Hiya!! So England's noble system is not exactly my best subject, but I can probably take you up to Henry VII (~1500) though not really beyond that. The heart of your question seems to be asking if there was subinfeudation in England during this period, the answer to which is for the most part, no. Subinfeudation had actually been abolished in the 1200s with the Quia Emptores statute, which explicitly prohibited alienation of land under terms of vassalage, permitting only sales of land where the new owner had to fulfill the obligations of the old to the King. As far as I know most members of the peerage were never really sub-infeudated anyway, they were tenants-in-chief to the king and held their dignities from him.

As far as powers, rights, privileges, and "ruling," this really depended. Most of the stuff was fairly basic, most peers had the right to trial by peers (effectively the House of Lords), they could be summoned to sit in the King's council to give advice, etc. "Ruling" land is tricky because it varied. Marcher lords and palatinate titles generally were allowed many powers that we might associate with ruling such as building fortifications, holding their own councils, having their own limited bureaucracy. But these positions were either along borders, or were often held by the royal family. They were required to provide some degree of service to the King, though by this point this could be handled via scutage tax rather than personally outfitting and leading soldiers.

As for the titles and a "hierarchy," I don't think one existed to the degree to which you might think. The title of Duke was only created in the 1300s and was initially only granted to descendants of the King. It was a creation of Edward III, but I can't necessarily find a specific reason for its creation (previous kings had granted their sons earldoms) other than to set his sons above the rest of the nobility. Earls and barons were extremely old titles originating from the Norman era, but I don't really know much about viscounts and marquesses as I believe they were created later.

As for differences between them, it is really hard to say, especially if you are looking for some kind of hard and fast "feudal system" throughout the country. While they may not expressly hold any judicial or administrative powers, they could be appointed by the King to important offices such as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Captain of Calais, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sheriff of a shire, etc. However, by and large their power and wealth came from the land that they owned and received revenue from. As the country destabilized into the Wars of the Roses, affinities, retainers who held livery and gave military service to various noblemen also became common, though they were freely associated rather than vassals. Royal dukes were generally very prestigious due to their novelty, as the King sought to provide his sons with wealth and prestige and these resources were fairly new. Other titles may have ebbed and flowed depending on the fortunes of the family over time. There were incredibly powerful earls and barons who may not have held a more prestigious title, but there also could be men who mostly just held their title.

To give some examples, during the Wars of the Roses, two of the most powerful noblemen in England were the Duke of York and the Earl of Warwick. The Duke of York was a descendant of Edward III twice-over, and held much of the resources of the original Dukes of York and Clarence, as well as the Mortimer inheritance, making him second only to the King. The Earl of Warwick also held the Earldom of Salisbury and had claimed the Despenser fortune, despite "only" being an Earl in title. So as with most things, the power and differences between political actors depended on the context rather than on the title. A person who was in favor with the King may hold extensive offices and be better able to expand their fortune through those positions. Others may already have vast family fortunes to begin with. The titles do not necessarily give a good idea of their power.

I hope all of this was helpful both regarding the "power" of various titles and the concept of subinfeudation. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or want follow up.

Sources:

The Birth of Nobility: Constructing Aristocracy in England and France 900-1300 by David Crouch, 2005

Warwick the Kingmaker by AJ Pollard, 2007

The Wars of the Roses by AJ Pollard

Political Life in England 1300-1450 by Mark Ormrod, 1995