the five dukedoms : the rise , the fall and matters of inheritance .
at the end of pandora hearts , “ the four great dukes were devested of their titles ” . let’s talk about the consequences .
at the start there were only 3 knows dukedoms : baskervilles , who held the doors to the abyss , nightrays , who served baskervilles , and rainsworth , who were rated to the crown . all of them were of the same level of society and peerage .
nightray being also a also a dukedom , implies a personal allegiance , not a feudal one . think political alliance , guardianship , or custodianship over dangerous knowledge . they were not beneath them — they were complicit with them . rainsworth having blood ties to the crown tracks perfectly . that’s your “ old legitimacy ” house , the kind that survives catastrophes by being polite , and genetically adjacent to the throne .
now , about the newcomers : vessalius and barma .
in real european systems , a dukedom isn’t just a fancy hat . it’s land , income , vassals , courts , hereditary rights , and — crucially — legal continuity . the baskervilles being a dukedom means they were near the top of the feudal pyramid , likely second only to the crown . their fall should have triggered one of only a few legal outcomes .
one : attainder . the family is declared traitorous , their lands confiscated by the crown . titles extinguished , estates absorbed . in this case , the land would revert directly to the monarch , not magically redistribute itself to unrelated houses unless explicitly re - granted .
two : partition . the crown breaks the dukedom apart and redistributes pieces to loyal nobles .
which is exactly how barmas and vessalius get the lands and therefore income — those were that of baskervilles originally .
the vessalius family being elevated from viscounts to dukes using chains taken from the baskervilles is … legally deranged . in real terms , that’s like saying “ you looted the crown jewels and took their military , therefore you’re now a duke . ” however , gaining a title in exchange for the service to the crown , is more logical . power does not create legitimacy ; legitimacy creates permission to wield power . the crown rewarding abyssal control with noble rank would imply the monarchy was weak and desperate enough to formalize an illegal power structure rather than confront it . the existence of chains becoming public knowledge actually helped to soften the humiliating look on the crown , actually , by explaining why the crown did what it did .
barma situation is even worse . non nobles being elevated to a dukedom would require international treaties , land grants , and recognition by the existing peerage . otherwise , every old house would be sharpening knives . titles are social contracts . you can’t just add new dukes like its a game . vessaliuses were vicounts , so while strange , it would be more explainable than barmas . a real life example of that would be first duke of wellington getting his dukedom in exchange for service to the country ( except he was already a son of the lord ) or earls of devonshire becoming dukes of devonshire .
100 - years - later revocation is where it gets complicated .
revoking four dukedoms at once implies the crown finally admits : the last century was legally invalid , the elevation of vessalius and barma was a political emergency measure , and the baskerville fall was unjust — or at least incomplete .
the baskervilles could seize — or more accurately reclaim — lands that were originally theirs , but only through very specific legal and political pathways . the fact that barma is extinct and vessalius is reduced to a single female heir makes this dramatically easier .
first : original ownership matters a lot .
if it can be demonstrated that vessalius and barma lands were carved out of confiscated baskerville territory rather than newly granted crown land , the legal fiction holding those dukedoms together becomes fragile . especially if their elevation is retroactively judged illegitimate — which the mass revocation of dukedoms strongly implies .
second : barma being extinct is basically an engraved invitation .
in most european systems , when a noble line dies out , their lands revert to the crown unless there’s a named heir or binding settlement . but here’s the trick : the crown can then re - grant those lands to whoever it pleases . if the monarchy is restoring baskerville legitimacy , barma lands would be the easiest to return . no heirs to object .
third : vessalius is the complicated one .
a single young heir doesn’t automatically lose everything . in fact , historically , lone female heirs were often protected because dispossessing them looked ugly and destabilizing .
since vessalius relinquished power rather than having it stripped , that reads like an admission that the title was contingent . in real terms , that’s saying : “ we agree this should not continue . ” at that point , the crown could split the outcome :
– allow her to retain personal estates or income
– dissolve the dukedom as a political unit
– return territorial authority to baskerville while sparing her socially
fourth : the baskervilles wouldn’t seize — they’d be reinstated .
if the restoration is framed as correcting a historical wrong rather than conquest , then the baskervilles don’t look aggressive . they look inevitable . the language would be “ reversion , ” “ restoration , ” “ continuity of title . ” the kind of words that make theft sound like destiny .
fifth : dukedoms relinquishing power is the quietest confession imaginable .
if vessalius and barma willingly step down they are conceding that their authority was situational , not inherent . that clears the moral ground for baskerville return .
so the most realistic outcome looks like this :
barma and vessalius lands revert almost entirely to baskerville control .
vessalius loses ducal authority but the daughter is spared disgrace , possibly retaining a lesser title or pension .
ransworth lands are siezed by the crown , and so are nightray's , as even through gilbert and vincent are alive as heirs , the dukedom is still being divested .
