On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Mark A Mandel wrote: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Dennis Higbee wrote: > > #On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Mark A Mandel wrote: > #> > #> I don't think so. But I suspect that not all Dragons belong to named > #> lines. > # > #I disagree. Dragons are nobility, and I would be very willing to bet > #that they all have a surname specifying their line. > > All Dragaerans in the Empire are nobility, except Teckla and the rare > outcast, such as Leareth. One way to look for evidence, though it > wouldn't be proof either way: How many Dragons do we hear of by name? > How many of them are identified by line? That was sort of my point. If all Dragons are nobility (and we know they are), why would there be one set of Dragaons with last names and another set without? _Dragon_ has the most Dragons in it, obviously, and there is a wide enough cross-section of Dragons with surnames to make me think that having one isn't a deliniation of "high" nobility. We know that Napper is e'Drien and Virt is e'Terics, and Napper, at least, doesn't strike me as a nob on the level of Morrolan e'Drien or Fornia e'Lanya. I don't remember if Aelburr's line is given and I'm fairly sure that Ori's wasn't, but that could just as easily be because Vlad didn't know or feel like sharing their lineage. -Dennis