Lore reason why the ruler titles don’t sound monarchical?

[Cameron122]

excluding first prince and first lord, most of the ruler titles sound like a modern day republican title. Why is this? Director-General, Chancellor, Coordinator, etc are all really cool to be seen used in this context, and in real life the Roman Emperorship began (and in a way always was) as a combination of republican offices. Why is there no king or emperor in the Inner Sphere? Did all the great houses start out as Republics?

 

[WhiteChapel]

excluding first prince and first lord, most of the ruler titles sound like a modern day republican title. Why is this? Director-General, Chancellor, Coordinator, etc are all really cool to be seen used in this context, and in real life the Roman Emperorship began (and in a way always was) as a combination of republican offices. Why is there no king or emperor in the Inner Sphere? Did all the great houses start out as Republics?

Most of the positions evolved from appointed or elected positions to become hereditary. Calling yourself King or Emperor A) sounds gauche and B) gives the republican elements an easy rallying cry. Plus Stefan Amaris kind of tainted the Emperor title.

 

[Deaghaidh]

Remember that real life titles often have prosaic roots. IIRC Prince is derived from the Latin word for First. Octavian didn't want to be King, just "First Citizen." Emperor, Duke, Count all come from military ranks. So things like Captain-General, Coordinator, Chancellor, etc as hereditary titles fits.

 

[Iracundus]

The Capellan ruler's title in English is titled Chancellor. However, if you look in the House Handbook and the actual Chinese characters, it is titled 皇帝 (Emperor), not 宰相 (Chancellor) or any of the other Chinese variations that translate to Chancellor.

 

[Aristocra]

excluding first prince and first lord, most of the ruler titles sound like a modern day republican title. Why is this? Director-General, Chancellor, Coordinator, etc are all really cool to be seen used in this context, and in real life the Roman Emperorship began (and in a way always was) as a combination of republican offices. Why is there no king or emperor in the Inner Sphere? Did all the great houses start out as Republics?

I will add that there TWO examples of Kings, but they are in the Periphery: Hendrik Grimm of Oberon Confederation and the King of the Castllian Principalities.

The main reason I think that the Inner Sphere had no Kings, is because some worlds had Kings when they were independent.

Altair had a King when they entered into an alliance with Shiro Kurita of the then-Alliance of Galedon(soon to become the Draconis Combine).

Altair would soon be annexed into the Terran Hegemony.

The idea behind the Great Houses was unifying a multitude of worlds and peoples, which meant a more Imperial flavor to the titles or the idea that the Sovereign was appointed or elected by the noble representatives of multiple worlds(this election is literal in the case of more than one Marik Captain-General and nearly every Canopian Magistrix).

Simply put, King no longer cut to represent such wide swaths of humanity.

 

[BCGaius]

Why would they have kings? Kings are a feudal Germanic concept from the Iron Age as raucous tribes marauded across Europe in the wake of Rome's collapse forming glorified tribal holdings. And as you yourself note, the Principate clung to delusions of republicanism, with 'emperor' only being a neologism that derives from the word for commander. The Romans despised kings; why would an ascendant, enlightened space-faring humanity have much love for them either? Far better to comfort oneself with the delusions of faux-republican titles, as most good dictators wrap themselves in.

 

[Deaghaidh]

Another way to frame it: modern day despots don't claim ancient-sounding titles from their countries, they stick with President or Chairman or the like. Because they want to project an air of legitimacy and modernity. Even if they are in fact autocrats who inherited their power from a dynasty of two or three generations.