Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of trying to define by example, let's use an actual definition: "A title of nobility grants special legal privileges to an individual at the expense of the rest of the people." If you have a different definition, that's fine, of course. Then we're just down to semantics, and I guess you could say I'm speaking metaphorically. But I hope you're not just excluding certain titles because they don't fit the precon…
Did you just make up that definition or do you have a citation? Because that definition isn't particularly useful: for instance, any elected or appointed office would then qualify as a "title of nobility"--a police officer has the legal privilege to execute warrants, detain people, and carry arms at the expense of the rest of the people (who must subsidize his training, equipment, operating expenses, and salary). Tha…
I'm not the first person to use such a definition. Here is one from over a century ago, from an opinion in a court case from Alabama:
"To "confer a title of nobility" is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 129, 142."
Again, if you have a different definition, fine. But don't accuse me of being dishonest when it's quite clear mine is at least as valid.