Talk:Nobility

Contents

1 Early talk 2 Aristocracy 3 Comparison with present day US 4 Article title 5 About American audience 6 Scope of the article and removing info 7 Protected 8 A piece that was unjustly lost 9 Liege, feudal strata 10 Split 11 dab proposed

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)

Aristocracy

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)

Just to reiterate, given the fudge that had appeared in the story - aristocracy is a word with various, correct usages, one of which is to denote a general category of monied families, within which nobility is a more sharply defined, formal category. I will revert edits made on the basis that the modern usage is wrong, misguided, muddled, etc. True, the Ancient Greeks meant it to mean something similar to meritocracy. That's what they meant by it, but the word now serves other purposes in living usage. Words evolve. Let's not have wikipedia adjudicate on whether the way most people in fact use the word is etymologically legitimate. Adhib 14:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comparison with present day US

There was some discussion of the usefulness of compare current USA officials to feudal roles. The conclusions were:

• The US is not a feudal realm.
• This kind of comparison is simply not appropriate for an anternational encyclopaedia

Accordingly, the comparisons were removed from the article. -- Anon reworker

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)

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, there's already articles on European aristocratic ranks and titles at other places. Peerage does it for Britain, for instance, but I know there's a more general page about noble ranks in Europe in general. Also, is that really true about Poland? Weren't there Counts and Princes? john 17:29, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In that case the table from this article should be merged there or deleted.

As for Poland-Lithuania, yes that's generally true. Of course, there was some hierarchy but it was based on offices (like voivods, prefects, castellans, judges, etc.), not inherited ranks (so it was more modern in some way). Only a handful of old aristocratic (mostly Lithuanian, I think) families were allowed to use the title of duke prince (książę). But there were no marquises, barons, earls, etc. The nobility was, in priciple, "free and equal". Some nobles could have had such titles granted by foreign monarchs but they couldn't use them in Poland. After the partitions, however, it was quite ususal for nobles to simply buy aristocratic titles from Prussian or Austrian governments, which led to mushrooming of Polish counts, barons, etc.

--Kpalion 22:37, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense. książę is frequently translated into English as "Prince" rather than "Duke," isn't it? john 22:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I guess you're right, "prince" is a better translation for the Polish książę (according to the Polish Wikipedia for instance). However, for some reason wielki książę is usually translated as "grand duke", not "grand prince", which, I think, leads to more confusion. --Kpalion 23:04, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all very weird. In German, it's Großfürst, I believe, which is different from Großherzog, which makes a lot more sense. john 23:19, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John, you wrote, there's already articles on European aristocratic ranks and titles at other places. Peerage does it for Britain, for instance, but I know there's a more general page about noble ranks in Europe in general.

Could you tell me where it actually is? I can't find it. --Kpalion 13:46, 18 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)

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)

Sigh. A social class system is not the same thing as a nobility. john 17:30, 9 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)

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)

• Typically Middle Class having influence in suburban to rural administration.
  • Commoners:&sup5;(Lower-Middle Class)
    • Baronet, an inherited knightly rank originally created to raise money
    • Knight, rank bestowed upon for military or otherwise noted public distinction, theoretically the ruler of a ward and dominating the local law.
    • Esquire, a knight's "sidekick", theoretically the ruler of a village/neighbourhood, also dominating the bylaw.
    • Gentry, a professional with an academic discipline and professes in education, medicine, science, diplomacy, public records and other office-type white collar professions. Owns a hamlet or mansion and dictates it's customs for tenants as landlord.
• Typically Lower Class and having influence in the business level at it's top but it's descent is the very bottom of society.
  • Workers:&sup6;(Upper-Lower Class)
    • Yeomanry, a professional with an academic discipline and professes in plumbing, woodworking, engineering, masonry, architecture, and other manual labor-type blue collar careers. Engaged in artisanry and trade. Only has their own house with no tenants.
    • Peasantry, farmers, fisherman, servants, housekeepers, couriers and other subsistence or servile jobs. Is a renting tenant.
    • Outcast, one who has become ostracisised or other means, due to differences of fundemental social natures. Generally banished/deported or leaves area by choice under social pressure because of irregular and potentially antisocial or disruptive behaviours. Does odd jobs to sustain a wandering life and stays at a shelter. See tramp.
    • Criminal, one who is on the loose from illegal action(s) and still has limited mobility with leverage due to lack of capture/death by the police or military. Often in control of the organised crime and black market, which is vital to the general market, despite its' irreverance to common decency and morale.
  • Outlaw:&sup7;(Lower-Lower Class)
    • Prisoner, one who has become captured and jailed for a variety of reasons. Has access to some free amenities for rehabilitation or is set to be executed within a short while.

This material is total nonsense. Gentry is part of the lower class? By any reasonable standard, all of these as low as Gentry are part of the upper class. And the definition of gentry and yeomanry is totally bogus and anachronistic. This is like a role-playing game definition of social classes. john 17:33, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? In England, it is very difficult to distinguish an esquire from a gentleman. They are both rich landowners who don't work. Knights, Baronets, and peers are frequently little different, except that they have titles, and may own more land (especially as you go up the scale). But it's a difference of quantity, not of quality. They are all upper class, and they all formed the ruling class of Britain up to 1911, or whenever, together. They intermarried. It was the same political class. And the gentry does not mean what you say it means - doctors and lawyers might be members of the gentry, but you are a gentleman by birth, not by attainments. Yeomanry you completely misunderstand. A yeoman is an independent landowner. They are fairly well-off, but not considered to be of high social rank. That is to say, they are middle class landowners. At any rate, these terms refer to rural English (especially) society. They can't be expanded to provide a discussion of social rank in general in a post-industrial society. They were already starting to be strained in the 19th century, when rich industrialists didn't really fit into the established categories, for instance. Neither did white collar workers, really. Why don't you read something beyond your RPG sourcebooks and come back later? john 06:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article is about the nobility not about a social class system in general. As such, all this material is irrelevant to begin with. But even as a description of a social class system in general, it doesn't work. We shouldn't be making broad generalizations like this, and trying to fit every kind of society into a class framework devised in 18th century Britain, to begin with. john 06:58, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But the point is that you can't do that in some kind of generalized, contextless way. The role of the nobility in Britain today is different from their role two hundred years ago. Their role in France today is different yet again, and all these are different from their role in Poland in 1750. And all of these are different from the roles of a genuinely feudal nobility in, say, 1400. And all of these are different from the role of the Chinese nobility, or the Russian service nobility, and so on and so forth. john 07:33, 10 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)

Split

What is the point of splitting this article so that the ranks of nobilitiy now appear at Royal and noble ranks ans styles at Royal and noble styles? This article was originally balkanized into Ranks of nobility and peerage Titles of nobility and noble. And now we have the same thing again! Just what is the point? These individual articles will soon once again contain much duplicated information. Please restore this article. Mintguy (T) 10:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for splitting the article:

• Ranks, titles and styles, as described in the table, are mostly a Western European phenomenon (though nobility as such is not) so leaving it here would be too Occidentalocentric.
• There is much more to nobility than ranks and styles. In feudal socities, nobles played very wide and important political, economic and cultural roles -- this article may be still expanded with much relevant information, not just a table of ranks (a peripheric topic in fact).
• People kept trying to include royal and other titles (which had nothing to do with nobility) in the table. Now they will be able to list all of them -- from emperor to whatever is at the bottom of the scale -- in the new article on both Royal and noble styles.

--Kpalion 10:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Kpalion. This article ought to discuss nobility in general, a term which applies to numerous societies throughout the world. Specific details of systems of nobility in different countries of the world ought to go in specific articles on the nobility of those countries. We already have this for the British system in Peerage (although this title is probably anglocentric - there is/was a French peerage as well), but the rest of the world is decidedly sparsely covered. And, as Kpalion points out, noble titles are different from the status of nobility itself. In most countries in Europe, one can/could be noble without having any title. john 17:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

dab proposed

I was looking for information about the nobility of metals. Shouldn't there be a section on this page for this chemical process? If I find out anything on noble metals elsewhere, I'll post something here. - unsigned

You want noble metal. These are generally spoken of as a group, "noble metals", and the use of "nobility" to refer to them is rare, and I wouldn't expect "nobility" to reference metals any more than I'd expect "baseness" to. - Nunh-huh 00:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)