & its people.

Micheal's Peer List doesn't include the most important component of feudalism: the conference of actual lordship or the right to rule.

I was just thinking how Terran nobility went from a meritocracy to a more feudal model perhaps do to the Star League. The Peerage List starts out as a reward for achievement - that is well documented. What evolves and the text really doesn't say it outright is a crony system as evidenced by the Amaris Coup. By the end of the Star League it would surprise me that many noble lines have been granted hereditary claim on their titles. I mean House Cameron started down this road itself and why not their closest friends. Closer ties with the Great Houses of the Inner Sphere over Humanity's Golden Age would only enhance the problem with Terran nobles whining about their neighbors inheritance and growing envious. It makes for quite a stark difference especially if Traditional Terran nobles who earn their titles find their achievements diminished by the trust fund crowd.

Well lets talk High Council as it seems to be leading the discussion at the moment. Page 14 of the SLSB says that;

Immediately below “the Director” was the High Council, nine of the most qualified Planetary Governors chosen by the Director-General. The High Councilors advised the Director-General on affairs of state and served as watchdogs over the bureaucracy. High Councilors served at the discretion of the Director-General or until voluntary retirement.

I went beyond this blurb and delved into the SLSB for further references on important powers and persons of the High Council. First and foremost is the Nomination of the Director-General which is showcased several times. The first case occurs after the death of founder James McKenna when they put forth two nominees to the people for confirmation. This plebiscite occurs in nearly every case but the High Council varies its nomination process depending upon circumstances. Sometimes an heir is put forth as the sole nominee while other occasions have them search for a more suitable candidate. It is also important to note that no candidate put forth by the Council was rejected by the Terran people.

Executive Oversight indicated in the original Hegemony Charter section went far beyond “bureaucratic watchdogs” and extended to the ruling House in one case. Page 25 of the SLSB has the High Council prosecuting Brian Cameron on behalf of his dead brother, Director Raymond Cameron. While the case they put together was dismissed by the Supreme Court I find the investigation an interesting note on their power.

The most well known High Councilor (as I can’t find any other) was Lady Terens Amaris (wonder which Hegemony world elected her Governor?) whose role in the investigation of attempted murder of Director Jacob Cameron would lead her to the Rim Worlds and the eventual establishment of a new dynasty.

Also the intervention of the High Councilors is said to have prevented the complete collapse of the Terran Hegemony during the rule of Elizabeth Cameron whose apathetic reign saw the economy and military of the realm suffer because of her extravagance.

When the Star League is formed things become confusing between High Councils. I refer to the Terran High Council here after as the Hegemony Council. However after the creation of the League the Star Council assumes not only the same name but similar roles. Indeed the diagram on page 180 of the SLSB has the High Councilors, presumably of the Hegemony Council, as part of the High Council of the Star League.

So it seems to me that the High (Hegemony) Council functioned a lot like the Cabinet of the United States although there isn’t any indication that each member had an area of expertise (Secretary of State, Defense, Treasury, etc.). Unlike the Cabinet they have real power that is second only to the Director-General in the Hegemony hierarchy. Don't forget their consent was also required for the Director Pro Tem (President of the Terran Congress) to govern in the absence of the Director-General.

Also as I wonder about Provincial Leaders (I call them Governor-Generals) of the Terran Hegemony were they automatically on the Council?

What do you guys think?

In some details the Missus Dominicus applies, but these are already Planetary Governors so they would have affiliation beyond just the Director-General.

On elections and referendums, once the Camerons started designating their own heirs it probably was a matter of them taking office barring massive and widespread opposition. And the Terran Alliance cast a long shadow over democracy in the Inner Sphere with elections being carried out under firm restrictions against showboating.

It's probably not a surprise that turn-out for elections wasn't historically very high in the Hegemony. I can't find the figure but something like 10% as average I think. Can anyone verify that?

Imagine that every slur we casually heap upon elected politicians - power-hungry, venal, vote-chasing, bought-and-sold-by-lobbyists - is pretty much the average actual status of the government for seventy years.

Democracy was pretty much dead. No one had great faith in the process, and a strong military leader who really did have the trains on time and the government doing something other than gnawing upon itself really did look like the way forwards.

That was even starker outside the Terran Alliance: democracy had abandoned the colonies (even the loyal colonies) and strong, decisive leaders were valued over voting.