Talk:Ranks of nobility and peerage

The German ranks have always been and remained in a total mess, in particular seen from the rest of the world. That's no news.

For reference, I quote from http://firms.findlaw.com/vban/memo4.htm:

• The Reigning Houses from 1815-1918 were as follows: [3]
  • Emperors - Austria (1804-1918), Germany (1870-1918),
  • Kings - Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Wurtemberg, Hannover (1815-66).
  • Grand Dukes - Baden, Hesse & the Rhine, Luxemburg, [4] Mecklemburg-Schwerin, Mecklemburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, Saxe-Weimar und Eisenach.
  • Elector - Hesse(-Kassel) was the only state to retain this title after 1815 (1815-1866).
  • Reigning Dukes (1815-1918) - Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe-Altenburg (from 1826), Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Anhalt, Brunswick (1815-84, 1913-18), and Nassau (1815-66).
  • Reigning Princes (1815-1918) - Lippe, Schaumburg-Lippe, Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt (united 1909), Waldeck und Pyrmont, Liechtenstein, Hohenzollern-Hechingen & Hohenzollern-Siegmaringen (1815-1849), Reuss (senior line), Reuss (junior line).

• The ranks of former-Reigning & mediatised Houses after 1815 (Standesherren)
  • Landgraf - Hesse junior lines - Highness (Hoheit)
  • Mediatized Dukes [5] - Serene Highness (Reichsherzog & Durchlaucht)
  • Mediatized Princes - Serene Highness (Reichsfürst - Durchlaucht)
  • Mediatized Counts of Princely rank (elevated after 1806) - Serene Highness (Reichsgraf - Durchlaucht)
  • Mediatized Counts - Illustrious Highness (Reichsgraf - Erlaucht).

• All of the above rank above the non-mediatised noble Houses. The ranks of the latter are as follows:
  • Duke (Reichsherzog) - variously Serene Highness or High Born (Durchlaucht or Hochgeboren)
  • Prince (Reichsfürst) - variously Serene Highness, Princely Grace or High Born (Durchlaucht, Fürstliche Gnaden, or Hochgeboren)
  • Markgraf [6] - High Born (Hochgeboren)
  • LandGraf [7]
  • AltGraf - High Born (Hochgeboren)
  • RheinGraf - High Born (Hochgeboren)
  • WildGraf [8] - High Born (Hochgeboren)
  • ReichsGraf - High Born (Hochgeboren)
  • Reichsfreiherr - High Well Born (Hochwohlgeboren)
  • Reichsritter - High Well Born (Hochwohlgeboren)
  • Reichsherr - High Well Born (Hochwohlgeboren)

Footnotes

1. I.e. they held their lands by virtue of a grant from the Emperor, and owed him feudal homage.
2. Because of the sale of its immediate fief not included among the mediatized houses.
3. Not including those Houses elevated after 1806 to the rank of King or Grand Duke, which ranked accordingly.
4. United with the Crown of the Netherlands until 1890; then ceded to the former reigning Duke of Nassau.
5. Arenberg only; Looz-Corswarem although a Duchy was mediatised by right of the Principality of Rheina-Wolbeck.
6. The Pallavicini, and the Gonzaga, are still Markgrafen of the Holy Roman Empire; the latter are also Princes.
7. Only the Furstenbergs, a mediatised house, and the Hesse family, possess this title although the Saxon Dukes were entitled Landgrafs of Thuringia among their subsidiary titles.
8. The titles of Alt, Rhein and Wild Graf were ancient privileges which have been perpetuated by certain families but do not actually confer any particular precedence between them.

-- Ruhrjung 15:54 24 May 2003 (UTC)

---

I think some variant of this information should go into the article, as it is, at the least, far clearer than the present information, which is muddled and confused. Perhaps it would be best to split this article up and have separate articles about the levels of nobility in various different European countries. john 18:01 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Some variant of this information is what the article is build upon, but of course not only that. Muddled and confused it will remain as long as one attempts to generalize over time, and attempts to compare with the akin systems.
-- Ruhrjung 18:48 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking what's particularly useful about the stuff you quoted here is that it distinguished between the ranks of German ruling houses, German former ruling houses, and mere titles of nobility, and arranges them all. Seems to me what we should have is separate pages on a) British; b) German; c) French; d) etc. etc., ranks of nobility. The general page should stay very general, and mostly just link to the various national pages. Perhaps some discussion of how Dukes are higher than Counts who are higher than Barons would be useful.
john 19:05 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's a possibility. But the table above is still a 19th century snapshot (omitting such self-evident things as the Uradel, how to rank the offspring, and how to insert visiting foreign nobility in the rank list). ;-)

I was today rather thinking of how to produce something where the Slavic system could be but aside the German system put aside the British peer system. My idea is that in the literature (and in history) you do now and then encounter the systems which aren't native to you, or of an epoche not well known to you, and my ambition was to answer that type of curiosity, not neccessarily to reproduce the Almanack of Gotha.
-- Ruhrjung 19:31 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Not the mention the Hungarian system (and what about Spain?). -- Ruhrjung 20:31 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, some sort of comparative thing might be useful, but only, I think, if we have clear and competent articles describing the individual systems of nobility, which may, for the German case, at least, require reproducing the Alamanack of Gotha, to a greater or lesser extent. In general, the article as it is now is mostly confused. For instance, it says a duke is a "ruler of a duchy". This is certainly not true in the UK, where there are only two duchies (one of them not actually ruled by a Duke, but by the Queen), and many dukedoms held by various people. The article as it stands is simply confusing. Perhaps "feudal rank" is a bad subject for an article and this should be merged with "titles of nobility".
john 19:37 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't suited for footnotes, otherways that had been a solution, for instance to note that Britain's dukes don't rule. (Which the dukes have done in the article since November 23rd.)

There are some clear principles, which need to be illustrated, then there are a number of less clear but nevertheless central peculiarities, arising for instance from historical development and from problems of translation (Prinz -- Fürst), then there are a host of details which by their pure number gives any reader an impression of uncalculability.

My headache is how to focus on grand principles and on important pit falls without generalizing away the truth.

Good articles on the respective systems would be perfect in this context, but immediately the question arises: which systems? ;-)

There is an article on the Scandinavian systems, which is included in a corpus I've aquired permission to quote from (although better not in extenso) at www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/scn/adel.html. Maybe that's the best I can contribute with. If it will be within your reach to write the respective articles on the different systems, maybe you'll discover that the overview in the end has almost written itself.
-- Ruhrjung 20:31 24 May 2003 (UTC)

At some point soon, I'll try to work on the German and British systems. The article on [[peerage]] has some stuff on the British system, but it could use some tightening up, and more details. I want to try to be clear on styles for both peers and their relations. As far as the German goes, I'll try to work on that, as well, although it's monstrously confusing, since you've got sovereign houses, mediatized houses, old imperial nobility, new nobility (created by the King of Bavaria, or what not), and so forth, with the title held not actually meaning very much. I don't know enough about the French or Spanish or Italian nobilities to contribute anything very useful there. (Ah, I've edited the Peerage article a bit, although still a bit choppy)
john 21:11 24 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Moved this because the name is more accurate as it is now. The other article name implied a regularization of office that certainly did not exist throughout most of the Middle Ages -- in fact, it looked dangerously close to the model known as the feudal pyramid -- something long debunked. WIth this title, there is none of the baggage that comes with feudal relationships, plus it allows for comparison of ranks between different areas at different times -- something everyone should remember. A count is not always the same thing. Did you know, for example, that one of Charlemagne's counts was a slave? JHK

I agree with your decision to move it. This is a much better title for the article. I just added some clarification on German ranks, although I'm not sure it's completely accurate. I might try to add something about royal and noble styles, since I think that would fit here as well, although the styles I'm familiar with are pretty much 19th century phenomena... john 21:52 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Because I love those monkey wrenches/spanners ... The Golden Bull (1358, I think?) names the imperial Electors -- at what point do they become Kuerfuersten? I ask because they all had their own titles too, IIRC, The DUke of Saxony, King of Bohemia, Archbishops of Mainz, Trier, and Koeln, COunt Palatine of the RHein, and one other that slips my mind. Just wondering, and hoping it helps to give this page more explanatory and organizational stuff so it doesn't get misused by amateur genealogists, etc. JHK

1356 and the Margrave of Brandenburg. After 1356 they were Kurfürsten. However, from what I recall, they were never "Kurfürsten von Sachsen" or whatever, they were Kurfürsten, and also Duke of Saxony. The Elector of Hanover, I'd add, is a completely made up title. They were Dukes of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Imperial Electors, but not Electors (or anything else, for that matter) of Hanover. Not sure why they are universally called such. Anyway, the whole thing is a mess, given changes over time and region. I'm not sure how this can be done clearly. john 04:43 26 May 2003 (UTC)