circular vassalage

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

Here's an interesting find. In the fourteenth century, the Count of
Burgundy was overlord to the Prince de Bourg and the Prince de Louhans.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[E Gray]

- -----Original Message-----
From: c558382@showme.missouri.edu
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 6:01 PM
Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - circular vassalage


>Here's an interesting find. In the fourteenth century, the Count of
>Burgundy was overlord to the Prince de Bourg and the Prince de Louhans.


Prince does not always mean "son and heir of the king" and considering
how Germany was in the 1300s, I don't doubt it.

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, E Gray wrote:

> Prince does not always mean "son and heir of the king" and considering
> how Germany was in the 1300s, I don't doubt it.

There are three meanings of the word prince. 1) Soveriegn Prince, auf
deutch, es ist Furst; 2) a Prince who is not soverign, es ist Prinz, auf
deutch; and 3) son and heir of a king. However, in Germany, the son and
heir of the *Emperor* was the King of the Romans. The Emperor could, and
did, reward individuals with grants of title. One example would be Prince
Kaunitz, about whom I am writing my thesis. Kaunitz got no land, just a
title. His estate was at Austerlitz (Napoleon slept in his apartments
after the famous battle there). The family title was count of Austerlitz.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[E Gray]

- -----Original Message-----
From: c558382@showme.missouri.edu
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - circular vassalage


>
>On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, E Gray wrote:
>
>> Prince does not always mean "son and heir of the king" and considering
>> how Germany was in the 1300s, I don't doubt it.
>
>There are three meanings of the word prince

Actually, it's five.

1. A nonreigning member of a royal family
(Prince Andrew? )

2. A male monarch or sovereign
(Certain Italian Provinces like Capua)

3. The son of a sovereign, or of a son of sovereign
(Prince Charles, Henry, William)

4. A simple Noble Title, much like Duke or Count.
(Granted in the Holy Roman Empire and Prussia)

5. The Ruler of a Small State
(The prince of Monaco)

And there's the use of terms like Merchant Prince or
Prince of Industry..

>The Emperor could, and did, reward individuals with
>grants of title.

I'm sure he wasn't the only one able to do so...

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

E Gray, your cases 1 and 3 are the same, as are cases 2 and 5. Case 1)
Andrew is only a prince in the sence that he is son of Queen E. Should
Charles succeed, he will only be the Duke of York, and the only princes in
Britain will be William and Harry. Case 2) A male monarch & ruler of a
small state do not differ in practice.

There's a good web page on this, _A Glossary of European Noble, Princely,
Royal, and Imperial Titles_, its at
http://econ10.econ.jhu.edu/heraldry/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm
There is a 20 pg document that is very useful.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, E Gray wrote:

> Actually, it's five.
>
> 1. A nonreigning member of a royal family
> (Prince Andrew? )
>
> 2. A male monarch or sovereign
> (Certain Italian Provinces like Capua)
>
> 3. The son of a sovereign, or of a son of sovereign
> (Prince Charles, Henry, William)
>
> 4. A simple Noble Title, much like Duke or Count.
> (Granted in the Holy Roman Empire and Prussia)
>
> 5. The Ruler of a Small State
> (The prince of Monaco)
>
> And there's the use of terms like Merchant Prince or
> Prince of Industry..
>
> >The Emperor could, and did, reward individuals with
> >grants of title.
>
> I'm sure he wasn't the only one able to do so...
>
>
> ************************************************** *************************
> > 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[E Gray]

- -----Original Message-----
From: c558382@showme.missouri.edu
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - circular vassalage


> your cases 1 and 3 are the same, as are cases 2 and 5. Case 1)
>Andrew is only a prince in the sence that he is son of Queen E.

Not really, perhaps the use of Andrew was a bad example, but as I don't
know too much about Royalty, I couldn't think of anything better..or added
the statement "who is heir to the throne" to the end of 3.

> Should Charles succeed, he will only be the Duke of York, and the
>only princes in Britain will be William and Harry.

Maybe we should ask someone in alt.talk.royalty about that, I thought
Andrew would always be referred to as Prince Andrew...but I'm no
expert, just using my dictionary and eyclopedia..

>Case 2) A male monarch & ruler of a small state do not differ in practice.

I'd say they do, as one doesn't follow from the other...and wasn't the
husband of Queen Victoria called Prince something or other, not sure
if that wasn't a pre-nuptial title though..


>There's a good web page on this, _A Glossary of European Noble, Princely,
>Royal, and Imperial Titles_, its at
>http://econ10.econ.jhu.edu/heraldry/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm
>There is a 20 pg document that is very useful.


Couldn't access the site, and 20 pages is really too extensive, I'm not
particulary
interested in the aspects of Nobility, and in any case this is really not
related to the
SubjectLine anymore, as the princes in your original statement were not
above
the Count of whatchamacallit..

[Neil Barnes]

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, E Gray wrote:
> >On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, E Gray wrote:
> >
> >There are three meanings of the word prince
>
> Actually, it's five.
>
> 1. A nonreigning member of a royal family
> (Prince Andrew? )

Are you sure you don't mean Phil the Greek? Andrew is (still) the son of
the soverign.

> 2. A male monarch or sovereign
> (Certain Italian Provinces like Capua)
>
> 3. The son of a sovereign, or of a son of sovereign
> (Prince Charles, Henry, William)

Don't forget that Charles is actually Prince of Wales - at one point
Wales was actually intended as a training ground for future english
Kings to make their Mistakes in :).

neil

[Trizt]

On 21-Jan-98, E Gray (grayhome@Sprintmail.com) wrote about Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] -
circular vassalage:

- ->I'd say they do, as one doesn't follow from the other...and wasn't the
- ->husband of Queen Victoria called Prince something or other, not sure
- ->if that wasn't a pre-nuptial title though..

The husband of a ruling Gueen is usually titled as Prince, if he had been
titled King, then it would imply that he would rule and not the Queen.

//Trizt of Ward^RITE

-

[Neil Barnes]

On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Trizt wrote:
> The husband of a ruling Queen is usually titled as Prince, if he had
> been
> titled King, then it would imply that he would rule and not the Queen.

I believe this has changed since the time of Mary & Elizabeth I -
neither of whom married because it would mean that their husbands would
rule England. Although I understand Mary was considering marrying the
King of Spain.

I'm not sure what the case was with William & Mary. She was the heir,
but I'm not sure who was reignig moarch. They were invited in by the
nobility, so it probably did't make much difference.

Queen Anne was married IFIRC, and Victoria and Liz are both monarchs,
rather than being subserviat to their husbands.

neil

[Brenda L Santer]

>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Trizt wrote:
>> The husband of a ruling Queen is usually titled as Prince, if he had
>> been
>> titled King, then it would imply that he would rule and not the Queen.
>
>I believe this has changed since the time of Mary & Elizabeth I -
>neither of whom married because it would mean that their husbands would
>rule England. Although I understand Mary was considering marrying the
>King of Spain.
>

Actually Mary was married to Philip II of Spain for a number of years
before the marriage ended. He convinced her to enter into a war against
France.

In the Birthright campaign I run, there are several instances or female
regents who have married and we have always purposely given the husband a
title that makes it clear that she is the regent. Otherwise, when husband
and wife have titles of the same degree such as King and Queen, Count and
Countess, etc., th eautomatic assumption tends ot be that he is the ruler
while she is "only" the spouse.

****************************************
Brenda Santer:

mailto:bsanter@sk.sympatico.ca
****************************************