History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

All nobility is artificial, but not all nobility was necessarily created. Some more or less developed organically instead.

That being said, a lot of it was created in the sense that it was developed artificially by the person with the goal of becoming a noble. Count Fulk Nerra, count of Anjou, is a clear example of this. He deliberately positioned himself as someone with trappings of authority in order to establish greater legitimacy. This trend goes back forever. Roman Senatorial and Equestrian classes are the same way. I can't speak for Plebians vs. Patricians, though, and whether that was artificial. Ancient Mesopotamian rulers would forge a line of descendants to establish legitimacy to rule and that's an analogous process.

Much of the nobility would be self-created. That is, the warlord controlling an area would grant himself a title to legitimize his rule.

Cutlass said:

Much of the nobility would be self-created. That is, the warlord controlling an area would grant himself a title to legitimize his rule.

Click to expand...

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle actually admits this. Hengist and Horsa betrayed and murdered their way to the top, then declared themselves kings. It was oddly self-referential for the times.

Agent327 said:

Right. So, pray tell, who 'created' the Habsburgs?

Click to expand...

Well, since you asked, it was mostly the Habsburgs who created the Habsburgs, notably Rudolf of Habsburg, as well as Rudolf IV of Austria and his ultimately successful forgery, the Privilegium Maius.

I think that your main issue here is (apparently) assuming that the later increase of titular nobility means that the landed nobility simply sprang into existence earlier on.

JoanK said:

You know how dukedoms werent even a thing in England until the late Middle Ages, do you? That wasnt 'created'? It sure seems to have been created on purpose.

Also my memory may be failing here, so if I am wrong on theage of English dukedoms, excuses.

Click to expand...

Maybe you're thinking of Baronetcy, which was a title created by James I explicitly as a means of raising funds for the crown.

James VI & I certainly sold baronetcies (hereditary knighthoods, effectively), but Joan is probably referring to Edward III creating the first English dukedoms for his various offspring. The Duchy of Norfolk, the premier non-royal title of nobility in the UK, was first created by Edward’s grandson, Richard II, though the Howard family didn’t becomes the Dukes of Norfolk until 1483 and Richard III.

I think they're called baronies.

Agent327 said:

The creation of nobility - although not exclusively, mind you - dates primarily from postrevolutionary France, where it became habit to confer (in essence meaningless) titles on certain persons of prominence (read: bourgeois) without any connection to land at all. Now, I'm not the first to call this 'created nobility'. This does not imply that (in or outside France) nobility disappeared, just that there was an entire new category added to it.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's true at all. In pre-revolutionary France, the distinction betweens "nobles of the sword" and "nobles of the gown" was well-established. It even had legal weight: the "swords", the old knightly families, possessed the right to wear swords at court, while the "gowns", the newer families of bourgeois origin, did not. Certainly in this period, the "nobles of the sword" made up the much greater part of the nobility, because they were scattered across the country while the "nobles of the gown" were as a rule dependent on the royal court, but that doesn't support the claim that "created nobility" was a nineteenth-century innovation.

Baronies and baronetcies are definitely different – one’s the lowest order of British peerage and is now most commonly used for life peerages, whilst the other is (essentially) a hereditary knighthood.

UK life peerages also have the distinction of being almost the only time a title of nobility is ever used with the holder’s surname. Margaret Thatcher became Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, but you would never refer to, say, the Duke of Norfolk as “Duke Fitzalan-Howard”.

Arakhor said:

James VI & I certainly sold baronetcies (hereditary knighthoods, effectively), but Joan is probably referring to Edward III creating the first English dukedoms for his various offspring. The Duchy of Norfolk, the premier non-royal title of nobility in the UK, was first created by Edward’s grandson, Richard II, though the Howard family didn’t becomes the Dukes of Norfolk until 1483 and Richard III.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I was talking about.

Agent327 said:

I think they're called baronies.

Click to expand...

Nope, baronetcy. Arakhor has it right.

If you want to go all the way back, 'dux' (duke), 'comitatus' (count), etc. were originally appointments in the Roman army. So in the beginning, the Emperor said 'let there be dukes' and there were dukes. Created. Later on, various leaders of war bands decided to claim some of these titles for themselves. It's as if Mr Al-Baghdadi declared himself 'Supreme Islamic Commander Asia', in imitation of SACEUR, and two centuries later his heirs' usurpers' usurpers' heirs were still using the title.

And in common-law legal theory, the Crown is the 'fount of honour' with the royal prerogative of bestowing nobility. The UK, at least, has no 'organic' titles.

Owen Glyndwr said:

Nope, baronetcy. Arakhor has it right.

Click to expand...

A baronet is a 'little baron.' Inside humour, I guess.

I had to google that:

A baronet (/bærənɪt/ or /bærənɛt/;[1] abbreviated Bart or Bt[1]) or the rare female equivalent, a baronetess (/bærəˈnɛtɛs/;[2] abbreviation Btss), is the holder of a hereditary baronetcy awarded by the British Crown. The practice of awarding baronetcies was originally introduced in England in the 1300s and was used by James I of England in 1611 in order to raise funds.

A baronetcy is the only hereditary honour which is not a peerage. A baronet is styled "Sir" like a knight (or "Dame" for a baronetess), but ranks above all knighthoods and damehoods except for the Order of the Garter and, in Scotland, the Order of the Thistle. However, the baronetage, as a class, are considered members of the gentry and rank above the knightage. A baronetcy is not a noble title or knighthood and the recipient does not receive an accolade.

Click to expand...

So, not nobility then. Hence, 'little baron'. Very droll.

SeekTruthFromFacts said:

So in the beginning, the Emperor said 'let there be dukes' and there were dukes. Created.

Click to expand...

You forget about the emperor himself. And both titles originally were military in nature. Let's not oversimplify things now. Actually the title of emperor (imperator) is a good example of how it works. Originally, imperator was an honorary title awarded during a general's triumph ceremony in Rome. Apart from that it had no real function. The Roman emperor (starting with Augustus, who was a military non-entity) combined several republican functions, thereby effectively commanding the state. This, however, never truly became a hereditary.

And of course this development is reflected in the Roman dux (or duke). The fact that this function became hereditary over time, actually points to the degradation (or erosion) of the original function. And this is not limited to Rome either. In Egyptian history we can also find plenty of examples of military (and other) functions becoming hereditary, signifying an erosion of pharaonic power. The important thing is, that in neither the Roman or Egyptian case, the intention was to create nobility. In fact, the exact contrary.

Also, of course, the Romans already had a nobility during the republic era. So, originally, nobility wasn't 'created' at all. It evolved. Now this is principally different from created nobility, such as during the Napoleonic era. (Or, if you like, the English baronets, although these, strictly speaking, aren't nobility.)

In Poland roughly until the 14th century there was considerable "feudal social mobility" and opportunities for nobilitation were wide.

Later the access to nobility became restricted by various laws and by emergence of more clearly defined class boundaries.

=====================
=====================

Some "crazy" new theories here:

It seems that all Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of just 350 Medieval people, and that Europeans are in fact largely West Asians (by origin):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=534559&page=9

About Europe being re-populated by West Asians in period between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age there have been also other studies before.

Interesting is that Native Europeans (i.e. those before West Asians repopulated Europe) could be also ancestors of Native North Americans:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13566115&postcount=115

When you start a post with "That's quite unbelievable", maybe you should have stuck to your guns.

Agent327 said:

Also, of course, the Romans already had a nobility during the republic era. So, originally, nobility wasn't 'created' at all. It evolved. Now this is principally different from created nobility, such as during the Napoleonic era. (Or, if you like, the English baronets, although these, strictly speaking, aren't nobility.)

Click to expand...

Well, not really. Nobody's going to argue that the idea that some people have more power than others is 'created', but the titles and offices that constitute nobility - in other words, the idea that the noble isn't just a powerful person but steps into a model which is in some sense greater than he is - is definitely created. To go back to your Roman example, there were always people with more wealth and political influence than others, but at some point somebody made the conscious decision that those whose ancestors had been consuls should be called nobiles. Even further back, someone consciously decided that a certain group should be called patricii and distinguish themselves as more noble than the rest. True, said person may well have been part of one of those groups, but that doesn't make the concept of nobility any less artificial. You can trace nobility back to Bronze Age Greece, even, in around 1400 BC, where people are given titles by a ruler who makes one for himself, but what almost certainly happened was that these people had power anyway and were given titles to bring them into a framework in which the ruler was the source of legitimate power.

'Someone decided'. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything here that counters the idea that nobility evolved. Nor to support the idea that 'someone' artificially or consciously created it. The concept of some people being more noble, better or superior to others is simply the reflection of certain groups - as you rightly point out - acquiring more power than others. When such a group acquires positions that become hereditary, one might speak of 'nobility' (regardless of the fact whether such people actually are more noble than others). This may happen in a number of different ways, depending on local customs and developments. It still does not necessitate any conscious act of creation by 'someone'. If you wish to argue that, you have to do better than simply claiming as much. So if you don't mind, I'll stick to my position.

I think the idea of 'nobility' is distinct from the idea of a 'ruling class'. Hereditary wealth and power do not nobility make - hence the Clintons are not considered a noble family but the Frasers of Lovat are, despite the former name conferring astronomically more power. Nobility presupposes a title and sense of 'office'. For the Clintons to become noble, someone in the future - a Clinton or not - will have to decide that they are.

Agent327 said:

1'm sorry, but I don't see anything here that counters the idea that nobility evolved.

Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone is disputing that general theme, rather your concept that "created nobility" is a useful or accurate description of 19th Century nobility.

Then again, there is also a distinction between 'nobility' and 'having a noble title'. One, obviously, has to be created; the other is more of a social concept.

If you'd been reading accurately that's not how I described 19th century nobility at all.