Jump to content

Talk:Nobility

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Altenmann (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 8 April 2004 (=Protected= : british are enough). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Early talk

I propose, moving the article at Ranks of nobility and peerage to here and merging with Titles of nobility and noble. I think the article at peerage is sufficiently well rounded to remain as it is, where it is.

Should the femenine versions of the titles be added? Theanthrope 16:51 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the formatting but perhaps someone else can add the following femenine versions of the titles.

Duke - Duchess Duc - Duchesse Duca - Duchessa Duque - Duquesa Prince - Princess Prince - Princesse Principe - Principessa Príncipe - Princesa Earl / Count - Countes Comte Conte - Contessa Conde

How about nobility outside Europe? wshun 04:01 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I made the merger of several different entries on Nobility ("Noble", "Ranks of nobility and peerage", and "Title of nobility") in an effort avoid unnecessary duplication. Following this the German comital titles were spun off to Graf. There is still duplication in Royal and noble styles and the question whether or not to integrate that also is still open. Apart from this I think that the article itself is in quite a sorry state, and I feel that a more comprehensive approach is needed, and that would start with some form of basic outlay or definition of what constitutes a nobility. This should not be limited to the European Nobility, but have a more universal approach. -- Mic 15:04 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Doesn't nobility have to be granted/enforced by the government? And isn't it usualy associated with royalty/monarchy? The way it's described right now, Bill Gates could be a noble... -- Khym Chanur 08:55, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

Nobility is a category contained within aristocracy, which is a term of wider application. Japanese nobles vis-a-vis samurai. Useful ideas for anyone working on this complicated sunject can be found in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. Is Burke's Peerage or G.E.C. Cockaigne useful too? Wetman 14:34, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The US is not a feudal realm (or is it?) so what sense does comparing an emperor to the US president, etc, make? --Kpalion 14:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Many Americans are unaware of the relevance of feudalism in general and don't know what it constitutes or how to compare it to their own system. I simply added vaguely corresponding ranks of American usage to show that feudalism is in no way an outmoded idea, when the American nation espouses so much feudalism to this day. Just because bloodlines aren't always a primary factor today, doesn't exactly change the basic structure. Kenneth Alansson 14:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This kind of comparison is simply not appropriate for an International encyclopaeida. Mintguy (T) 17:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Similarly, anachronistic discussion of middle-class working-class etc.. is not appropriate for an article titled nobility. Mintguy (T) 17:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sure it is, my closeminded dictator! I'm sure that you make many friends with this behaviour! Kenneth Alansson 01:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If Americans are unaware of the relevance of feudalism then this encyclopedia should make them aware of it instead of escaping to silly, irrelevant comparisons which actually suggest that e.g. the British queen and the US vice-president are equivalents which is of course ridiculous! --Kpalion 03:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I made vague comparisons. That is clear. I agree that trying to pass them over as strictly equivalents don't work between any separate system. Giving an approximation for people to see, would be fine . The queen may be up pretty high, and is very bossy, but Blair has de facto power as pm. This is reflected in the Bush administration, where it is actually vp Cheney who has the influence in comparison to Bush, who is a figurehead like the queen, at least in this administration. This is shown at home, but I am sure in the foreign policies and UK Commonwealth and the US territories, the Queen and Bush share greater weight respectively. Perhaps you misunderstood my treatment, and I suppose that is natural given my vagueness. Kenneth Alansson 06:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Article title

I reverted the last move, since neither old nor new title correspond the content. I thought of Social hierarchy, but the title is already taken. Before any further renaming, let's discuss the title first. Second, please don't forget to fix double redirects.

The problem is that the article collected a good deal of text about non-nobles. I see two solutions: (a) a more general title; (b) splitting article in two (or more).

Any suggestions? Mikkalai 01:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, there are two drawbacks of the article: (1) poor definition of "Nobility" and (2) the article overwhelmingly speaks of European nobility, hence the title must correspond. Thus, I see the article to be split into three: (a) Nobility, Commoner, European nobility (and kill all comparison to USA; one may easily operate in Euro). Mikkalai 02:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, into four: kings and emperors are not nobles, they are Sovereigns. The article is a total mess now. Mikkalai 02:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Mikkalai, how about it be a table of all the ranks I described along with a separate table for different languages, then the links to all the ranks? Kenneth Alansson 02:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that the article definitely should be split in (at least) two: one about nobility in general - it's origins, role, etc. (including non-Western European feudal systems), and the other one about aristocratic ranks and titles. Note that such elaborate systems of nobility ranks were often unknown outside Western Europe (in Poland the use of titles was even prohibited due to the principle of nobles' equality). --Kpalion 03:17, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kpalion hit it dead-on! That works very well. This should be a comparative study. Kenneth Alansson 04:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About American audience

I repeat. Please do not assume an American audience. This article is called "nobility". Baronets, esquire etc.. are not members of the nobility. The anachronistic comparisons to modern concepts of middle class etc.. are simply not appropriate. I have put a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage for people to come here and comment. Mintguy (T)

This business of suggesting comparions between feudal nobility and the United States is beyond ludicrous, it offends me both as an American and as a historian. America does not have a tiered system. I suppose it can look that way, but to suggest a feudal organization belies a great ignorance. Mackensen 14:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

LOL! I knew I had it coming to me. Refuse all you want, but every society has a class system, otherwise, it wouldn't function at all. See the system how you will, nonetheless, our country was founded by aristocrats who molded the society's rules in the fashion they best knew. I myself derive of aristocratic-bordering-humble roots and have no difficulty with the comparisons, they seem relatively accurate. I may have been an outspoken patriot of the USA in my youth, but I never let my heart get in the way of my head for my political analyses, Mackensen, except when I foolishly thought the New England Patriots were the best football team in the nation.

I myself have found where I stand in my econosocial affairs and since making the comparisons, understand better how to remedy my ills or fuck them up worse. I assure you that my comparisons are quite helpful for people in de-monarchised worlds to see how they would rate(without the bloodlines) in a monarchised world and how they rate in their own world much better to understand what amount of political power concentration they and the next person has. It is the myth of every country to believe they are better than the next by labeling everything different. Regardless of the lingual terminology used, the situations are often quite comparable. It is extremely difficult to assert a society non-relatable according the same functions or close in others.

Of course, this is able to exist in comparing oneself to a collective, because individuals are more able to decidedly and furiously present their one-sided beliefs. It seems that individuality as represented in the US is well stated in the initials US, all about "us". Rest assured, you aren't on the whole so much different than others. Your government even purports to other countries that they need the American Way. Now, if that is so true, then that would reflect the material status of the Americans they wish to share with, but of course the Americans are trying to monopolise the way as being "theirs that everybody wants". That in itself is ludicrous, but helps make money. My Wikipedian contributions aren't intended to POV for the American cause, bringing economical fortitude likewise, either.

How does America dominate the economies? Simple, capitalism=feudalism. Need I remind you of the current issues about the tensions arisen all over the Middle East right now? They are angry at Uncle Sam, who has put them under his boot for monetary profit, literally, manipulating and abusing them. The day we all step out of this idealistic fantasy you hold will be a miracle. I'd like to say that I was once weak and cowardly like you once, to turn my eyes away from the blatant true in this matter because my pride was akin to racehorse blinders. I am happy to have been strong enough, to defy the person who would tell me to shut my eyes, which would have only assured them of the safety they were deluding themselves about. I don't live a sheltered life yet I still love my parents who tried to get me to help them pretend like you Mackensen. Kenneth Alansson 15:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hm.. I see you have something of a history with regard to adding less than entirely accurate information to articles. (Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#User:Kenneth_Alan) I see no need for further discussion. Mintguy (T)

You are continuing ad hominemisms with me. You're not so perfect either, "buddy". I'd quit pointing that finger if I were you, it might get bit off. Ah-ha! I get it, you believe you are in mint condition, which is why you have that screen name and your chief edits are about aryanism, ah yes, that's right, the nobility topics; who's better than who. Well, I don't purport to be better than you. On another note(getting back to business), what Kpalion suggested earlier works very well. I assume from your bearing Mintguy, that ignoblity has no relation to the nobility, as you seem openly against including them referenced in an article together. Oh! Would that devalue the nobility's prominence??? A pity, not. They all deserve comparative analysis to demonstrate the intrinsic social values of each in relation to the others, showing the web of society, after all, without the ignobility to stomp on, there wouldn't be a nobility, Mintguy. Kenneth Alansson 16:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Scope of the article and removing info

A reasonable phrase from unreasonable quarrel above:

I assume from your bearing Mintguy, that ignoblity has no relation to the nobility, as you seem openly against including them referenced in an article together. Oh! Would that devalue the nobility's prominence??? A pity, not. They all deserve comparative analysis to demonstrate the intrinsic social values of each in relation to the others, showing the web of society, after all, without the ignobility to stomp on, there wouldn't be a nobility, Mintguy. Kenneth Alansson 16:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


About latest reverts: There was improper attempt to remove factual info (poor Baronets :-). If you think they don't fit this article, you must copy the info into another article, not just remove it altogether.
Now let me repeat my point once more, The title of the article is "Nobility". What one must do, is to (1) define the term properly (2) make separate artciles from the pieces of info taht don't fit and refer to them from here, possibly with brief summaries.

As for the web of society, there is the Social hierarchy article, with poor content, by the way. Mikkalai 17:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So please, who can explain the difference between the notions "nobility", peerage, Sovereign? in particular, why "Baronets, esquire etc.. are not members of the nobility"? (the Baronet) article says only that baronet is not a title of peerage. Esquires are even more confusing. Please do so without removing info from wikipedia by bold editing. This explanation IMO is part of definition. Mikkalai 17:12, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, they are POVing this article to be from a British ideal of what constitutes what. I sympathise with you. Kenneth Alansson 17:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I understand that your comment about edit was as a joke. My only war actions were restoring info that was simply deleted without placing it elsewhere. The problem IMO is that all current active editors are not experts in the whole issue, for the whole world. Therefore please be more tolerant to each other's mistakes and misunderstandings. (for americans only: be smart, but not be smart ass :-) Just a few more logs into the fire: how does Indian caste system or Russian Table of Ranks fit here? (not even mentioned even in "Related articles") Mikkalai 17:49, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think they, as different concepts with different names and their own articles, should be referred to in a "see also" context. Theanthrope 17:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why do you find it necessary or acceptible to selectively insult americans? - Nunh-huh 17:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It seems Americans vacillate between thinking the rest of the world hates us and wanting to believe the rest of the world hates us. I don't know why this is but it's seemingly to justify the way we were acting anyway. It's a big planet, let's all chill out a bit. Theanthrope 17:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Thinking less globally, I was asking specifically why Mikkalai thought he should throw a gratuitous insult at americans onto this page, and why he thought it was appropriate. I don't think another personal opinion about Americans addresses that. I was specifically wondering if it's considered good Wikiquette to insult nationalities. If it is, perhaps we need to consider a rewrite of Wikiquette. -- Nunh-huh 18:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry and apologize; it was badly phrased. The idea was something along the lines: an american would say "don't be a smart ass", while an English would insult you in the most proper and correct way (sorry, I cannot give a good example, being not of nobility and poorly bred :-). Mikkalai 18:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Really not a problem, I just see it a lot on Wikipedia and I don't think it's real helpful. In any case, it's probably a good thing not to know too many British insults :) - Nunh-huh 18:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Protected

The page is protected from removal of information that probably does not belong here, but is nowhere else. Let's be constructive. Mikkalai 18:01, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai: you should not protect pages when you have been directly involved in an edit war for that page. Please remove the protection immediately!!!!!! Mintguy (T) 18:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the protection. Mikkalai, please go through the usual channels if you want this protected. -- Decumanus | Talk 18:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I really do not think that this pagr should be left with content such as the following nonsense:

Grand Duke, ruling² a grand duchy, akin to U.S. military commanders ruling military installations and vehicles overseas and in foreign, friendly or hostile territory, especially in times of war when martial law is proclaimed and/or invasion of another state results in toppling the native regime. It can also result from Nuclear-Biological-Chemical violence in war.
So I will revert it to the version without this and other deliberate nonsense added by the known vandal User:Kenneth Alan. Mikkalai, I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kenneth Alan now before you make any further judgements about what state this article should be left in. Mintguy (T)
I think the comparison to American elected offices is pretty silly. It doesn't need to be protected from removal. I wouldn't even call it "information". It's just someone's comparison of apples to oranges. The systems are different; comparing them is mostly meaningless. There are better ways to explain what a "baron" is. Capitalism does not equal feudalism. Try merging those two articles and you'll see that most people agree.
In case you didn't notice, together with "americanization" a lot of other useful information was stricken out. While I agree, it does not belong here, it should not have been stricken out totally. Mikkalai 18:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I didn't notice, in fact. I agree. You've done a good job keeping the good while removing the bad. Theanthrope 19:26, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I was just trying to add some missing femenine titles when i found this was locked. Can we sort this out soon, please? Theanthrope 18:16, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First of all, the term in bold at the beginning of an article should be the same as the title. If you want to talk about Aristocratic heirarchy, please make a new article and sort out the ensuing mess there. The US comparison doesn't belong here. Theanthrope 18:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I do have a possibly helpful suggestion. You might find it more useful to put detailed discussion in geographic subsections. The idea of nobility in Continental Europe is rather different from the idea and implementation in Britain, and different again from its correlates elsewhere. Breaking the details into geographic sections should minimize conflict, as you won't have to say only that which is true everywhere and always. - Nunh-huh 18:33, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Similar to my ideas above. This article should be the summary of the term, with occasional examples and comparison table. Detailed hierarchy must go elsewhere, since it is Eurocentric. What about Chinese, Indian, Inka, Russian nobility? Did they have this notion at all? Mikkalai 18:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A comparative study on different systems of social hierarchy in geographic and historical subsections would be a very good thing but it wouldn't really belong here. Nobility is just one of social strata typical for only one social system (namely, feudalism). So what I suggest is expanding the article on Social hierarchy which is little more than a stub now. Nobility should be solely about nobility and even links to articles like Caste don't belong here. List of ranks doesn't belong here either, it should be moved to Aristocratic ranks or something like this, or perhaps British ranks because it seems quite Anglocentric to me. --Kpalion 21:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
British ranks are quite eloquently presented in British honours system and Peerage articles. Mikkalai

A piece that was unjustly lost

Instead of revert war I tried to cut out only "americanismus", but fount it difficult. Instead, I am putting here a piece that can be used anywhere else. Shame on you! Good bye my fair lords. Mikkalai 18:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note: A foreigner has no specific legal status in a host country, however, may be subject to host laws and/or perhaps be extradited to home country for judicial proceedings. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity do not get subject to host laws, but general travelers and tourists are routinely treated by local means.

1) These princely subrulers are extremely influential and dominate almost everything the country has to deal with, good and bad. There isn't much to challenge them, even the royalty in current command, unless they are minors. They will often argue or agree as they feel like, with little sensitivity to pressure from those above them or below, regardless of what pressure is applied.
2) Loss of sovereignty or fief does not necessarily lead to loss of title. The position in the ranking table is however accordingly adjusted. The occurrence of fiefs has changed from time to time, and from country to country. For instance, dukes in England rarely had a duchy to rule.
3) The term Peer is used in Britain, but the division could be argued to be of general value. These ranks tend to be quite steady and quite popular, and although the inheritants of these titles are often secure in their holdings, if they oppose The Crown, (by generally group effort)they tend to have to rework their efforts towards the monarch to retain their title if their efforts are suppressed, or they will have their offices replaced and they will only be allowed to gain an honourary title at any further time in life.
4) Dukes who are not actually or formerly sovereign, such as all British, French, and Spanish dukes, or who are not sons of sovereigns, as titulary dukes in many other countries, would not be considered to be of princely rank.
5) Honourary nobility with inherited estates honoured by law, but holders of such titles can and do get stripped of such status if they fail to conform to the norms of their class and will become "common", if so. There is an immense amount of social pressure to conform at high standards here that other classes do not feel they need to apply themselves to, as consistency keeps their honours afloat.
6) Not nobility but included here to show comparison, and the worker class that supplants the comparatively small amount of nobility above them. Without them, the nobility would have no reason to exist.
7) Not nobility and presented to show what the loss of Commoner status immediately applies to, generally there is a time for parole during incarceration, but sometimes not, due to the severity of the crime(s) committed.

Liege, feudal strata

Badly phrased and placed piece:

A nobleman was bound to his liege by a sworn oath of allegiance. The liege could be the monarch or another noble, forming a hierarchy, usually with a king at the top. Some of the other strata of feudal society were priests, burghers (i.e. city inhabitant) and peasants (i.e. farmer).

  1. All were bound by allegiance, not just nobles.
  2. Nobles were not only in feudal society.
  3. The article is not about feudal society. Besides, priests stil exist. Mikkalai 18:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nobility&oldid=3114965"