Barons of the Holy Roman Empire

[Graham Milne]

I am looking into a barony of the Holy Roman Empire, the Barony of St. Hippolyte created in 1706, which stated to be descendible to male and female descendants. Melville Henry Massue, Marquis de Ruvigny, 'The Nobilities of Europe', Melville & Co., London, 1910, Elibron Classics re-print, p. 350 states:

'DE MONTOLIEU. David de Montolieu, SEIGNEUR DE ST. HIPPOLYTE in France, a French Protestant refugee, came to England with William, Prince of Orange, in 1688, and entered the army, becoming a Lieut.-General. For his services with the allies in Piedmont he was, by letters patent dated at Vienna 14 Feb. 1706, cr. by the Emperor Joseph I, a BARON OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE as BARON OF ST. HIPPOLYTE (FREIHERR VON ST. HIPPLOYTE), with rem. to his descendants male and female for ever. His male issue became extinct on the death s.p.m.s [without male issue] of his grandson, Lewis (Montolieu), 3rd Baron de St. Hippolyte, 20 May 1817. The heir of line of the Barons de St. Hippolyte [H. R. E.] is his great grandda. Constance Maria (née Hammersley), widow of Lieut.-Col. Henry Edward Stopford, and not Lord Elibank, as is often stated.'

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LHKBWAz9MMQC&pg=PA350#v=onepage&q&f=false

If the baron has two daughters, would the elder daughter inherit the barony and would it pass to her son?

[mcmil...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 26, 2012 6:06:42 PM UTC-4, Graham Milne wrote:
> I am looking into a barony of the Holy Roman Empire, the Barony of St. Hippolyte created in 1706, which stated to be descendible to male and female descendants.

<snip>

> If the baron has two daughters, would the elder daughter inherit the barony and would it pass to her son?

No. When HRE grants say that they pass to male and female descendants, it doesn't mean they are transmissible by females. His daughters would be baronesses, but their sons would not be barons.

Joseph McMillan

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

Le samedi 27 octobre 2012 00:06:42 UTC+2, Graham Milne a écrit : ...
The name would be: N de Montolieu Herr von Saint-Hippolite. LP of the HRE. Herr von S-H would only pass on to the next generation, if one also would hold the estate of S-H. It is a simple nobility, untitled nobility, confirmation of nobility (of the HRE). Frank5,III,257dexter.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

No baron of the HRE!

Do not hold the reprint edition!

Original edition: can not find this family.

[Graham Milne]

I have added the following to http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/hippolite.htm

Titles in the Holy Roman Empire were descendible to men and women. What this meant is that all the sons of a baron would inherit the title of 'baron' at birth and all the daughters would inherit the title of 'baroness' at birth. However, the main title of 'Baron of x' would pass to the eldest son only, in this case, say, 'Henry de Montolieu, Baron of St. Hippolyte'; all the other sons would be 'Baron [First name] [Last name]', in this case, say, 'Baron Henry de Montolieu', and all the daughters of would be 'Baroness [First name] [Last name]', in this case, say, 'Baroness Marie de Montolieu'. The sons of a 'Baron [First name] [Last name]' would also be 'Baron [First name] [Last name] and his daughters would be 'Baroness[First name] [Last name]'. However, neither the sons or daughters of a 'Baroness [First name] [Last name]' would inherit a title. In other words the title of 'Baron of x' could not pass to or through a woman. The exception to this rule was where there was a special remainder. In the case of the Barony of St. Hippolyte, Melville Henry Massue, Marquis de Ruvigny, 'The Nobilities of Europe', Melville & Co., London, 1910, Elibron Classics re-print, p. 350 states that the barony was granted 'with rem. to his descendants male and female for ever'. My understanding is that the words 'with remainder to' mean that the title of Baroness of St. Hippolyte can pass to women because the grant is saying 'The title of Baron of St. Hippolyte (as opposed to the mere rank of baron or baroness) is being granted with remainder to men and remainder to women'. 'Remainder to men' clearly means that the title of Baron of St. Hippolyte (which is what was being granted) can pass to a man, so 'remainder to women' can only mean that the title can pass to a woman. But only reference to the original grant would establish whether the title was granted 'with remainder to' in this sense, bearing in mind that Ruvigny would have been aware of the rules of descent of titles in the Holy Roman Empire and would not, I believe, have used the words 'with remainder to' if this had not been the case - unless his understanding of the words was a different one. As I understand it the words 'with remainder to' refer to who 'remains' to succeed to the title on the death of a holder of the title; if a woman can 'remain' then she can inherit the title. This is certainly what these words mean in an English context.

The Holy Roman Empire came to an end in 1806 but, as I understand it (see here), titles of the Holy Roman Empire were 're-recognised' at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Titles were abolished in Austria in 1919 but while the government of Austria could change the domestic law of Austria it could not unilaterally alter the terms of the Congress of Vienna, which was an international treaty. Thus the domestic law of Austria had no effect on the recognition of titles of the Holy Roman Empire in other countries under the terms of the Congress of Vienna, unless and until that treaty was amended with the agreement of all the parties.

[Jonas Arnell]

I coukld be off by a mile, but there have been several examples from who have an orginal grant stating something like "inheritable equally by men and women" but disregard the meaning of the statement at the time it was written: that sons and daughters would inherit the title but - tacit knowledge - it was obvious in a contemporary context that only the sons in their turn could pass it on.

I can cite at least two examples in Sweden who fervently argues that their paternal grandmother could pass their title on to their fathers and in turn to them, citing their Letters Patent from HRE. The House of Nobility in Sweden has not agreed and the Association of the unintroduced nobility in Sweden has not admitted these as members of the Association.

[Graham Milne]

Thank you. Do you know what the actual text of the patent was in each case? I have obtained a copy of the original patent from the Austrian State Archives. It is in Latin of course. I have sent it off to someone in Germany who might be able to help, so I shall be interested in his response. The language certainly refers to males and females equally but there may be some nuance that I am missing. Interestingly, the language seems to be very close to the patent making Thomas Arundell of Wardour (1560-1639) a Count of the Holy Roman Empire, a title which the College of Arms has acknowledged descends to heirs male and female for ever. In some old copies of Burke's Peerage this title is acknowledged in certain families who descend from him. e.g. Eden (via the Calverts).

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:06:42 AM UTC+2, Graham Milne wrote:
>...

You should think of the fact: Translated into Latin by an unqualified translator. Then perhaps signed by the emperor.

Why not publish your copy somewhere such we might see the original text?

Count Gudenus (edesp...@yahoo.fr)

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

One holds copy of a LP in Latin for a princely French family. France saw all its future nationals as Princes of the HRE. The chancery in Vienna had to explain how "its" Latin or French had to be understood!

[Derek Howard]

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 6:21:58 AM UTC+2, mcmil...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 26, 2012 6:06:42 PM UTC-4, Graham Milne wrote:
> > I am looking into a barony of the Holy Roman Empire, the Barony of St.
> > Hippolyte created in 1706, which stated to be descendible to male and

> > female descendants. Melville Henry Massue, Marquis de Ruvigny, 'The
> > Nobilities of Europe',

> <snip>
> > If the baron has two daughters, would the elder daughter inherit the
> > barony and would it pass to her son?
>
> No. When HRE grants say that they pass to male and female descendants,
> it doesn't mean they are transmissible by females. His daughters would
> be baronesses, but their sons would not be barons.

Indeed, and this is clearly discussed and spelled out in the Marquis de Ruvigny: "The Nobilities of Europe", 1909, p 227, see:
http://archive.org/stream/nobilitiesofeuro01ruviuoft#page/226/
as anyone who had actually read the volume would see.

It is even to be read on p 73 of the recent Elibron re-edition we were first referred to:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LHKBWAz9MMQC&pg=PA73

That there may have been successful attempts in the distant past in the UK, by the vainglorious to con Crown officials, should not have any weight.

Derek Howard

[Graham Milne]

Very interesting. I think the problem is that the language used in these grants is absolutely clear in that no distinction is made between male and female descendants. If one applies the normal rules of interpretation used in courts of law (i.e. that ordinary words have their ordinary meaning) that would be the end of the matter and the title could pass equally to male and female descendants. The point is made that, whatever the language, the PRACTICE in German states was for titles not to pass to the children of daughters. While this might be the case, the question arises as to what happens where such a title is actually territorial? If the holder of a duchy, say, has an only daughter does the duchy just disappear into thin air when the titleholder dies. Clearly, it can't do. Did the duchy revert to the superior (Emperor) or did it pass to the husband of the heiress in right of his wife, as happened in England? And given that all titles were originally (and continued to be treated as) real property (i.e. as land) do such titles not pass in accordance with the law of real property. Perhaps a middle way answer is that the rank (e.g. baron) could not pass through a daughter but, in the absence of a male heir, the primary title (e.g. Baron of x) could pass to and through a daughter. If not then lands with titles (i.e. proper territorial titles) would have had to have reverted to the superior. But what happens if the superior title itself (e.g. Holy Roman Emperor) has no male heir? It must pass to somebody (and were there not Empresses?). And if the Imperial title could pass to a daughter, why not a principality, a dukedom, county or barony? The fact that the Imperial title could pass to a woman in the absence of a male heir indicates that the same could happen to lower titles in the Holy Roman Empire, otherwise the law would be inconsistent. What do you think?

[Graham Milne]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law

'As actually interpreted by the Salian Franks, the law simply prohibited women from inheriting, not all property (such as movables), but ancestral "Salic land"; and under Chilperic I sometime around the year 570, the law was actually amended to permit inheritance of land by a daughter if a man had no surviving sons.'

'The so-called Semi-Salic version of succession order stipulates that firstly all male descendance is applied, including all collateral male lines; but if all agnates become extinct, then the closest heiress (such as a daughter) of the last male holder of the property inherits, and after her, her own male heirs according to the Salic order. In other words, the female closest to the last incumbent is regarded as a male for the purposes of inheritance/succession.'

'From the Middle Ages, we have one practical system of succession in cognatic male primogeniture, which actually fulfills apparent stipulations of original Salic law: succession is allowed also through female lines, but excludes the females themselves in favour of their sons.'

[Graham Milne]

PS Since this semi-Salic law of succession (which allowed succession through a woman) was used in relation to the Imperial title itself under the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, and that this Pragmatic Sanction was approved by a majority of states within the Empire, I think we can conclude that the semi-Salic law of succession applies within the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) and that an HRE can therefore pass through a woman, if not to a woman.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

Le samedi 26 janvier 2013 17:13:46 UTC+1, Graham Milne a écrit : ...


suppose cowboys living in and around Chicago are speaking of the Austrian sanctio ... of 1713?

[Graham Milne]

You've lost me. What re you trying to say. Speak plainly then we might understand you.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:02:11 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
> You've lost me. What re you trying to say. Speak plainly then we might understand you.
>

2013, did not lost. On ist too much. Bartenstein the Auistrian Minister is after all one's ancestor.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:30:28 PM UTC+1, edesp...@yahoo.fr wrote:


>
> 2013 January 27, did not lost. On ist too much. Bartenstein the Austrian Minister is after all one's ancestor.
have not lost...
One ... interested

[Graham Milne]

Eh? Are you saying that we should accept your opinions (whatever they may be - we haven't found out yet) because you are descended from someone with a funny name? I am sure I can find some ancestors with even funnier names.

[Outis]

Not sure if I understood your point correctly, but the Emperorship itself cannot be a valid comparison here. After all, the imperial throne an elected seat, not a hereditary one.

[Graham Milne]

Yes, but under Salic law (the argument runs, according to D Howard) the imperial title could not pass to a woman - but it did. But even ignoring the imperial title it seems to be clear that a title could pass through a woman and possibly even to a woman.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:13:24 AM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:

...(semi) salic law:

speciality of conversation of cowboys.

Here in France you do not here of this wisdom!

Count Gudenus

[Graham Milne]

Whatever.

[Outis]

The imperial title passed to a woman? What?

Again, the HRE is legally an elected seat. It is not regulated by any hereditary law, and it is never simply "passed" onto someone. In short, it has nothing to do with the Salic law and should be left out of this debate altogether.

[Derek Howard]

On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:13:24 AM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:

> Yes, but under Salic law (the argument runs, according to D Howard) the
> imperial title could not pass to a woman - but it did. But even ignoring the
> imperial title it seems to be clear that a title could pass through a woman
> and possibly even to a woman.

I did not maintain Salic law had anything to do with an elective office.

If you refer to the title of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, perhaps you could enlighten us as to who you are thinking of? You may be thinking of examples on this list of consorts.

If you are referring to the hereditary possessions of the Austrian Habsburgs, these had to be the subject of special legislation - the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 - to allow the daughter of Charles VI to inherit.

However, your first query was specific to a barony created by patent. The descent of this type of barony was governed by the terms of the patent as it would have been interpreted by the appropriate courts of the HRE, not by the English translation as it is imagined a 21st century English court would interpret it, nor was it governed by Salic law (which anyway was a codification of custom, not a rigid rule). To understand the German interpretation you are best referred - as you have been - to the works of the continental nobility experts.

It is however all a bit silly and hypothetical to dream of who would have rights to such a 1706 HRE title, given that nobility is abolished in most of the former HRE lands and such titles would not now be recognised in the UK.

Derek Howard

[Graham Milne]

I was referring to the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713. By the way, do try and be polite. Referring to something as 'silly' is a bit ridiculous in the field of heraldry given that most people regard the whole idea as 'silly'. Let's accapt that you are as silly as I am and then we can proceed without name-calling.

PS. You haven't addressed the points I raised before about succession through or by women.

[Graham Milne]

I have put the documents from the Austrian State Archives on-line at:

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BybRp00j__EpYktVb0NGaUhZYms/edit?usp=sharing

I thin the key docs start with:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BybRp00j__EpTGlxVTRDeVJrNkk/edit?usp=sharing

which is DSCF0361.JPG

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:15:22 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:

This is a confirmatio of nobility. No barony!

Scan ... 077 : key document using your expression. First folium not pagina. Know very well this handwriting. Document clear handwriting. At first view you should have no difficulty in making a transciptio.

Count Gudenus

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 11:34:14 PM UTC+1, edesp...@yahoo.fr wrote:
> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:15:22 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
>
>
>
> This is a confirmatio of nobility. No barony!
>

firmatio! Why not?

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 11:34:14 PM UTC+1, edesp...@yahoo.fr wrote:

> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:15:22 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
>

> This is a confirmatio of nobility. No barony!
>

Latin! Why?

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

See Frank5, III (1972), 257d

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 11:34:14 PM UTC+1, edesp...@yahoo.fr wrote:

> On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:15:22 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
>
>
>
> This is a confirmatio of nobility. No barony!

A confirmatio is a confirmation of something that is already present. Such a document can therefore not make any news! Your business therefore is to come up with the original that was confirmed. For example because the signature of an emperor was nicer, than the one of the duke of Sabaudia!

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:15:22 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
> I have put the documents from the Austrian State Archives on-line at:
>

...376..., page of minor value? No, it may be the most important one!

Count Gudenus

[Graham Milne]

I agree to the extent that it does say 'confirmation of nobility' - but it also says 'with denomination'. Do you know what that means?

A number of other points:

1. There would have been a confirmation of nobility in the first place in any event, as I understand it, because only a noble could be granted a title, so you either had to be confirmed as a noble or granted nobility before you could be granted a title.
2. The documents are drafts. They do not necessarily proved what the final charter said.
3. I find it odd that all the sources (including Ruvigny) say that a barony was granted. I think it unlikely that they would all be wrong or would have accepted an assertion without proof.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:52:02 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
> I agree to the extent that it does say 'confirmation of nobility' - but it also says 'with denomination'. Do you know what that means?

You buy the castle New York, then that of London: You can call yourself of New York and London!

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:52:02 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:

>
> 2. The documents are drafts. They do not necessarily proved what the final charter said.

The final would have the text you see in the draft. No photocopy machine they had to help themselves such!

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:52:02 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:

> 3. I find it odd that all the sources (including Ruvigny) say that a barony was granted. I think it unlikely that they would all be wrong or would have accepted an assertion without proof.

It is your job to be the discoverer of the barony or any other source you will accept. Good luck!

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:52:02 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:


> 1. There would have been a confirmation of nobility in the first place in any event, as I understand it, because only a noble could be granted a title, so you either had to be confirmed as a noble or granted nobility before you could be granted a title.

The nobility was granted. It does not say with it came a title. A title may have come, a title may also never have come. A grant of a title did not need a confirmation of the nobility.

[Graham Milne]

'The nobility was granted. It does not say with it came a title. A title may have come, a title may also never have come. A grant of a title did not need a confirmation of the nobility.'

No, the document you refer to was (or included) a confirmation of nobility, meaning they were already noble (in France). You can't say it was both a grant of nobility and a confirmation of nobility.

I should point out that the family were variously Viscounts of Tripoli, Viscounts of Nicosia, Barons of Cyprus (all Crusader titles) and Marquises of Montolieu in France, as well as nobles of Languedoc.

I suspect that there are other documents in the archives because Ruvigny is quite specific: 'For his services with the allies in Piedmont he was, by letters patent dated at Vienna 14 Feb. 1706, cr. by the Emperor Joseph I, a BARON OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE as BARON OF ST. HIPPOLYTE (FREIHERR VON ST. HIPPOLYTE), with rem. to his descendants male and female for ever.' Either that or I am missing something in the documents I have. I cannot be certain without a full translation (I am not prepared to rely on your word).

[Turenne]

This from Le Dictionnaire Historique 1732, gives the impression that David de Montolieu, SEIGNEUR DE ST. HIPPOLYTE was in the service of the British and Sardinians at or around 1706. There is no mention of an HRE barony or Austrian service...

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5mHqtDAnttwC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=SEIGNEUR+DE+ST.+HIPPOLYTE&source=bl&ots=NJv17Ukz6N&sig=XtdWBZDVvqlYHseedufIbt0kDKc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=atgWUYTgKYWc0QX60oDwDA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=SEIGNEUR%20DE%20ST.%20HIPPOLYTE&f=false

RL

[Derek Howard]

From the London Gazette:
2 May 1727 "His Majesty has been pleased to appoint Colonel David Montolieu Baron de Saintipolite, to be Brigadier-General of His Majesty's Forces".

17 June 1739 "His Majesty has been pleased to make the following Promotions of General Officers in his Army, viz, […]Lieutenants General. […] David Montolieu, Baron de St. Hyppolite […]"

Derek Howard

[Graham Milne]

Thanks for that. Very interesting.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 9:17:44 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
> 'The nobility was granted.

No, with the document known nothing was granted. The already existing /present nobility was confirmed!

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 8:42:40 AM UTC+1, edesp...@yahoo.fr wrote:

Sabaudia, Savoy, Piedmont in THIS context more or less the same!

The HR Emperor was the duke of Sabaudia's overlord, S was THEN a part of the HRE!

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 9:17:44 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
> 'The nobility was granted. It does not say with it came a title. A title may have come, a title may also never have come. A grant of a title did not need a confirmation of the nobility.'
>
>
>
> No, the document you refer to was (or included) a confirmation of nobility, meaning they were already noble (in France).

In France?

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

Grant, in German, Latin.

The text is different.

What that says?

Bad latinist! And nothing else!

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

It seems working condition of prostitutes is:

No money - no honey!

The same is with the emperors grants (LP).

You had to pay taxes to the emperor's chamber; but not only here also the civil servant had to be paid.

The coat of arms had to be designed, to be inspected, approved. The diplomas' parchment had to be bought, civil servant to be tipped, etc.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

pass to her son.

What that means (despite you never read that in German)?

No grants/LP could be issued anymore! As already by birth ...!

It is time to forget certain ideas! They will have to RIP!

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:15:22 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:

The main page may be the scan ...376....

It is the verso page of folium ...

You read here:

(in shortened language) exped ex speciali S: C Matis Mandato Vien 14 Febr 1706 [signature] F ... de Schönborn [m.p.]

Now one could ask to buy parchment etc for the LP and pay this and that.

Schönbornwas the Vice Chancellor of imperial
chancery in Vienna.

LP finished it would then be signed by the emperor with the said day and expediated to the happy guy.

[Graham Milne]

You may well be right. I can't see a grant of a barony in the documents (on the face of it) but it seems odd that people like Ruvigny would have bee so positive - and the London Gazette. I cannot see the benefit of trying to pretend one held a title; it was risking so much - and there must have been Ambassadors, diplomatic staff and all sorts of people who would have smelt a rat. Also, David de Montolieu doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would have indulged in such pretence; he was a pretty no nonsense soldier. I assume that a grant of a barony would have been recorded in some public gazette in Austria, so perhaps that is the place to look. Is it possible he was created a baron by the Duke of Savoy?

[Graham Milne]

You are quoting and contradicting yourself. It was you who said 'the nobility was granted'. See earlier posts.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

Ruvigny ist quoted as source.

Ruvigny, edition 1914, does not show this family.

Also NOT in the addendum: supplement.

[Graham Milne]

Yes, in France. The documents refer to this. Surely you noticed? There is a letter at DSCF0363.jpg

[Graham Milne]

See Frank5, III (1972), 257d. Can you quote this, put it on-line somewhere? Thanks.

[Graham Milne]

Melville Henry Massue, Marquis de Ruvigny, 'The Nobilities of Europe', Melville & Co., London, 1910, Elibron Classics re-print, p. 350 states:

'DE MONTOLIEU. David de Montolieu, SEIGNEUR DE ST. HIPPOLYTE in France, a French Protestant refugee, came to England with William, Prince of Orange, in 1688, and entered the army, becoming a Lieut.-General. For his services with the allies in Piedmont he was, by letters patent dated at Vienna 14 Feb. 1706, cr. by the Emperor Joseph I, a BARON OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE as BARON OF ST. HIPPOLYTE (FREIHERR VON ST. HIPPLOYTE), with rem. to his descendants male and female for ever. His male issue became extinct on the death s.p.m.s [without male issue] of his grandson, Lewis (Montolieu), 3rd Baron de St. Hippolyte, 20 May 1817. The heir of line of the Barons de St. Hippolyte [H. R. E.] is his great grandda. Constance Maria (née Hammersley), widow of Lieut.-Col. Henry Edward Stopford, and not Lord Elibank, as is often stated.'

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LHKBWAz9MMQC&pg=PA350#v=onepage&q&f=false

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

in some public gazette in Austria [?]

A little bit too early

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:38:51 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2013 7:42:40 AM UTC, edesp...@yahoo.fr wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 9, 2013 9:17:44 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > 'The nobility was granted.

Obviously a nobility was granted. May be even by himself. That one was confirmed with the document you via scans published here.
A confirmatio was obviously cheaper than an elevatio / a grant.

Please notice that Vienna was the home of several chanceries. Some were cheaper than the imperial chancery.

The tope chanceries were those of the Empire, the king of Bohemia.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

Corrigendum: top chanceries

[Derek Howard]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:37:24 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
> You may well be right. I can't see a grant of a barony in the documents (on
> the face of it) but it seems odd that people like Ruvigny would have bee so
> positive - and the London Gazette. I cannot see the benefit of trying to
> pretend one held a title; it was risking so much - and there must have been
> Ambassadors, diplomatic staff and all sorts of people who would have smelt a
> rat. Also, David de Montolieu doesn't strike me as the sort of person who
> would have indulged in such pretence; he was a pretty no nonsense soldier. I
> assume that a grant of a barony would have been recorded in some public gazette
> in Austria, so perhaps that is the place to look. Is it possible he was created
> a baron by the Duke of Savoy?

The London Gazette only printed what it was asked to print. I missed one promotion out:
London Gazette, 7464, 16-20 December 1735
Whitehall, December 18. 1735
His Majesty has been pleased to make the following Promotion of General Officers in his Army.
[…] Majors General
[…] David Montolieu Baron de St. Hippolite
http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/7464/pages/1

He did not always use the barony title, eg the baptism in 1719 of his son:
May 18 As it appears by Certificate drawn out of ye Register Book by Henry Chatelaine, Minister of ye French Church of St Martin Orgars ye 18th day of May, Louis Charles, son of David de Montolieu de Sainti Polite Esqr., was born ye 3rd instant in ye parish of St Mary Aldermary, & was baptized ye 18th; the Godfathers Messire Louis de Montolieu de Sainti Polite & Charles Molinier; the Godmother Elizabeth de Molinier.
Parish Registers of St Mary Aldermary, baptisms and marriages 1558-1754, Harleian Society, p 122 http://archive.org/stream/parishregisterso05ches#page/n253/

Nor is he referred to as a baron in the will of James Baudin in Proceedings if the Huguenot Society of London, vol VI, 1898-1901, 1902, Notes and Queries pp 173 et seq.
http://archive.org/stream/proceedingshugu06londgoog#page/n212/

However, Agnew states categorically that it was the Emperor Joseph who gave him a patent of nobility as Baron of Saint-Hippolite, in the German Empire, dated at Vienna, 14 Feb 1706. However, he states that this was after the Emperor had been satisfied as to the antiquity and nobility of the family, so part of the process may well have been confirmation of nobility. See D C A Agnew: "Protestant Exiles from France in the reign of Louis XIV", vol 2, 1871, p 173-176
http://archive.org/stream/protestantexiles02agneuoft#page/n183/

The memoires for 1704-11 of David de Montolieu, Baron de St. Hippolyte, survive in an early 19th-cent. transcript by his grand-daughter, Ann Burges, see Dep. Bland Burges 76/1-2 in the papers of Sir James Bland Burges, mainly 1772-1824, with papers of the Burges and Head families, 18th-20th cent., Bodleian Library, University of Oxford. (There is also something of an account of the family in H Wagner: "The 'Memoires pour mes Enfans' of Marie Molinier, Baroness Montolieu de St. Hippolyte", Huguenot Society Proceedings, vol X, 1912-14, issue 1, pp 156-176 http://archive.huguenotsociety.org.uk/17_Vol_X_Issue_1.pdf )

And the title is used in the catalogue at least of his will "of The Honourable David Montolieu Baron de Saint Hippolite, Lieutenant General of His Majesties Forces of Saint George Hanover Square, Middlesex", 3 July 1761,
TNA, Prerogative Court of Canterbury, PROB 11/867/184 – available on-line

Derek Howard

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

Old and do not understand very of the computer business.

But what was necessary to look up, that was quoted. Therefore somebody else may do the job.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

Too difficult to look up this scan. Please repost, am now 75 years, &c!

[Graham Milne]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BybRp00j__EpSVp1ZDlCY1BadGs/edit?usp=sharing

[Graham Milne]

Terrific stuff. Thank you. I have a feeling that the Archives have sent the material relating to the confirmation of nobility but not the grant of a barony, though I have no idea why these would be separate.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Monday, February 11, 2013 6:24:25 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BybRp00j__EpSVp1ZDlCY1BadGs/edit?usp=sharing
You are not making it easy for others

This page - obviously a verso page - is dated Turin 11 November 1705. Louis styles himself: ... Seigneur de S.t Hypolite, et autres terres ... [au] province de Languedoc [France; not HRE]

Signature not read!

Obviously Louis belonged to the French nobility.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Monday, February 11, 2013 6:25:42 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
> Terrific stuff. Thank you. I have a feeling that the Archives have sent the material relating to the confirmation of nobility but not the grant of a barony, though I have no idea why these would be separate.

By nature two files. However one would say the second does not exist, may even never have existed!

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Monday, February 11, 2013 6:25:42 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:
> Terrific stuff.
Here some more of that stuff.

A prostitute could hold books about her work. The emperor certainly did. Now everything may be in the same Archives. Such it was not in my days.

In those days one would enter the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv and personaly "meet" Metternich. Other building!

Here one woud ask for the Reichs-Tax-Buch (Register]. There may be different volumes /series.

Here you may find under your data what the poor guy had to pay for honey.

[Graham Milne]

I think it is clear that a second file may not exist. However, I was speculating that one might exist. It is merely a possible explanation.

[Graham Milne]

We know he belonged to the French nobility. The point is that he clearly had to prove his French nobility before obtaining either a confirmation of nobility from the Emperor or the grant of a barony from the Emperor. I thought this point was settled.

[edesp...@yahoo.fr]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:51:31 AM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:

> ... The point is that he clearly had to prove his ... nobility


Because such it would be cheaper?

[Graham Milne]

One thing I have noticed is that the coat of arms in the papers sent to me by the Austrian State Archive include the coronet of a freiherr or baron; that is, a coronet with seven pearls. Picture on:

http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/hippolite.htm

I would regard this as pretty conclusive proof that the grant was of a barony; that is, confirmation of baronial status in the HRE consistent with their French baronial status.

[Turenne]

Just a quick point (this being rec.heraldry). The arms you show as those being used by the Montolieu family are "Barry of six, azure and or", not "or and azure".

As far as the coronets are concerned; the Alte Freiherrnkrone (up to the end of the 18th cent)was a sort of circlet with small pearls woven round the band, with five pearls above the circlet itself. The Moderne Freiherrnkrone had seven pearls.

RL

RL

[Graham Milne]

Thanks. I think the Wikipedia page I linked to explains the issue of coronets. A coronet with 7 tines was the coronet of a baron.

[Turenne]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:21:34 PM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:

>
>
>
> Thanks. I think the Wikipedia page I linked to explains the issue of coronets. A coronet with 7 tines was the coronet of a baron.

I expect that it is up to the armiger which coronet he uses.

Do you agree that the tinctures were reversed?

Richard

[Graham Milne]

Do you mean that a baron could use the coronet of a count if he felt like it? I think not. The whole point about heraldry is that it is based on rules. Without rules heraldic symbols are meaningless. In fact, heraldry can be defined as 'rules concerning the use of symbols'.

[Turenne]

I meant that there is a choice between two different kinds of coronet. One was used before the late 18th century, the other since....If the barony predated say 1790, I assume you could choose which coronet you preferred.

I'm perfectly aware that a baron can't use the coronet of a count.

RL

[Graham Milne]

But one thing a member of the lower nobility could never do was bear the coronet of a baron of seven pearls. This is getting boring.

[Turenne]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:30:47 AM UTC+1, Graham Milne wrote:

> But one thing a member of the lower nobility could never do was bear the coronet of a baron of seven pearls. This is getting boring.

You're right it is; you seem to be making less and less sense.

RL

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

On 22 Apr at 16:09, Graham Milne <grahamm...@btinternet.com> wrote:

<Minor snip compared to the elegant proposition below>

> The whole point about heraldry is that it is based on rules. Without
> rules heraldic symbols are meaningless. In fact, heraldry can be
> defined as 'rules concerning the use of symbols'.

Good point. And I agree that heraldry is rule-based.

The only troubles are:

1. There is no set of rules that gain wide agreement.

2. There is no body that lays down what the rules are. In most games,
rugger, cricket, baseball even, there are rule-making bodies and people
will play the game according to a particular set of rules laid down and
published by a nominated committee.

3. Alternatively one might allw that different places or
game-playing-units have different rules. In rugger there is rugby
league and rugby football with different sets of rules. Heraldry has
different practices for different countries and provinces, but none of
these have a clear and published set of rules, posssibly Lyon Court
apart.

4. In England while there is a nominal rule-making body, nothing is
published and the practices are more those of an absolute sovereignty
that of a constitutional government with changes according to the way
the wind is blowing.

Mind you there is much the same problem with ethics, no one will agree
on any universal proposition; "it is wrong to kill people arbitrarily"
was thought to be a good stab, though.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/