No, it is trivial to the discussion, which is 'should we have a seperate coin minter profession'.
The reason I brought up the right to do so being rare is because it would indicate that coin minting might be more likely to be a privilege that a fort gains as it grows into a barony or county. Who gives that privilege, whether it is the baron, count, king or a particularly authoritative fruit tree, doesn't matter. DF could proly randomly generate the rule, maybe even during the law and customs arc.
What is important is that it probably means there's no point to having a separate coin minter profession as your blacksmiths would not be able to mint proper coins until the fort is an official location for a mint. Coins don't even need more than a face value for this, traders can just deny the coins on the basis that they're afraid that the coins are not following the kingdom standards for coins.
Now what would be interesting to discuss is to introduce false money, but that'd be a seperate suggestion thread
I don't think false money is a separate suggestion thread at all.
I don't think anything ever got granted the right to mind money by a higher authority. Either money-minting is unrestricted overall for everybody or you already had the right to mind a currency from before you were subject to said higher authority. The reason why nobody will grant subordinates the right to print their own money is that doing so is going to reduce the value of your *own* money isn't it? If minting is restricted, this in effect a monopoly but what monopolist is going to deliberately create competition to themselves.
This being said, being able to mint money should be restricted to the capital. When we become the capital we should be able to mint money, but with the economy there should be a demand from the existing AI capital for metal in order to mint coins, a demand we could meet.
In fact, it was the Principalty of Dombes, in Trévoux, until 1729; this territory used to be "land of Empire."
DombesThe location makes sense. It is very much outside of the core French territory (the north minus Brittany and Alsace-Lorraine) so it probably had the right to it's own currency owing to being legally speaking outside of France. The confusing thing about France is that many of it's regions (Lorraine, Burgundy, Arles, Aquitaine) were actually independent kingdoms but were then conquered or inherited by France. But France did not actually have legal authority over those places even though they have executive authority, in effect the French king was allowed to rule provided he did so according to local rather than core French laws.
The origins of this situation I am a bit hazy about. That is because originally we had Charlemagne and his Holy-Roman-Empire, which was originally based in what became or maybe even was France but we ended up with the German HRE in the end rather than a French one. It all hinges of course on the Pope, who had to loan the title of HRE to the would-be emperor who was otherwise referred to as King of Germany technically, that being because the pope *is* the Roman Emperor. In any case having that title empowered the ruler to pass laws either directly or by calling an Imperial Diet (parliament) to do so, which is why the title is so valued.
I'm guessing that the French situation came about because originally those were essentially local by-laws and Charlemagne could pass laws for the whole of 'what we now think of as' France on the basis of his HRE status. Once France becomes separated from the HRE, the French king ceases to be able to pass laws for the whole of 'what we now think of' as France because legally speaking France is much smaller and the other kingdoms while held by the same king are technically equal.