> Back in the times and places where noble titles were taken seriously as markers of increased social legitimacy, stripping people of them was an acknowledged thing.

It was not an "acknowledged thing." It was a bloody, brutal affair. Men fighting for titles is probably the one thing that measures up to religion in terms of lives lost.

And all of this before refuting the central point: the duke of some random duchy in 1305 had no "increased social legitimacy" in any way that matters to contemporary humans. He was able to petition whatever king he served, and he could rule over his own land insofar as someone with a bigger army didn't mind. It is, on face value, ridiculous that we're discussing this as a viable state of affairs.

That wasn't just men fighting for titles, it was quite literally men fighting for their turf. The modern equivalent would be an all-out war among drug cartels. Later on, with the onset of the early modern era powerful monarchies managed to check the violence and gradually turned noble titles into more of a social reward for public services rendered. This is the context that those who view "kings and aristocracies" positively might have in mind.

Well, that's an interesting point. Before we follow some far-right vision of restoring the nobility, we'd better find out exactly which version they have in mind. We'd also better think seriously about what constraints are going to be able to prevent it from turning into the worse version.

These fancy historical metaphors should be put next to actual modern examples of monarchy in action: the British and European aristocracy and the covert power they wield and the hidden wealth they hoard, the House of Saud and other Gulf Arab royals and their excesses, and what is the ruling regime of the DPRK if not a virtual monarchy under the Kims?

What nonsense. Generally the only way to remove a title was war, or in the rare case of a sufficiently powerful liege, to commit a serious crime against the them.