History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

[Arakhor]

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

It would make for a better discussion if your sole rejoinder wasn't that I didn't understand your post.

 

[Agent327]

Which post?

 

[Arakhor]

Well, you must have one in mind, but I assume you mean the one about 19th Century nobility, i.e. post-Revolutionary French aristocrats being 'created nobility'.

 

[Agent327]

We'll assume you mean this post, shall we?

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

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.

Summing this development up as being a meaningless distinction is indeed missing the point entirely. (Not to mention that arguing back from the present situation is never good arguing, whatever is being argued.)

All that appears to be mentioned here is a proliferation of noble titles.

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.

I did not claim it was a 19th century innovation, as is clear from your own quote of my post. And I'm aware of nobles of the gowns. I would suspect the size of this nobility would be dwarfish compared to the proliferation of titles post 1789. As a side note, as was mentioned earlier, the deliberate creation of noble titles was nothing new. So I don't quite see how this could be an innovation in the 19th century all of a sudden.

 

[JohannaK]

Maybe it's just my bad sight, but aren't those goalposts moving?

 

[James Stuart]

Maybe it's just my bad sight, but aren't those goalposts moving?

It's not. He's careful to point out that this did not begin after 1789, merely increased after that year. Mind you, I'm not sure he's right, but he's not shifting the goalposts.

 

[JohannaK]

I'm just having some difficulty following his argument, then.

 

[James Stuart]

I'm just having some difficulty following his argument, then.

I'll try to summarise his argument then. Bear in mind, I don't know enough about the period or the personages involved to know if his argument is correct, merely what his argument is.

Agent327 is saying that while nobility has existed for a very long time, at least as far back as the Roman Empire, there is a specific type of nobility that is known as 'created nobility.'

This 'created nobility' consists of people who are granted noble titles without any land, possessions, authority, or duties being conferred in addition to the title. Whereas most nobles are known as, say, Lord Tim, Baron of Smithton, due to the fact they own land in Smithton, and that land is considered important enough to be a barony, a 'created noble' might be known as Baron Chucky, despite not owning any land anywhere.

The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, also known as Prince William and Kate Middleton, are an excellent and well-known example of this; being granted the title "Duke of Cornwall" didn't grant William sovereignty over the area of Cornwall, even in limited fashion. Nor was he granted lands or authority there. It is simply an important-sounding title. He is now 'created nobility.'

I fully admit this example is not perfect; as the heir-presumptive to the throne of the UK, William wa already nobility before he was granted a new title. But it helps illustrate Agent327's point.

This is also not to say that all nobility was not created at some point in the past; obviously, unless one believes in the old concept of the divine right of kings, nobility hasn't existed since the dawn of humanity. But 'created nobility' is a special, separate branch of nobility. One does not say that a utility vehicle is not a branch of vehicles that exists, simply because other vehicles may also be used for utilitarian purposes. 'Created nobility' is the same.

 

[JohannaK]

No, that I know. But this discussion comes from him saying that the use of titles when no lands are associated with it is redundant. When I pointed out that there is a nobility which is not associated to land, the discussion changed altogether to the nature of created nobility.

I think that is what shifting goalposts is.

 

[Arakhor]

The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, also known as Prince William and Kate Middleton, are an excellent and well-known example of this; being granted the title "Duke of Cornwall" didn't grant William sovereignty over the area of Cornwall, even in limited fashion. Nor was he granted lands or authority there. It is simply an important-sounding title. He is now 'created nobility.'

The fancy word for that is 'titular nobility' and is even accounted for in the difference between a duchy (a dukedom which has influence in the associated area) and a dukedom (which does not). Prince William is the Duke of Cambridge, but it's merely a title with no other responsibilities, whereas Prince Charles is the Duke of Cornwall, which does encompass various political and economic privileges in Cornwall, which is why the Duchy of Cornwall is a significant economic force (and source of income for Charles).

 

[James Stuart]

The fancy word for that is 'titular nobility' and is even accounted for in the difference between a duchy (a dukedom which has influence in the associated area) and a dukedom (which does not). Prince William is the Duke of Cambridge, but it's merely a title with no other responsibilities, whereas Prince Charles is the Duke of Cornwall, which does encompass various political and economic privileges in Cornwall, which is why the Duchy of Cornwall is a significant economic force (and source of income for Charles).

Come one, how am I supposed to tell two different inbred oppressors of the working classes apart?

 

[Agent327]

This is also not to say that all nobility was not created at some point in the past; obviously, unless one believes in the old concept of the divine right of kings, nobility hasn't existed since the dawn of humanity. But 'created nobility' is a special, separate branch of nobility. One does not say that a utility vehicle is not a branch of vehicles that exists, simply because other vehicles may also be used for utilitarian purposes. 'Created nobility' is the same.

While you summarize the argument quite nicely, the 'divine right of kings' has nothing to do with it. It was derived from the Roman custom of deifying a monarch after death (Caesar being the only one being deified during his lifetime). But the practice is already known in ancient Egypt, where the pharaoh (already the 'living Horus') became a god upon death.

 

[Arakhor]

Come on, how am I supposed to tell two different inbred oppressors of the working classes apart?

No, those are Tory politicians. You need a different slur for the Royal Family.

 

[James Stuart]

No, those are Tory politicians. You need a different slur for the Royal Family.

Inbred recipients of welfare from the taxpayers?

 

[Arakhor]

See, the Royals are not so different to the British public.

 

[James Stuart]

See, the Royals are not so different to the British public.

So that Labour MP was tweeting a pic of Prince Harry's ride?

 

[Arakhor]

Naturally. She was calling attention to the plight of beleaguered servicemen who can't afford public transport!

 

[gay_Aleks]

Why was Germany sending help to China during the Second Sino-Japanese war? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

[Traitorfish]

It was a holdover from the pre-war era. The Nazi government had developed strong links with China in 1933-7, building on links developed in the Weimar period, and couldn't really offered to abandon them overnight. Hitler favoured Japan as an ally against the USSR, but German industrialists didn't want to abandon their investments in China for the sake of mere politics, so German policy was basically to keep pre-war agreements spinning until they became non-viable.

 

[James Stuart]

It was a holdover from the pre-war era. The Nazi government had developed strong links with China in 1933-7, building on links developed in the Weimar period, and couldn't really offered to abandon them overnight. Hitler favoured Japan as an ally against the USSR, but German industrialists didn't want to abandon their investments in China for the sake of mere politics, so German policy was basically to keep pre-war agreements spinning until they became non-viable.

In addition to that, it was really Ribbentrop who pushed through the addition of Tokyo to the Axis. He wasn't the RAM until 1938. Up until then, the German Foreign Service had been very wary of any agreement with Japan, fearing that it might make the Japanese more aggressive towards parties they weren't interested in fighting, like the US or Britain.