Why didn't Eurobenises of the 1500's-1600's create new noble titles in the Americas and other """"""""uninhabited""""""""" places they colonized at the time.
Lots of places to be Duke/Count of Something.
>>1063967
They did, but there wasn't much.
Plus they have shit like encomienda which is basically like a feudal fief.
There was a good thread on /r/askhistorians about this
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4bplqg/why_was_the_peerage_system_never_extended_to_the/
>>1063967
Brits and French didn't. Spain and Portugal did. The heir of Portugal's throne is called the "Duke of Braganza" and "Prince of Brazil."
In Spain, it's a different case. Some places had governors, but places with existing elaborate Aristocratic structures (i.e. Mexico and the Philippines) saw Spaniards promoting native nobility to lesser Spanish nobility called the "Principalia."
It was daughters from these aristocratic families that many Spaniards end up marrying. Hence Mestizoness is often equated with belonging to the upper class in those societies.
>>1063967
Because in the 1500s and 1600s whole colony regions were really just one small town plus all the area where the settlers could legally hunt, mine, collect wood, fight in, and build. And being the count of a town of around 200 people is not preferable to being a count back in Europe.
>>1063967
Because a lot of European settlers to the americas left exactly because they wanted to leave behind the feudal system. Feudalism in the new world would have been a massive bump on the migration
because at 16th-17th century nobility was already dying
>>1063983
This. Spain and Portugal did.
>>1063967
They did.
This is the title given to descendents of Moctezuma:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Moctezuma_de_Tultengo
This is the one of Hernán Cortés:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquisate_of_the_Valley_of_Oaxaca
An article about how Indian nobility was recognized:
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28121081_Tan_principes_e_infantes_como_los_de_Castilla_analisis_historico-juridico_de_la_nobleza_indiana_de_origen_prehispanico
The Spanish Crown, while as shown, did give and recognize titles and noble status, it also pourposely did avoid the creation of a great landowner nobility which could became too powerful (like that of Andalusia for example), and focused her administrative apparatus on cities and towns, in the Castilian ways.
>>1063967
Colonies were not a source of much military power, they were at the mercy of the King and the centralized navy. So instead of dukes with political power there were governors and other bureaucratic positions.
>>1063983
>Brits and French didn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_peers_and_baronets
Why do you enjoy being such a liar? A dirty, disgusting liar?
>>1063967
Duke of california
Vicount of virgina
Earl of missouri
Prince of nevada
It could have worked
>>1064414
Seriously?
If a bunch of nobles managed to establish European style holdings in North Amercia, USA will literally be
>HOLY
>ROMAN
>EMPIRE.
Because the nobility at the time was confined to mostly some symbolic offices, parliament and small fiefs.
It made no sense to give them more power, when all of that land was owned by the crown.
>>1064436
>the Americans have a fully fledged peerage during the revolution
>the upper house becomes the American House of Lords
>it becomes an integral part of the constitution and becomes even harder to reform than the British version.
>American peers create a series of earldoms and lairdships across the west
>injun chiefs become baronets and marquises. "Sitting Bull, 1st baronet of Siouxland"
>their descendants become whitewashed ivy league poshos who unironically play polo and breed race horses in neo-gothic country seats
>>1063967
In the spanish colonies they actually create new noble titles, some native nobility like in the incas case were allowed to keep their nobility and properties if they converted to christianity, although many of them were stripped of their assets and properties after the Tupac Amaru II rebellion in 1780.
