Sixteen Quarters Of Nobility
D. Spencer Hines
immediate ancestors, i.e., back through Great-Great-Grandparents], four
generations, of nobility in Continental Europe to be considered noble
oneself?
Different dates in different regions?
Spain, Portugal, France, the Germanies, Eastern Europe, Russia....
It has never been true in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales has it?
When did it NO LONGER become a criterion of nobility to have 16 quarters
of nobility?
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Matthew Hovious
still be noble without the 16 quarters.
The degree of nobility you refer to may be the one called here
"nobleza por los cuatro costados", that is, nobility on four sides,
probably a reference to the four lineages a gentleman might display in
a quartered coat of arms. This degree of nobility was (and is)
required in order to enter some chivalric orders: one would have to
prove that both of one's grandfathers, and the fathers of their wives
(the applicant's great-grandfathers in those two lineages) were all
noble.
Exceptions were occasionally made by some of the chivalric orders and
this is why modern researchers are cautioned not to immediately assume
that a lineage had longstanding noble status simply because one of its
members was inducted into an order.
"Simple" nobility, if one may call it that, merely requires nobility
in the direct male line and passes from father to son regardless of
the mother's family status. Nobility does not pass from a mother to
her children except in a few exceptional cases usually involving
titles of nobility.
Nobility in Spain takes 3 continuous generations to become hereditary.
To use a contemporary example, consider former president Adolfo
Suarez, whom King Juan Carlos created Duke of Suarez. He was not
previously (as far as I know) a member of the nobility. Suarez is now
noble because he holds a title. In the second generation, the son who
inherits the title will be noble, for the same reason, but the other
children will not. Eventually, all of Adolfo's grandchildren through
that son will be noble by birth, because they will be able to claim a
noble father and grandfather.
Most scholars I am in contact with believe that the noble class still
exists in Spain, for two reasons. First of all, it was never formally
abolished: all that was abolished were its privileges, such as certain
tax exemptions. Secondly, in a 1982 ruling Spanish courts took away
the title of a Marquis and gave it to his cousin, because the cousin
proved in court that the original grant of the title stipulated that
heirs with noble consorts would have preference over other heirs. The
litigant claimed that while his wife was from a noble family, his
cousin's was not: the court agreed with him and the defendant lost his
title.
"D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message news:<DYYOb.370$p07....@eagle.america.net>...
Francisco Antonio Doria
Portugal (and for a while Spain) never adhered to this
rule; we are too mongrelized. In the very words of the
Comtesse de Paris, D. Izabel, during a talk I gave in
95 here in Rio: em Portugal nunca ninguém se importou
com bastardia. Nobody ever cared about illegitimacy in
Portugal. Also agnatic descent, and so on.
The Portuguese/Brazilian criterion is simple: you
qualify as noble (among other criteria) if you have a
nobleman - male or female - among your four gparents.
The other criteria are: if you have a doctoral degree,
if you are a judge, if you are a wealthy merchant.
So, nobility was an open class in Portugal.
Another interesting fact: being granted a title in
Brazil never meant becoming ennobled. You became a
nobleman if you were granted the title of fidalgo:
moço fidalgo da casa imperial, fidalgo cavaleiro da
casa imperial. These titles granted you hereditary
nobility.
Moço Fidalgo da Casa Imperial: Nobleman-Equerry of the
Imperial Household.
Fidalgo Cavaleiro da C I: Nobleman Knight of the
Imperial Household (this is a kind of baronetcy, since
it's a hereditary knighthood).
Of course people descended from the old families were
recognized as noblemen without much discussion.
fa
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu>
escreveu: > When did it become the rule that one must
______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities: a maneira mais fácil de criar seu web site grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/
Pierre Aronax
"D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> a ecrit dans le message de
news:DYYOb.370$p07....@eagle.america.net...
> When did it become the rule that one must have 16 quarters [one's 30
> immediate ancestors, i.e., back through Great-Great-Grandparents], four
> generations, of nobility in Continental Europe to be considered noble
> oneself?
In France, never: to be noble, one had only to have a noble father. To be of
noble extraction, to have a father, a grandfather and a great granfather
(all in the male line) noble.
Pierre
D. Spencer Hines
have been told.
Prussia?
Italy?
DSH
Pierre Aronax
> But 16 quartiers were never required to prove nobility in France ---- we
> have been told.
I don't think so, I think it is four quarters. Anyway,in France quarters of
nobility are only counted in the male line, and not between all ancestors:
so, it was not important if your mother was noble or not, only if your
father was.
Pierre
John P. DuLong
> In France, never: to be noble, one had only to have a noble father. To be
of
> noble extraction, to have a father, a grandfather and a great granfather
> (all in the male line) noble.
My understanding is that during the Ancien régime the determination of
nobility depended on the time, the place, and the reason for asking. This
is what Roland E. Mousnier indicates in his _The Instituions of France under
the Absolute Monarchy, 1589-1789_, 2 vols. (1974).
For example, to receive particularly royal honors you had to proof your
nobility to varying degrees. See the list below:
Royal Honor Ancestry Requirements
Colonial Army Officers Three paternal generations of
nobility
Honors of the Court Paternal nobility back to 1400
without known ennoblement
Navy Student Officers Four paternal generations of
nobility
Order of St. John of Sixteen quarters of nobility
[meaning all paternal and
Jerusalem (Order of Malta) maternal ancestors back to the
sixteen great-great-grandparents]
Order of the Holy Spirit Four paternal generations of
nobles
Order of St. Lazarus Nine paternal generations of
nobles
Order of St. Michael Three paternal generations of
nobles
Pages of the Great Royal Stables Paternal nobility back to 1550 without
known ennoblement
Pages of the Small Royal Stables Paternal nobility back to 1550 without
known ennoblement
Regular Army Officers Four paternal generations of
nobility
Royal Military Schools Four paternal generations of
nobility
School at St. Cyr Over 140 years of paternal
nobility
Squires of the Great Royal Stables Over 200 years of paternal nobility
Either the Genealogist of the King's Orders or the Judge of Arms would be
required to evaluate your submitted proofs.
In addition, there were occassional tax court (cours des aides) hearings
ordered to investigate nobility claims. The required proof to satisfy these
inquires varied according to the time and place. You would have to submit
documents to show that your ancestors were called nobles.
Nevertheless, to be asked to submit proof of sixteen quarters of nobility
was very rare. In the list above, only the Order of Malta made this
requirement. However, the only time I have reviewed evidence submitted to
join the Order of Malta, for the Chabot de Souville family, I noticed that
not all the required ancestors were recorded! This was in the sixteenth
century. So I am just not too sure how strict they were on this
requirement.
I believe that showing off your sixteen quarters was more a matter of
bragging rights and to demonstrate that your family had not recently
arrived.
Regards,
John P. DuLong, Ph.D.
Acadian and French Canadian Genealogy
http://habitant.org
Francisco Antonio Doria
To sum it up ;-))
You are a nobleman if everybody [of consequence]
thinks that you are a nobleman...
chico
--- "John P. DuLong" <dul...@habitant.org> escreveu:
______________________________________________________________________
Jay
Was this consistent throughout the medieval period. Was there a
landed gentry that was not noble as in England, and even in England
was this non-noble landed gentry a late development?
Fortunately genealogy is concerned with all ancestors one can trace
regardless of whether they are in the male or female line, noble or
humble. Course now France is a Republic so I guess it doesn't matter
a fig about quartiers, except to the monarchists still clinging to
their fantasies and pretensions.
Pierre Aronax
"Jay" <heli...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:d51b1746.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<400e6743$0$14347$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>...
> > "D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> a ecrit dans le message
de
> > news:9PkPb.468$p07....@eagle.america.net...
> > > But 16 quartiers were never required to prove nobility in France ----
we
> > > have been told.
> >
> > I don't think so, I think it is four quarters. Anyway,in France
quarters of
> > nobility are only counted in the male line, and not between all
ancestors:
> > so, it was not important if your mother was noble or not, only if your
> > father was.
> >
> > Pierre
>
> Was this consistent throughout the medieval period.
What I said was rather relevant for Modern time and not for medieval period.
> Was there a
> landed gentry that was not noble as in England, and even in England
> was this non-noble landed gentry a late development?
No: nobility was a whole, from the duke peer to the little noble of
province. But there were privilegied groups which were not nobles (bourgeois
of some towns for example): if fact, almost everybody was, before 1789,
privilegied in one way or another.
> Fortunately genealogy is concerned with all ancestors one can trace
> regardless of whether they are in the male or female line, noble or
> humble. Course now France is a Republic so I guess it doesn't matter
> a fig about quartiers, except to the monarchists still clinging to
> their fantasies and pretensions.
Exact: France today does not recognize nobility as such. But the Republic
still recognize titles of nobility.
Pierre
D. Spencer Hines
Republic still recognize titles of nobility."
Pierre
----------
Please explain the differences, Pierre.
Spencer
Pierre Aronax
All members of the families belonging to nobility were nobles: nobility was
abolished in 1789, restored in 1814, abolished again in 1848, restored again
in 1852, never abolished since. So one can consider from a certain point of
view that nobility still exists in France. Nevertheless, French tribunals
have ruled that nobility is not a distinction that has any meaning in
contemporary French, and so one must probably admits that nobility, even if
it is not abolished, is now obsolete.
On the other end, titles [of nobility] (prince, duke, count, viscount,
baron) were used (at least legally, if not socialy) only by senior member of
a family (or of a branch of a family). They were abolished in 1789, restored
in 1808, abolished again in 1848, restored again in 1852, never abolished
since. They enjoy legal recognition: heirs of title conferred by previous
French sovereign can enjoy same in legal papers and have the right (but not
the obligation) to register them. Tribunals are still competent to rule
about conflict relating to titles.
So, titles of nobility are still a legal matter, but nobility, de facto, is
no more.
Social use of titles is much less coherent than is transmission of actual
legal titles (so that, if you meet some day a French marquis, you must know
that he is probably at the most baron and perhaps nothing at all except
noble in the obsolete sense of the word). The head of State can still
authorise the use of foreign titles (and do it at least one time in the last
half century). But that is an other question.
Pierre
D. Spencer Hines
The 1852 date refers to a decree by Napoleon III ---- or something
similar?
Who was the French Head of State who authorized recognition of foreign
titles in the past 50 years? Charles De Gaulle?
Cheers,
Spencer
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40118f74$0$7575$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net...
Jay
> still recognize titles of nobility.
Translation one can still call oneself the Duke or Orleans, and have
it on one's official documents, but it is an empty, meaningless title
carrying no special status, or value save for those trying to cling to
airs of superiority? I guess if one wants to hold on to vestiges of
the ancien regime which perished out of its own ignominy to each his
or her own.
Do folks cling to Napoleonic (I and III) titles as well?
Pierre Aronax
Republic
> > still recognize titles of nobility.
>
> Translation one can still call oneself the Duke or Orleans, and have
> it on one's official documents, but it is an empty, meaningless title
> carrying no special status, or value save for those trying to cling to
> airs of superiority?
I think it depends what you mean by "meaning". For what is of a "special
status", I know of now present country, monarchy or republic, where titles
carry a special status.
> I guess if one wants to hold on to vestiges of
> the ancien regime which perished out of its own ignominy to each his
> or her own.
>
> Do folks cling to Napoleonic (I and III) titles as well?
I don't understand what you mean.
Pierre
John P. DuLong
> To sum it up ;-))
>
> You are a nobleman if everybody [of consequence]
> thinks that you are a nobleman.
I would say from about 1500 to 1789 a better way of saying it is that you
were a noble if you could convince the local tax court, the Genealogist of
the King's Orders, or the Judge of Arms that you had noble ancestors. If
they thought you were noble, then you were. It did not matter what your
friends thought.
It is interesting to consider nobility status, at least in France, as a tax
break. Noble paid fee taxes. So if you could get away with pretending you
were a noble, then you saved money. Hence the reason so many people made
the effort to try and fool the officials and consequently the reason
official investigations were launched by the local tax courts. You would be
requested to submit documents that your ancestors were nobles. This is
where you might see someone forge or alter a document so a bourgeois
ancestor appears to be a noble. This makes things interesting for the
genealogist. If X says his father is Y and a noble, then you can usually be
sure that Y is properly named, but you can never be as confident in his
noble status. You have to carefully read through the document.
Occasionally, one of the d'Hozier Judges of Arms will write in the margin of
a document that a piece of evidence is false. Usually, he means the claim
of a noble status and not a connection between two generations.
D. Spencer Hines
"NOBLE" matters that THEY wish.
And the Germans, likewise ---- and they need not be the same practices.
It seems to me that anyone who pretends to an interest in Genealogy who
is NOT interested to know if someone has Duke of Orleans on his passport
or not ---- is a pretty sorry specimen.
This does not mean in ANY way that I want to imitate these practices in
the United States.
Different strokes and different rules for each Nation ---- as its
citizens decide.
Americans don't get a vote as to how the French or Brazilians or Germans
or Italians or Russians do this sort of thing ---- and should butt out.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Deus Vult
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4011a6c7$0$5109$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
|
| "Jay" <heli...@yahoo.com> a 馗rit dans le message de
Jay
> I think it depends what you mean by "meaning". For what is of a "special
> carry a special status.
In some modern countries there are still priviledges that come with
such titles, where there are not the titles are meaningless unless
given out to honor some meritorious service, other than that they are
merely affectations of snobbery.
> >
> > Do folks cling to Napoleonic (I and III) titles as well?
Well the emperors must have bestowed titles on their favorites much
like the kings did. Do the descendants of these folks get recognition
for these titles like those whose ancestors served the various
monarchial regimes- I am just wondering if some precedence is given
for some moldering titles over others depending on what moribund
regime generated them?
Jay
Pierre Aronax
> > status", I know of no present country, monarchy or republic, where
titles
> > carry a special status.
>
> In some modern countries there are still priviledges that come with
> such titles,
Which countries?
> where there are not the titles are meaningless unless
> given out to honor some meritorious service,
Was it not always the case?
> other than that they are
> merely affectations of snobbery.
>
>
> > >
> > > Do folks cling to Napoleonic (I and III) titles as well?
>
> Well the emperors must have bestowed titles on their favorites much
> like the kings did. Do the descendants of these folks get recognition
> for these titles like those whose ancestors served the various
> monarchial regimes-
Of course, since all Napoleonic titles became Royal titles in 1814: there is
no difference between them. Napoléon III gave much less titles, but some
still exists (like the dukedom of Magenta).
Pierre
Francisco Antonio Doria
The same in Portugal, but never in Brazil. Nobility,
even petty, was exempt from taxes in Portugal. There
were severe punishments for falsely adopted titles,
but nobody cared about them, there was no rigid
control. Any prominent landholder was accepted as
noble.
This rule applies to Colonial Brazil: wealthy people
became noble per se and were given offices restricted
to noblemen.
fa
--- "John P. DuLong" <dul...@habitant.org> escreveu:
______________________________________________________________________
Francisco Antonio Doria
The situation is even more liberal here in this
country: if you show that you are descended from the
Baron of X or Count of Y you can petition a judge to
add title and designation to your own name. You will
probably have to argue that you are thus honoring an
illustrious ancestor, as the judge has discretionary
power in those matters.
chico
--- Jay <heli...@yahoo.com> escreveu: > > Exact:
______________________________________________________________________
Francisco Antonio Doria
escreveu: >
> of State can still
> authorise the use of foreign titles (and do it at
> least one time in the last
> half century). But that is an other question.
>
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
You mean the title of Duc de Lévis-Mirepoix?
fa
PDel...@aol.com
with details of the Coats of arms, the family's origins and ennoblement (if
post medieval) and the people of note in the family, called Annuaire de La
Noblesse Française - by F de Saint-Simon and E de Sereville. It also has a very
useful treatise on Noblesse and the depletion of the Noble families by the 21st
Century, also giving some indications of the Families, still represented, who
can claim Immemorial nobility, late medieval nobility, 116th, 17th 18th and
19th C Nobility.
It is a useful work of reference that has had many editions.
Another fascinating book is that of Pierre Marie Dioudonnat, called
'Encyclopée de la fausse noblesse et de la noblesse d'apparence' giving a compendium
of families that have requested, through the Courts, 'noble aditions to their
names , such as the 'de' or the name of a well known family that is now
extinct - these families, although having the appearnace of Noblesse, are not.
I have both books and find them of inestimable value.
regards
Peter de Loriol
John P. DuLong
> The same in Portugal, but never in Brazil. Nobility,
> even petty, was exempt from taxes in Portugal. There
> were severe punishments for falsely adopted titles,
> but nobody cared about them, there was no rigid
> control. Any prominent landholder was accepted as
> noble.
In New France (Canada) we of course had some legitimate nobles who
immigrated to the colony. But we also had people who successfully pretended
to be nobles. The best example is Antoine Laumet, a Gascon adventurer, who
transformed himself into the noble Antoine de la Mothe, sieur de Cadillac,
and now famous for founding Detroit.
In my ancestry I have Jacques Le Neuf, sieur de la Poterie. Unlike
Cadillac, Le Neuf's family was noble, but it appears that his father or
grandfather had become a merchant and converted to Protestantism. When it
came time to prove his noble status, Jacques did an end run. He provided
evidence that his cousins where nobles and they testified that Jacques was
part of the family, thus avoiding the embarrassment of a bourgeois
background. In France, if you became a retail merchant, then you would loss
your noble status.
We also have in New France several ennoblements. The Hertels and Le Moynes
stand out in this category. They were commoners and made nobles due to
their contribution to the military defense of the colony.
Pierre Aronax
"Francisco Antonio Doria" <franciscoa...@yahoo.com.br> a écrit dans
le message de news:200401241211...@web41703.mail.yahoo.com...
> --- Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
> escreveu: >
> > The head
> > of State can still
> > authorise the use of foreign titles (and do it at
> > least one time in the last
> > half century). But that is an other question.
> >
> >
> >
> > Pierre
> >
> >
>
> You mean the title of Duc de Lévis-Mirepoix?
Indeed. More exactly the Spanish title of Duke of San Fernando Luis, whose
holder is in France baron de Lévis-Mirepoix.
Pierre
Francisco Antonio Doria
Pierre,
I have it from the current Duc/Duque himself. The
Gotha (not infallible, of course) lists the family
under the caption `Duc de Mirepoix, Duc de San
Fernando Luis.' He told me the formal title was that
of Marquis de Mirepoix, but that by usage the
Montmorency-Laval title of Duque de San Fernando Luis
had `lifted' the marchional title, and then that de
Gaulle had recognized the title of `Duc de Mirepoix'
in the person of his grandfather - who is a founder,
if I correctly recall it, of the French Association de
la Noblesse.
So, it's you pitted against the papers in the
Lévis-Mirepoix family archives...
All the best, chico
--- Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
escreveu: >
> "Francisco Antonio Doria"
> <franciscoa...@yahoo.com.br> a écrit dans
> le message de
>
news:200401241211...@web41703.mail.yahoo.com...
> > --- Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
> > escreveu: >
> > > The head
> > > of State can still
> > > authorise the use of foreign titles (and do it
> at
> > > least one time in the last
> > > half century). But that is an other question.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Pierre
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You mean the title of Duc de Lévis-Mirepoix?
>
> Indeed. More exactly the Spanish title of Duke of
> San Fernando Luis, whose
> holder is in France baron de Lévis-Mirepoix.
>
> Pierre
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
Francisco Antonio Doria
I know of very few ennoblements in Colonial Brazil.
Usually one received arms after marrying into an old
family and adopting their name (quite common, btw).
fa
--- "John P. DuLong" <dul...@habitant.org> escreveu:
______________________________________________________________________
Pierre Aronax
> Fascinating!
>
> The 1852 date refers to a decree by Napoleon III ---- or something
> similar?
Yes. More precisily, it was an abrogation of the decree of 29th Feb
1848 abolishing the nobility.
> Who was the French Head of State who authorized recognition of foreign
> titles in the past 50 years? Charles De Gaulle?
Yes, as noted by F.A. Doria, it was for Antoine de Lévis-Mirepoix, a
member of the French Academy who was also a Spanish duke and grandee.
Pierre
PS: For the name of Charles de Gaulle, note a subtleness: when it is
after the first name, or after a title ("Charles de Gaulle" or
"Général de Gaulle" etc.), the "de" is not capitalized, but it is when
the name is used alone ("la politique de De Gaulle", "Churchill et De
Gaulle" etc.). Amusing, isn't it?
Pierre Aronax
> "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In France, never: to be noble, one had only to have a noble father. To be
> of
> > noble extraction, to have a father, a grandfather and a great granfather
> > (all in the male line) noble.
>
> My understanding is that during the Ancien régime the determination of
> nobility depended on the time, the place, and the reason for asking.
<interesting things snipped>
Of course, to receive some honours, you had to be more or less noble.
But the question was about how many quarters were necessary to be
recognized simply as noble (and not to receive particular royal
honors). The answer is that, to be noble (as opposed to roturier or
anobli) one had only to have a noble father and no more and that, in
any case, nobility was only asked only in the male line, not in female
line (like it is the case for the "16 quarters of nobility"
requirement).
<...>
> Order of St. John of Sixteen quarters of nobility
> [meaning all paternal and
> Jerusalem (Order of Malta) maternal ancestors back to the
> sixteen great-great-grandparents]
But, precisely, Malta was NOT a French order! It was, and still is, an
international order, with its own rules: hence the requirement of
maternal nobility.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
> My feeling is that the French can have whatever practices on these
> "NOBLE" matters that THEY wish.
>
> And the Germans, likewise ---- and they need not be the same practices.
>
> It seems to me that anyone who pretends to an interest in Genealogy who
> is NOT interested to know if someone has Duke of Orleans on his passport
> or not ---- is a pretty sorry specimen.
>
> This does not mean in ANY way that I want to imitate these practices in
> the United States.
>
> Different strokes and different rules for each Nation ---- as its
> citizens decide.
Without disagreeing, I must point that the present legal status of
noble titles in France is much more a historical relic than the result
of the will of the people! In fact, as you can imagine, few people are
interested in these questions and, would you ask to most citizens if
they want that the titles continue to be recognized in France, they
would probably say "no". That being said, were they asked if they want
to see the Louvres emptied and transformed into a Sport complex, a
majority of the same citizens would probably answer "yes".
Fortunately, historical artefacts are not managed by referendum.
Pierre
Jay
>
> Without disagreeing, I must point that the present legal status of
> noble titles in France is much more a historical relic than the result
> of the will of the people! In fact, as you can imagine, few people are
> interested in these questions and, would you ask to most citizens if
> they want that the titles continue to be recognized in France, they
> would probably say "no". That being said, were they asked if they want
> to see the Louvres emptied and transformed into a Sport complex, a
> majority of the same citizens would probably answer "yes".
> Fortunately, historical artefacts are not managed by referendum.
>
> Pierre
I understand these titles are a historical relic, but only in the
sense of detritus from the past, they are hardly historical artifacts
or a treasure like the Louvre, they are trivialities and vanities for
those who cling to them like lampreys. There existence one way or
another is of no consequence, I doubt anyone will trouble to eliminate
them merely because they mean so little. I say if there are those who
delight in such pretensions and others who seek to fawn and grovel at
anyone who bears one of these utterly irrelevant titles, let them do
so and be happy. I on the other hand will scoff at such silliness the
same way I do at people who get excited by the latest doings of some
has been celebrity.
I am interested in those who bore titles when they meant something,
hence the interest in medieval genealogy.
Pierre Aronax
"Jay" <heli...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:d51b1746.04012...@posting.google.com...
<...>
> I understand...
Ho dear, really? If you understand, of course, I have nothing more to say.
> I doubt anyone will...
> I say if there are those who...
> I on the other hand will...
> I do at people who get excited by...
> I am interested...
How an interesting and learned contribution: thank you, our knowledge of the
history of French nobility has made great progress by reading your erudite
comments.
Just a last question: how do you manage to use the word "I" in a post on a
subject which does not concern you in any way? :)
Pierre
~Ford~
I would have to say that you hit the American nail on the head with your
French hammer, here.
Pierre Aronax
> Pierre,
>
> I have it from the current Duc/Duque himself. The
> Gotha (not infallible, of course)
I would rather say: extremely fallible (your are speaking here of the
new pseudo Gotha: that's not a serious book).
> lists the family
> under the caption `Duc de Mirepoix, Duc de San
> Fernando Luis.' He told me the formal title was that
> of Marquis de Mirepoix, but that by usage the
> Montmorency-Laval title of Duque de San Fernando Luis
> had `lifted' the marchional title, and then that de
> Gaulle had recognized the title of `Duc de Mirepoix'
> in the person of his grandfather - who is a founder,
> if I correctly recall it, of the French Association de
> la Noblesse.
Chico, we already discussed that previously in length and I have not
changed my mind: with all due respect, your friend His Excellency the
Duke of San Fernando Luis (aka "Duc de Mirepoix") is all wrong.
Firstly, he was never a marquis of Lévis-Mirepoix, and neither was his
grandfather: they were/are only baron (although baron-peer) of
Lévis(-Mirepoix) (or please point me to the precise letter patent
which created such a marquisate). They used socially, in the pas
century, the title of marquis, because a barony seems too little for a
such great family, but this was without legal basis (most of the
French noble families do that, unfortunately: that's why we have now
more dukes and marquis in Parisian cocktails than we had when there
were kings to make them).
Secondly, of course he can not "lift" and his ancestor can not have
"lifted" any real title (particularly a title that, has we have seen
in the first point, he has not...): nobody can do that. A real French
title can not be renounced: all what one can do is simply not to use
it.
Thirdly, Général de Gaulle, when he was President, has not recognized
the title of "Duc de Mirepoix": he has authorized the then duke of San
Fernando Luis to use in France his Spanish ducal title, and the duke
chose to be known socially as "Duc de (Lévis-)Mirepoix", because it is
more easy to say for a Parisian lady: "Puis-je vous présenter le duc
de Mirepoix (de l'Académie française)", rather than "Puis-je vous
présenter Monsieur de Lévis-Mirepoix, duc de San Fernando Luis",
particularly if she has to introduce many dukes with complicated names
to each others in the same reception.
(As an aside, as I understand it, this autorisation to use a foreign
title is ad personam, and not hereditary, so it probably does not give
any right to the descendant, including the present duke, to use the
title in France. But that's not the question anyway).
But the said gentleman is hereditary marshal of the Faith, a much more
glorious title than his invented dukedom (or even than his real
Spanish dukedom).
>
> So, it's you pitted against the papers in the
> Lévis-Mirepoix family archives...
Yes, I know this kind of arguments: "we have papers in our old ruined
castle that which can prove that you are wrong, but nobody has seen
them and no sorry you can not seen them either". I'm NOT impressed.
Pierre
D. Spencer Hines
And thanks for correcting me on Charles de Gaulle.
Many of our American newspapers and magazines don't/didn't seem to know
that.
Spencer
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6779ec44.04012...@posting.google.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Spencer
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6779ec44.04012...@posting.google.com...
PDel...@aol.com
I'm sorry to disagree with you regarding your statement about the fact that
most of the French nobility can only claim to be 'Barons'. There are several
families or houses i can think of who descend from a person who was granted
letters patent of Count or Marquis: Law de Lauriston, Marquis cr 1817, descended
from the celebrated Financier John Law, Duport de Loriol, (my kinsmen) cr Comte
1743, de Portes, Marquis, cr 1747, de Resseguier, Cte & Marquis 1652, de
Sinety, Marquis 1770, ...
Granted , many of the old noblesse were granted more senior titles than Baron
by the Bonapartes, but there are many old French families that still have a
valid descent from a 'Comte' or 'Marquis' precluding the Ducal familes.
I do admit that many of the pre-Napoleonic families existing today only carry
the title of 'Comte' or 'Marquis' because of 'usage' and not from a patent.
As for the usage of titles in France, it is only the locals and not their
'Squire' who call the local noblesse by some title. Usually, in peer company, it
is never mentioned, but the fact that one is 'noble' speaks for itself - how
I'm not sure, but it does, apparently.
There is a 'noyau' in St Germain des Pres, that forms dinner parties on the
basis of precedence, irrespective of titles the oldest lineage is closest to
the host, so plain Mr de Kergorlay (filiation c 1100) precedes the Duc de Luynes
(filiation c 1400) - these dinner parties are quite something, akin to the
Society Dinners in America and those in Britain, Austria, Germany, Sweden,
Denmark, enfin ...'Le Vieux Monde'.
It may seem outmoded, mais 'ça continu' - Many seem to aspire to these lofty
victorian principles. It might seem silly, banal, outmoded, but some of these
Dinner parties have some of the richest and most influential people despite
their titles or lack of - but their girls are very sexy and like to play!
cordialement
'L'autre Pierre'
Pierre Aronax
<PDel...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:6b.212fd19...@aol.com...
> Pierre,
> I'm sorry to disagree with you regarding your statement about the fact
that
> most of the French nobility can only claim to be 'Barons'.
Of course! I have exagerate to be more expressive. Nevertheless, most of the
titles used socially are not real titles.
> There are several
> families or houses i can think of who descend from a person who was
granted
> letters patent of Count or Marquis:
I never said that there was NO French counts and no French Marquis.
<...>
> I do admit that many of the pre-Napoleonic families existing today only
carry
> the title of 'Comte' or 'Marquis' because of 'usage' and not from a
patent.
So, I don't see on what you desagree exactly.
<...>
> so plain Mr de Kergorlay (filiation c 1100) precedes the Duc de Luynes
> (filiation c 1400)
No, you are wrong on that. You are right that filiation is generaly more
important that title, but the exception is for the peerages: the Duke of
Luynes would outrank the head of the house of Kergorlay (who is himself a
Baron-peer by the way and not a simple "M. de Kergorlay"), because Luynes is
a Duke-peer
.
Pierre
laurent ohier
> PS: For the name of Charles de Gaulle, note a subtleness: when it is
> after the first name, or after a title ("Charles de Gaulle" or
> "Général de Gaulle" etc.), the "de" is not capitalized, but it is when
> the name is used alone ("la politique de De Gaulle", "Churchill et De
> Gaulle" etc.). Amusing, isn't it?
Pierre,
The point is that since the "De Gaulle" family is not and never was noble,
writing it "de Gaulle" is not correct, and should be "De Gaulle". Of course,
I've seen "Charles de Gaulle" written many times in books or streets names,
but a lot of people, even officials, don't know that his name shoud be
written "Charles De Gaulle".
For people who are interested in it, the "De Gaulle" family used to belong
to the "bourgeoisie" in the very northern France.
Laurent
John P. DuLong
> I know of very few ennoblements in Colonial Brazil.
> Usually one received arms after marrying into an old
> family and adopting their name (quite common, btw).
In French Canada we have several examples of ennoblement. The typical
pattern for climbing the ladder of success in New France went something like
this: (1) a bourgeois becomes involved in the fur trade and makes a small
fortune; (2) he arranges for his son to become a cadet in the colonial
regular troops (the Marines); (3) the father purchases or is granted a
seigneurie; (4) the son does well in the Marines, goes on several campaigns,
commands a remote post, makes more money in the fur trade, and rises up the
ranks; (5) the son is awarded the Royal Military Order of St-Louis; (6) the
father dies and the son inherits the seigneurie; (7) in recognition for his
service to the colony the son is now ennobled; and (8) lastly his children
go on to live as nobles as if the family were always nobles. So in a matter
of three generations your family is transformed into nobles. There was no
split between the nobility of the sword and robe in New France as in France.
However, I am sure a distinction remained between nobles directly from
France and those who became noble in New France.
I know in the Spanish colonies that the colonial troops were also Marines,
was this the case in Brazil? By Marines, I mean that these were troops
under the control of the Minister of Marines, who in New France was
responsible for the colonies. The Marines were very important for nobles in
French Canada. Most of the officers in the Marines were French-Canadian
nobles. Was this the case in Brazil? Was the military a way of gaining
social position?
Once the British came in most of the French-Canadian nobles returned to
France or melted away. Some families remained prominent, like the Hertels
and Le Moynes. A few French-Canadian nobles were able to make the
transition to the British-controlled colony. Charles de Salaberry stands
out in this regard. Even though many nobles returned to France, enough
descendants remained in Canada so that many French-Canadians can claim noble
ancestors. However, most of these nobles are recent nobles and you do not
have to dig to far to find their bourgeois origins. This is what makes
finding Medieval ancestors a challenge for French Canadians. Not only do
you have to find a noble ancestor, but one who had a long noble lineage, or
more likely married a woman with such a prestigious lineage.
By the way, we only had two Canadian noble titles granted: René Robineau,
sieur de Bécancourt, was made the Baron of Portneuf, and Charles Le Moyne,
Baron de Longueuil. In Canada, as in France, most nobles had no titles
other than écuyer (squire) or possibly chevalier.
laurent ohier
>
>
> Without disagreeing, I must point that the present legal status of
> noble titles in France is much more a historical relic than the result
> of the will of the people! In fact, as you can imagine, few people are
> interested in these questions and, would you ask to most citizens if
> they want that the titles continue to be recognized in France, they
> would probably say "no". That being said, were they asked if they want
> to see the Louvres emptied and transformed into a Sport complex, a
> majority of the same citizens would probably answer "yes".
> Fortunately, historical artefacts are not managed by referendum.
>
> Pierre
Pierre,
Concerning the Louvre stuff, vous croyez pas que vous exagerez un petit
peu ? Il n'y a pas "que" des beaufs ou des iconoclastes en France.
That being said, I agree about the rest of your speech.
Sincerely
Laurent
John P. DuLong
There are of course Dukes, Marquises, Counts, and Barons, but they would be
in the minority among French nobles. Most French nobles, at least from 1500
on, were simply referred to as écuyers (squires). Indeed this is what I
have observed in my research. One most go through hundreds of records with
écuyers before you stumble upon an ancestor with a title.
I believe, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, that this model
differs greatly from England where all nobles have a title.
Pierre Aronax
"laurent ohier" <lauren...@wanadoo.fr> a ecrit dans le message de
news:4012D7D5...@wanadoo.fr...
> Pierre Aronax a e'crit:
<...>
> Concerning the Louvre stuff, vous croyez pas que vous exagerez un petit
> peu ?
Si.
> Il n'y a pas "que" des beaufs ou des iconoclastes en France.
Non, mais heureusement quand meme que le budget du ministere de la culture
n'est pas soumis a referendum.
> That being said, I agree about the rest of your speech.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Laurent
Regards,
Pierre
John P. DuLong
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> Of course, to receive some honours, you had to be more or less noble.
> But the question was about how many quarters were necessary to be
> recognized simply as noble (and not to receive particular royal
> honors). The answer is that, to be noble (as opposed to roturier or
> anobli) one had only to have a noble father and no more and that, in
> any case, nobility was only asked only in the male line, not in female
> line (like it is the case for the "16 quarters of nobility"
> requirement).
I think you are write in the sense of the French culture during the Ancien
régime. That is, generally speaking, to be a noble meant your father was a
noble. However, I seem to recall reading that when official investigations
were launched into the nobles of a district that the rules of evidence would
vary. So a tax court in say Normandy might require that you prove that you,
your father, and your grandfather were nobles by submitting the appropriate
documents referring to your family's status (e.g., marriage contracts,
parish records, etc.). But an investigation in Anjou might require that you
prove that your family has been nobles for over 300 years. This could drive
a noble to distraction. Imagine if your father had gone to the bother of
proving his family's nobility and you then move to another jurisdiction with
new rules and are called to justifiy your status all over again. Remember,
the goal of the tax court is to find false nobles and thus increase the
number of tax payers. So they want to see the evidence, not your claims
that your status has already been checked. This is in part what happened to
nobles in New France when they were called on to submit evidence that they
were nobles.
Of course I agree with you that the male line was more important that the
female line in the eyes of our ancestors and that the 16 quarters were
unnecceassry to claim a noble status.
It is interesting to see the displays of 16 quarters in original documents,
especially the ones illustrated with the family arms. It can be a visually
stunning find. Unfortunably, I have never found such a document for any of
my ancestors, but I have seen them for other famlies. Although 16 quarters
was not essential, I imagine that it gave a person more bragging rights as
would having more ancestors of the sword than the robe.
> But, precisely, Malta was NOT a French order! It was, and still is, an
> international order, with its own rules: hence the requirement of
> maternal nobility.
Certainly, but most of my experience with the Order of Malta has been with
French members and I am afraid I have been too narrow minded about them.
Regards,
Pierre Aronax
"John P. DuLong" <dul...@habitant.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:buul93$m5fc5$1...@ID-28226.news.uni-berlin.de...
> From my readings, I have learned that in France most nobles held no title.
> There are of course Dukes, Marquises, Counts, and Barons, but they would
be
> in the minority among French nobles. Most French nobles, at least from
1500
> on, were simply referred to as écuyers (squires).
Or "chevaliers" for those of more ancient lineage, without being "knighted".
> Indeed this is what I
> have observed in my research. One most go through hundreds of records
with
> écuyers before you stumble upon an ancestor with a title.
Indeed, but that changed in the 17th-18th centuries when titles were more
widely used (and usurped).
> I believe, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, that this model
> differs greatly from England where all nobles have a title.
Or rather where only titled are nobles.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
<...>
> in the person of his grandfather - who is a founder,
> if I correctly recall it, of the French Association de
> la Noblesse.
<...>
About the ANF (Association de la Noblesse française) it is worth to
note that it examines the nobility (or rather the "noble ascendancy",
since nobility as no more value in law but one can still claim to be
of noble ascendancy) but not the titles of its members!
Pierre
John P. DuLong
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Indeed, but that changed in the 17th-18th centuries when titles were more
> widely used (and usurped).
I know that during the 18th century many nobles started usurping armorial
devices that they were not allowed. If memory serves me, I seem to recall
the story of a noble insisting that an artist place a Marquis's crown on his
arms, even though he was only entitled to a Baron's crown, because everyone
this season was using the more beautiful Marquis's crown.
Most of the French noble ancestors I have worked on have been very minor
nobles, so perhaps this is coloring my perception. Although I have French
noble ancestors in the 17th and 18th centuries, I do not stumble upon anyone
with a title until I think the 15th century.
Regards,
D. Spencer Hines
Could we Yanks get a definitive French ruling on this matter?
We often did/do see _Charles De Gaulle_ over here.
Is it correct or incorrect?
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"laurent ohier" <lauren...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:4012D678...@wanadoo.fr...
Jay
> Which countries?
U.K had hereditary peers who could sit in the house of Lords, although
this is in the process of being changed. I am sure in Saudi Arabia
nobility still has priviledges, certainly the power to enrich oneself
by graft as a virtue of being of the House of Saud seems to be one
perk.
>
> Was it not always the case?
No it wasn't, in the medieval period, titles of nobility had definite
perks.
>
> Of course, since all Napoleonic titles became Royal titles in 1814: there is
> no difference between them. Napoléon III gave much less titles, but some
> still exists (like the dukedom of Magenta).
Cool that is nice fun fact to know, thanks Pierre.
Jay
Francisco Antonio Doria
Very few titles were granted to Brazilians before
1808, when Prince Regent D. João moved to Brazil.
Patents (``foros'') like those of fidalgo da casa real
(nobleman of the royal household) and fidalgo
cavaleiro da casa real (knight nobleman of the royal
household) were granted to people who already had
noble status.
fa
--- "John P. DuLong" <dul...@habitant.org> escreveu:
______________________________________________________________________
Francisco Antonio Doria
No, Pierre, I mention *the* Gotha. The old one.
fa
PS: As for the rest, with due respect to you, I stick
to M. de Mirepoix's remarks to me. I notice that the
letters-patent of some of the princely titles born by
the late (my very distant cousin) Donna Orietta
Doria-Pamphilj-Landi are no longer extant (but for
transcripts), and yet nobody would deny her those
titles.
(The same of the ownership of the Palazzo at Piazza
Navona, Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj, now the Brazilian
embassy at Rome.)
--- Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
escreveu: > franciscoa...@yahoo.com.br
______________________________________________________________________
Pierre Aronax
> "laurent ohier" <lauren...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:4012D678...@wanadoo.fr...
>
> Pierre Aronax a écrit:
>
> > PS: For the name of Charles de Gaulle, note a subtleness: when it is
> > after the first name, or after a title ("Charles de Gaulle" or
> > "Général de Gaulle" etc.), the "de" is not capitalized, but it is
> when
> > the name is used alone ("la politique de De Gaulle", "Churchill et
> De
> > Gaulle" etc.). Amusing, isn't it?
>
>
> > Pierre,
>
> The point is that since the "De Gaulle" family is not and never was
> noble,
> writing it "de Gaulle" is not correct, and should be "De Gaulle".
No, that is not the point! Where have you seen such kind of absurdity? Being
noble or not noble has nothing to do with how your name is written: "de" is
a copule in noble as in non noble names. "De" is written only with a capital
only in names of Flemish origin, when it is an article and not a copule, but
that is not the case with "de Gaulle" (even in the General was born in
Lille).
> Of
> course,
> I've seen "Charles de Gaulle" written many times in books or streets
> names,
Of course, since it is the correct way to writte it...
> but a lot of people, even officials, don't know that his name shoud be
> written "Charles De Gaulle".
Please, don't say things without making some basic check! You will be happy
to learn, for example and between other examples, that the Univesity of
Lille is called "Université Charles de Gaulle", without capital:
http://portail.univ-lille3.fr/index.php
that the own son of the General, the Amiral Philippe de Gaulle (without
capital), has published a book with the title "Charles de Gaulle, mon
père"(without capital):
http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/225919754X/qid=1074984642/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/171-7568090-7473007
and that the General himself always wrote "Charles de Gaulle". But probably
you know better than him?
On the use of the "de" in French name, you may take advantage to read some
simple guideline, for exemple:
http://grammaire.reverso.net/index_alpha/Fiches/Fiche284.htm
or
http://nitescence.free.fr/noble.htm
where you will even find a reproduction of the signature of "Charles de
Gaulle" (without capital).
> For people who are interested in it, the "De Gaulle" family used to
> belong
> to the "bourgeoisie" in the very northern France.
That is true but that has nothing to do with the way the name has to be
written.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"Jay" <heli...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:d51b1746.04012...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Which countries?
>
> U.K had hereditary peers who could sit in the house of Lords, although
> this is in the process of being changed.
That is already: nobody sit the House of Lords only by right of birth.
> I am sure in Saudi Arabia
> nobility still has priviledges, certainly the power to enrich oneself
> by graft as a virtue of being of the House of Saud seems to be one
> perk.
I don't think Saudi Arabia has a nobility: rather only a large Royal family.
And it has not titles of nobility: that is what we were speaking about, no?
You wrote:
> where there are not the titles are meaningless unless
> given out to honor some meritorious service,
Y said then:
> > Was it not always the case?
Now you answer:
> No it wasn't, in the medieval period, titles of nobility had definite
> perks.
Where is the logic?
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"Francisco Antonio Doria" <franciscoa...@yahoo.com.br> a écrit dans
le message de news:2004012422374...@web41703.mail.yahoo.com...
>
> No, Pierre, I mention *the* Gotha. The old one.
Chico, you wrote:
> > > The Gotha
<...>
> > > lists the family
> > > under the caption `Duc de Mirepoix, Duc de San
> > > Fernando Luis.' He told me the formal title was
> > that
> > > of Marquis de Mirepoix, but that by usage the
> > > Montmorency-Laval title of Duque de San Fernando
> > Luis
> > > had `lifted' the marchional title, and then that
> > de
> > > Gaulle had recognized the title of `Duc de
> > Mirepoix'
How on earth the old Gotha, who cessed to be published at the end of WWII,
can mention an authorisation made by General de Gaulle? And if it was the
old Gotha who mentioned the title of "Duke de Mirepoix" BEFORE he was
purportedly by De Gaulle, what is it suppose to prove?
> fa
>
> PS: As for the rest, with due respect to you, I stick
> to M. de Mirepoix's remarks to me.
If you want, do it: it's called an argument of authority. But at least call
him by his name: he is M. de Lévis-Mirepoix, dukedom of Mirepoix or not!
> I notice that the
> letters-patent of some of the princely titles born by
> the late (my very distant cousin) Donna Orietta
> Doria-Pamphilj-Landi are no longer extant (but for
> transcripts), and yet nobody would deny her those
> titles.
Probably they have been mentionned somewhere before the last edition of the
Gotha :)
> (The same of the ownership of the Palazzo at Piazza
> Navona, Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj, now the Brazilian
> embassy at Rome.)
Beautiful palace, and beautiful embassy.
Pierre
laurent ohier
> Sacre Bleu!
>
> Could we Yanks get a definitive French ruling on this matter?
>
> We often did/do see _Charles De Gaulle_ over here.
>
> Is it correct or incorrect?
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
Alright,
After too much time spent on the web looking for informations about De
Gaulle, its family origin and the way of writing his name, it seems that
I was wrong and Pierre was right.
It should be "Charles de Gaulle", since he used to sign like this. His
name is indexed "Gaulle (Charles de)" in the Larousse dictionnary.
My belief was that his family was from french flanders origin, and that
his name was actually flemish, with "De" meaning "the" as it's the
flemish definite article. But this is actually not the case: his
ancestors were merchants int Chalons-sur-Marne, in the eastern France.
What is true is that he and his ancestors were not noble, contrary to
what Charles de Gaulle himself declared sometimes, talking about
ancestors who participated to the battle of Azincourt.
Sorry for my mistake. Pierre: t'avais raison ! mille pardon.
Laurent
laurent ohier
>
> No, that is not the point! Where have you seen such kind of absurdity?
> [snip]
> Please, don't say things without making some basic check!
> [snip] and that the General himself always wrote "Charles de Gaulle". But probably
> you know better than him?
>
>
> Pierre
>
Pierre,
Maybe you'll find out my mail where, after having checked things about
De Gaulle spelling and other stuffs, I recognized my mistake and
indicated that you were right and why I was wrong.
Now, can you tell me why your mail is that vehement toward me? (see
above). Nobody is perfect, even you. Everyone can make mistake. I was in
error because of wrong sources that even you can find on the web. By the
way, Charles de Gaulle himself wrote that his name could originally be
"De Wall" meaning "The french" in ... flemish?.
Soyez un petit peu plus mesuré dans vos propos s'il vous plait. Vous ne
me connaissez pas, et contrairement à d'autres, je ne m'autoproclame pas
'Docteur' et ne suis pas grec (see what I mean?).
Cordialement,
Laurent
D. Spencer Hines
Spencer
"laurent ohier" <lauren...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:40130C17...@wanadoo.fr...
Jay
> > U.K had hereditary peers who could sit in the house of Lords, although
> > this is in the process of being changed.
>
> That is already: nobody sit the House of Lords only by right of birth.
>
> > I am sure in Saudi Arabia
> > nobility still has priviledges, certainly the power to enrich oneself
> > by graft as a virtue of being of the House of Saud seems to be one
> > perk.
>
> I don't think Saudi Arabia has a nobility: rather only a large Royal family.
> And it has not titles of nobility: that is what we were speaking about, no?
Well I am sure examples of some perks still exist somewhere, but if
not who cares nobility in the modern age is a ridiculous concept, it
is a relict of the past and that is where it belongs.
>
> You wrote:
>
> > where there are not the titles are meaningless unless
> > given out to honor some meritorious service,
>
> Y said then:
>
> > > Was it not always the case?
>
> Now you answer:
>
> > No it wasn't, in the medieval period, titles of nobility had definite
> > perks.
>
> Where is the logic?
You asked if it was always the case, and I indicated it wasn't ALWAYS
the case, there were titles gained by inheritence NOT meritorous
service in the past, the medieval period is the example I gavew. The
logic is clear, if you cannot understand the logic, that is an issue
on your side.
PDel...@aol.com
You will find quite a lot of information on the DE GAULLE family in
Héraldique et Généalogie over the past few years. There's quite a good mini-pedigree of
his wife in No. 169 octobre/décembre 2003.
Regarding the concept of nobility - isn't it in the same league as the
establishment of a dynasty of merchant princes such as we have seen in the last two
hundred years, notably in America, such as the Astors, Guggenheims,
Rockerfellers, Mellons ... and the Barings, Rothschilds, Taxis, Schneiders, Stokvis,
Zuber, de Dietrich, Schlumberge, inter alia in good old Europe! They are a
Patrician class that support their government in more ways than one and employ the
masses.
regards,
Peter de Loriol
PDel...@aol.com
Pierre,
I was under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that 'de' with a small
'd' was and is the preserve of that much derided state of the nobleman,
whereas 'De' with a capital 'D' is used by everyone else. Those that wish to assume
a mantle of 'nobility' quite often change the 'D' to a 'd'.
We were taught this at school in France and it was later explained to me by
Academics.
amicalement
Peter de Loriol
Pierre Aronax
"laurent ohier" <lauren...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit dans le message de
news:40130C17...@wanadoo.fr...
>
<...>
> My belief was that his family was from french flanders origin, and that
> his name was actually flemish, with "De" meaning "the" as it's the
> flemish definite article.
That was not the argument you gave (I gave it in my answer), and which would
have been reasonbale mistake. You said rather:
> The point is that since the "De Gaulle" family is not and never was
> noble,
> writing it "de Gaulle" is not correct, and should be "De Gaulle".
The word "Flemish" was not in your post.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
> Well I am sure examples of some perks still exist somewhere...
Oh! Of, course, in that case...
, but if
> not who cares nobility in the modern age is a ridiculous concept, it
> is a relict of the past and that is where it belongs.
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > where there are not the titles are meaningless unless
> > > given out to honor some meritorious service,
> >
> > Y said then:
> >
> > > > Was it not always the case?
> >
> > Now you answer:
> >
> > > No it wasn't, in the medieval period, titles of nobility had definite
> > > perks.
> >
> > Where is the logic?
>
> You asked if it was always the case, and I indicated it wasn't ALWAYS
> the case,
Not at all (see above): you said "titles are meaningless unless given out to
honor some meritorious service", I asked "was it not always the case", you
answered: "in the medieval period, titles of nobility had definite perks".
Again, where is the logic?
Pierre Aronax
<PDel...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:9a.1ed5e9...@aol.com...
>
> Pierre,
> I was under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that 'de' with a
small
> 'd' was and is the preserve of that much derided state of the nobleman,
> whereas 'De' with a capital 'D' is used by everyone else.
No. The "de" with a small "d" is used in all names, noble or not, where it
is a copule (like "of" in English): it includes a much more significant part
of the French population than the people of noble ascendancy. The "De" with
a capital is used in names of Flemish origin where it is an article and not
a copule (like "the" in English).
> Those that wish to assume
> a mantle of 'nobility' quite often change the 'D' to a 'd'.
Of course, people with a Flemish name where the "De" is capitalized can do
that. But the greater part of non-noble people with a "de" name has no
capital in it. See for example our present Foreign Minister, Mr Dominique de
Villepin (real full name Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin), who is not of
noble ascendancy (although from a distinguished family with interesting
genealogical connections).
Pierre
Francisco Antonio Doria
Dear Pierre,
I had the 1884 Gotha by myself when I wrote that
message. Do you want me to scan its title page and
Lévis entry and send it to you in pvt?
They do write Duc de Mirepoix.
Best, chico
--- Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
escreveu: >
______________________________________________________________________
Francisco Antonio Doria
I stand corrected!
M de Lévis-Mirepoix :))
chico
--- Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
escreveu: >
______________________________________________________________________
Francisco Antonio Doria
On second thoughts: am I then M de Moraes Acciaioli
Doria?
(My mother used to sign her checks as Mme Gustavo
Doria, if one needs some sort of precedent here...)
chico
--- Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
escreveu: >
______________________________________________________________________
Pierre Aronax
"laurent ohier" <lauren...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit dans le message de
news:40131274...@wanadoo.fr...
> Pierre Aronax a écrit:
>
> >
> > No, that is not the point! Where have you seen such kind of absurdity?
> > [snip]
> > Please, don't say things without making some basic check!
> > [snip] and that the General himself always wrote "Charles de Gaulle".
But probably
> > you know better than him?
> >
> >
> > Pierre
>
> Pierre,
>
> Maybe you'll find out my mail where, after having checked things about
> De Gaulle spelling and other stuffs, I recognized my mistake and
> indicated that you were right and why I was wrong.
> Now, can you tell me why your mail is that vehement toward me? (see
> above).
I will answer you privately on that, since we are clearly off topic now.
Pierre
Peter Stewart
> "Jay" <heli...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:d51b1746.04012...@posting.google.com...
>
>>>Which countries?
>>
>>U.K had hereditary peers who could sit in the house of Lords, although
>>this is in the process of being changed.
>
>
> That is already: nobody sit the House of Lords only by right of birth.
>
>
>>I am sure in Saudi Arabia
>>nobility still has priviledges, certainly the power to enrich oneself
>>by graft as a virtue of being of the House of Saud seems to be one
>>perk.
>
>
> I don't think Saudi Arabia has a nobility: rather only a large Royal family.
> And it has not titles of nobility: that is what we were speaking about, no?
There is indeed an Arabian nobility - but this doesn't include the house
of Saud, who are comparative parvenus.
It isn't registered or marshalled in the way of European nobilities, yet
it was formerly quite as keen on pedigree as any Austro-Hungarian snob.
The Beduin tribal confederations were headed by the equivalent of
princely families, of ancient bloodlines: some of these continue, most
of the individuals living nowadays in Beirut, Damascus or Cairo.
There were also settled rulers of towns and districts within the modern
Saudi Arabia, like the Rashidi clan of Hail, who held power locally
before the Wahabi religious sect - led by the ancestors of today's royal
family - took up temporal ambitions early in the 19th century.
And of course there were the sharifs of Mecca, reputedly the senior
lineage in descent from the Prophet, once briefly the royal family of
the Hijaz and now of Jordan (also, incidentally, of Iraq).
Peter Stewart
siabair ~^~
> Regular Army Officers Four paternal generations of nobility
I wonder if I might pick your brains John. I have a line of an army officer
from Pieces Originale (ie: papers originating in the archives of the
financial office and tax court) that gives five paternal generations with
wives. Were the wives of the paternal line required to be noble or just the
men? Does every dossier in Pieces Originale relate to a successful claim of
nobility or is Pieces Originales a mixture of successful and unsuccessful
claims?
--
siabair (Old Irish) = 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'.
Francisco Antonio Doria
The Mirepoix title is associated to the Mirepoix land.
Their name is Lévis. de Lévis-Mirepoix adds the land
to the family name.
In my case: de Moraes in an old Portuguese noble
family attested since the beginnings of the 13th
century; its name derives from the village of Moraes
near Bragança, in Portugal.
Acciaioli is a nickname, from their business as steel
merchants in the 11th century; Doria is a matronymic,
probably due to an illegitimate origin of the family
also in the 11th century.
So, I'm trying to see how I would properly have my
full name written say, in my card, or in some official
listing...
(If I were to use the full name of the Brazilian
branches, I would have to combine in some way
Acciaioli de Vasconcellos plus da Costa Doria...)
All the best, chico
--- Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
escreveu: >
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francisco Antonio Doria"
> <franciscoa...@yahoo.com.br>
> To: "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com>;
> <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 2:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Sixteen Quarters Of Nobility
>
>
> >
> > On second thoughts: am I then M de Moraes
> Acciaioli
> > Doria?
> >
> > (My mother used to sign her checks as Mme Gustavo
> > Doria, if one needs some sort of precedent
> here...)
>
> I don't see your point.
John P. DuLong
I forget the exact year, but I do recall it was in the reign of Louis XVI,
when a law was passed requiring that all army officers to prove that they
were nobles. This was indeed a set back to the bourgeoisie who had used, in
a minor way, the military as a social mobility avenue. I do not believe the
same requirement was imposed on naval officers, where merit was so much more
important. As a consequence of this ruling, army officers (or was it just
candidates to become army officers?) had to submit evidence of their
nobility, I think to the Genealogist of the King's Orders. Again, relying
on my flawed memory, I believe that the noble status of the wife was not at
issue, only the husbands had to be noble, but I could be wrong on this.
As for the Pièces originales, these are usually pieces of evidence submitted
to the Parisian tax court to prove noble status. I am confident that some
of the claims made to this court were unsuccessful. It has been several
years since I have looked at any documents from this collection, I do not
recall if they have marginal notes, but I do know in other documents found
in the Cabinet des titres you will occasionally find one of the d'Hoziers
writing critical comments about the validity of certain statements (like
"false" or "certainly false").
I am surprised that your Army officer's proofs would be found in the Pièces
originales, I thought there were only found in the papers of Chérin, the
Genealogist of the King's Orders, at the Bibliothèque nationale and the
Archives nationales, but I must confess that I do not have my notes before
me. However, I seem to recall seeing many examples of these papers, written
in a crisp and clear hand, when I reviewed some of Chérin's documents at the
Archives nationales.
Speaking of Chérin, he had a reputation for being very harsh but also very
honest in his review of nobility proofs. As a genealogists, one must admire
Chérin. While going through his papers I noticed that suddenly the wax he
was using to seal documents went from being red to black. Later, I learned
that those particular years was when he had a death in the family, his wife
I believe, and that using black wax to seal letters and documents was a form
of mourning. I found this touching.
siabair ~^~
> I am surprised that your Army officer's proofs would be found in the
> Pièces originales, I thought there were only found in the papers of
> Chérin, the Genealogist of the King's Orders, at the Bibliothèque
> nationale and the Archives nationales, but I must confess that I do
> not have my notes before me.
Thanks John. He was an officer in the Irish army of James II who escaped to
France and joined an Irish regiment in French service. It may be that he
was claiming noble status for his children.
Jean-Philippe Gérard
> I forget the exact year, but I do recall it was in the reign of Louis XVI,
> when a law was passed requiring that all army officers to prove that they
> were nobles. This was indeed a set back to the bourgeoisie who had used, in
> a minor way, the military as a social mobility avenue. I do not believe the
> same requirement was imposed on naval officers, where merit was so much more
> important. As a consequence of this ruling, army officers (or was it just
> candidates to become army officers?) had to submit evidence of their
> nobility, I think to the Genealogist of the King's Orders. Again, relying
> on my flawed memory, I believe that the noble status of the wife was not at
> issue, only the husbands had to be noble, but I could be wrong on this.
I think you are speaking of the ordonnance Seguier (1781).
> As for the Pièces originales, these are usually pieces of evidence submitted
> to the Parisian tax court to prove noble status. I am confident that some
> of the claims made to this court were unsuccessful. It has been several
> years since I have looked at any documents from this collection, I do not
> recall if they have marginal notes, but I do know in other documents found
> in the Cabinet des titres you will occasionally find one of the d'Hoziers
> writing critical comments about the validity of certain statements (like
> "false" or "certainly false").
The "Pièces originales" have no links with noble status or with the
process to prove noble status. The "Pièces originales" is the less
genealogical series of the seven series of the Cabinet des titres.
This collection (Pièces originales) have been built at the end of the
XIXe century, by Ulysse Robert (from 1876 to 1882), using old archives
from Tax court of Paris (Chambre des comptes). Ulysse Robert have made
the decision to order all these papers in alphabetical order, as the
other series. In this series, you can find notarial papers, but no
proofs of nobility or it's just an exception. And you can find some
information about non noble families, but again, it's an exception.
> I am surprised that your Army officer's proofs would be found in the Pièces
> originales, I thought there were only found in the papers of Chérin, the
> Genealogist of the King's Orders, at the Bibliothèque nationale and the
> Archives nationales, but I must confess that I do not have my notes before
> me. However, I seem to recall seeing many examples of these papers, written
> in a crisp and clear hand, when I reviewed some of Chérin's documents at the
> Archives nationales.
The essential book for the proof of nobility in France in the XVIIIth
century is :
Les preuves de noblesse au XVIIIe siècle, by Benoît Defaucompret.
Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux, 1999.
Extracted from this book, indication of the serie :
Cadets aux arquebusiers de Grassin : Nouveau d'Hozier
Ecole royale militaires de Paris : Nouveau d'Hozier
Ecoles royales militaires de province : Nouveau d'Hozier
Cadets de l'Ecole militaire de Paris et de Lunéville : Nouveau d'Hozier
Officiers de troupes (1781-1789) : Chérin
Officiers (artillerie / génie / colonies) : Chérin
Officiers de marine : Nouveau d'Hozier and Chérin
This book also give the kind of proofs need for an office or a charge.
> Speaking of Chérin, he had a reputation for being very harsh but also very
> honest in his review of nobility proofs. As a genealogists, one must admire
> Chérin. While going through his papers I noticed that suddenly the wax he
> was using to seal documents went from being red to black. Later, I learned
> that those particular years was when he had a death in the family, his wife
> I believe, and that using black wax to seal letters and documents was a form
> of mourning. I found this touching.
Black waxes ? Realy black ? I have another explication, less romantic.
The wax of the seals become black (or a red very very dark) naturally. I
think that that depends on the conditions of conservation. The papers of
Cherin have been kept by his nephew papers until 1830 at his home.
But can you give your source, because I am always very interestin by any
information about the "Cabinet des titres".
--
Jean-Philippe Gérard
Jean-Philippe Gérard
> John P. DuLong wrote:
> > I am surprised that your Army officer's proofs would be found in the
> > Pièces originales, I thought there were only found in the papers of
> > Chérin, the Genealogist of the King's Orders, at the Bibliothèque
> > nationale and the Archives nationales, but I must confess that I do
> > not have my notes before me.
>
> Thanks John. He was an officer in the Irish army of James II who escaped to
> France and joined an Irish regiment in French service. It may be that he
> was claiming noble status for his children.
I have a line of an army officer from Pieces Originale (ie: papers
originating in the archives of the financial office and tax court) that
gives five paternal generations with wives.
I think that this act giving five paternal generations with wives is a
working note or a draft, but certainly not a proof of nobility in the
literal meaning. It is just an information. To be something as a proof
this paper must indicate the source of all facts.
--
Jean-Philippe Gérard
siabair ~^~
> I think that this act giving five paternal generations with wives is a
> working note or a draft, but certainly not a proof of nobility in the
> literal meaning. It is just an information. To be something as a proof
> this paper must indicate the source of all facts.
The lineage is given in an office copy of a patent issued by 'James III'
the Old Pretender so it looks as if a pre-existing proof was submitted to
the court. I have limited experience of these records, however, and so I
too would like to hear more about the Cabinet des Titres.
John P. DuLong
"siabair ~^~" <sia...@htmail.cm> :
> Thanks John. He was an officer in the Irish army of James II who escaped
to
> France and joined an Irish regiment in French service. It may be that he
> was claiming noble status for his children.
Wow! I am impressed. My Wild Geese soldier is just a common foot soldier
and not an officer.
Did you know that one of the British heralds came to France with the exiled
James II. His name escapes me, but I believe his records relating to the
exiled Irish, Scottish, and English nobles made there way to the Cabinet des
titres. If memory serves, there was a book published listing the surnames
covered. Do you want me to hunt for the citation?
siabair ~^~
> Did you know that one of the British heralds came to France with the
> exiled James II. His name escapes me, but I believe his records
> relating to the exiled Irish, Scottish, and English nobles made there
> way to the Cabinet des titres. If memory serves, there was a book
> published listing the surnames covered. Do you want me to hunt for
> the citation?
Do you mean 'The Pedigrees & Papers of James Terry, Athlone
Herald....1690-1725' by CE Lart. From memory it deals only with the bigger
fish, colonels of regiments and suchlike. As far as I can make out (second
hand and at a distance) Terry's records can be found at Bibliotheque
Nationale, Fonds Francais, No 32964-32965, 'Preuves de Noblesse...par James
Tyrry'. I am having problems getting copies though, they tell me that
copies can only be made from a backup microfilm and they have no plans to
make a backup microfilm! Any advice would be appreciated.
John P. DuLong
> The essential book for the proof of nobility in France in the XVIIIth
> century is :
>
> Les preuves de noblesse au XVIIIe siècle, by Benoît Defaucompret.
> Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux, 1999.
This is a title new to me, thanks for the tip.
> Black waxes ? Realy black ? I have another explication, less romantic.
> The wax of the seals become black (or a red very very dark) naturally. I
> think that that depends on the conditions of conservation. The papers of
> Cherin have been kept by his nephew papers until 1830 at his home.
The wax was definetely black. Other documents before that date, that is
older, were that deep red you speak of. I understand it was a custom to use
black wax when in mourning, I think this was the case in England as well.
> But can you give your source, because I am always very interestin by any
> information about the "Cabinet des titres".
The Chérin documents with the black wax I recall seeing at the Archives
nationales. They were not at the Bibliothèque nationale and the Cabinet des
titres. Unfortunately, I do not have a citation for the documents. The
situation is that these documents had nothing of interest for the family I
was searching so I did not bother to take a citation of them. However, I
imagine they would be listed in vol. 1 of the _Les Archives nationales: État
général des fonds_.
I just took a peak at an unfinished paper I have on the Genealogisits of the
King's Orders and the Judges of Arms, in one of the footnotes I see that I
recorded that the Archives Nationales has records relating to the honors of
the court and that the Cabinet des titres has records relating to military
officers, both army and navy. So the Chérin documents I looked at must have
been those involving admittance into the honors of the court. My footnote
also mentions François Bluche, _Les honneurs de la cour_, 2 vols. (Paris:
Les cahiers nobles, nos. 10-11, 1957) as a guide to these records.
Sorry I can not be clearer, but we are mostly relying on my weak memory.
By the way, for those who do not know it, Jean-Philippe Gérard is the author
of the definitive _Répertiore des ressources généalogiques et héraldique du
Départment des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale de France_
(Versailles: Mémoire & Documents, 2003). This is a great guide to the
genealogical resources at the Bibliothèque nationale including the Cabinet
des titres. If he says anything that differs from what I have written, then
I would believe him over my own frail memory. He is the expert. I seem to
recall that he was going to do a more detailed work on the Cabinet des
titres. Do I recall correctly? What is the status of that project?
John P. DuLong
France. It is:
Charles Edmund Lart, _The pedigrees and papers of James Terry, Athlone
herald at the court of James II in France (1690-1725):
together with other pedigrees, and naturalisations from the mss. d'Hozier
and other sources in France ... _ (Exeter : W. Pollard, printers, 1938).
I have never seen the book or worked with these particular records.
John P. DuLong
wax" seal mourning in Google you will come up with several hits mentiong the
custom of using black wax to seal letters while in mourning, at least in
England.
John P. DuLong
> I am having problems getting copies though, they tell me that
> copies can only be made from a backup microfilm and they have no plans to
> make a backup microfilm! Any advice would be appreciated.
I would write back and ask them if there is a researcher they trust who you
could hire to look through the records. But this could be very expensive.
The records must be in bad shape.
My day dream is that someday all the records of the Cabinet des titres would
be microfilmed, or since I am dreaming, digitized, to make them more easily
accessible. My friends and I spent a small fortune ordering microfilm
copies of particular dossiers. We were never told that any dossiers were
unavailable, so I can only conclude that the records you want have
deteriorated.
Francisco Antonio Doria
Ford,
This reminds me of a classical American quote,
``Man has to be what he is, Bobby.''
_Shane_.
All the best; I'll prepare the Albuquerque gateway
line andpost it here :))
chico
--- ~Ford~ <smomm...@earthlink.net> escreveu: >
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francisco Antonio Doria"
> <franciscoa...@yahoo.com.br>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 12:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Sixteen Quarters Of Nobility
>
> > (And Palamède de Guermantes was much prouder of
> being
> > the Baron de Charlus than of being Duc de Brabant
> and
> > Prince d'Oléron.)
>
> Very nice, Chico
>
>
> ~Ford~
>
> Then I ducked my head, and the lights went out, and
> two guns blazed in the
> dark,
> And a woman screamed, and the lights went up, and
> two men lay stiff and
> stark.
> Pitched on his head, and pumped full of lead, was
> Dangerous Dan McGrew,
> While the man from the creeks lay clutched to the
> breast of the lady that's
> known as Lou.
>
> These are the simple facts of the case, and I guess
> I ought to know.
> They say the stranger was crazed with "hooch," and
> I'm not denying it's so.
> I'm not so wise as the lawyer guys, but strictly
> between us two -
> The woman that kissed him and - pinched his poke -
> was the lady that's
> known as Lou.
>
> 'The Shooting of
> Dan McGrew', -Robert Service
Jean-Philippe Gérard
> The wax was definetely black. Other documents before that date, that is
> older, were that deep red you speak of. I understand it was a custom to use
> black wax when in mourning, I think this was the case in England as well.
I have no memory of red / black wax after reading "Les généalogistes des
ordres du roi au XVIIIe siècle" (the Genealogisits of the King's Orders
at the XVIIIth century), thesis (1959) by Françoise Pathie.
> The Chérin documents with the black wax I recall seeing at the Archives
> nationales. They were not at the Bibliothèque nationale and the Cabinet des
> titres. Unfortunately, I do not have a citation for the documents. The
> situation is that these documents had nothing of interest for the family I
> was searching so I did not bother to take a citation of them. However, I
> imagine they would be listed in vol. 1 of the _Les Archives nationales: État
> général des fonds_.
At the "Archives nationales", the only papers about Chérin can be :
AB XIX 3261-3294 : Collection d'Hozier, Chérin et Saint-Allais.
They are piece of wreckage of Hozier and Chérin collection, kept by
Saint-Allais.
and the two next references.
> I just took a peak at an unfinished paper I have on the Genealogisits of the
> King's Orders and the Judges of Arms, in one of the footnotes I see that I
> recorded that the Archives Nationales has records relating to the honors of
> the court and that the Cabinet des titres has records relating to military
> officers, both army and navy. So the Chérin documents I looked at must have
> been those involving admittance into the honors of the court. My footnote
> also mentions François Bluche, _Les honneurs de la cour_, 2 vols. (Paris:
> Les cahiers nobles, nos. 10-11, 1957) as a guide to these records.
In fact, you have only some references (M and MM 810-817) about the
honors of the court (just
M 608 et 610 : list of families received to honors of the court.
MM 810-817 : extracts of proofs.
> I seem to recall that he was going to do a more detailed work
> on the Cabinet des titres. Do I recall correctly?
> What is the status of that project?
Yes, I am working on a full history of the Cabinet des titres, from 1720
until the end of the XIXth century.
But it is a long-term work. There are so many documents to check at the
Bibliothèque nationale de France and at the Archives nationales.
--
Jean-Philippe Gérard
Jean-Philippe Gérard
My expression draft was a little excessive, but with my poor
english/american and my dictionary, what I was trying to say is that
your copy is not the original proof, as you mentionned.
It can be a private copy or a copy to have a kind of equivalence of
nobility, to obtain a priviliged office in France.
Regards,
--
Jean-Philippe Gérard
Jean-Philippe Gérard
> I would write back and ask them if there is a researcher they trust who you
> could hire to look through the records. But this could be very expensive.
> The records must be in bad shape.
>
> My day dream is that someday all the records of the Cabinet des titres would
> be microfilmed, or since I am dreaming, digitized, to make them more easily
> accessible. My friends and I spent a small fortune ordering microfilm
> copies of particular dossiers. We were never told that any dossiers were
> unavailable, so I can only conclude that the records you want have
> deteriorated.
Today, the "Cabinet de d'Hozier" is entirely microfilmed. There is no
prevision for the other series.
But, I know that there is a plan for a kind of genealogical entity (not
a new Cabinet des titres !). May be that on this occasion there will be
an effort of digitalization.
Wait and see.
Regards,
--
Jean-Philippe Gérard
siabair ~^~
> My expression draft was a little excessive, but with my poor
> english/american and my dictionary, what I was trying to say is that
> your copy is not the original proof, as you mentionned.
>
> It can be a private copy or a copy to have a kind of equivalence of
> nobility, to obtain a priviliged office in France.
Thank you M Gérard. I believe that further information on the fellow
appears in the 'Preuves de Noblesse...par James Tyrry' dossiers I referred
to earlier, so I look forward to full microfilming and digitisation.
Jay
> "Jay" <heli...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:d51b1746.04012...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I understand...
>
> Ho dear, really? If you understand, of course, I have nothing more to say.
And you you go on to say more.
>
> > I doubt anyone will...
> > I say if there are those who...
> > I on the other hand will...
> > I do at people who get excited by...
> > I am interested...
>
> How an interesting and learned contribution: thank you, our knowledge of the
> history of French nobility has made great progress by reading your erudite
> comments.
I was not commenting on the history of French nobility, but the modern
uselessness of all nobility, which you in fact also commented on.
Your snide an dnasty comments are irrelevant.
> Just a last question: how do you manage to use the word "I" in a post on a
> subject which does not concern you in any way? :)
On question for you. What warrants such rudeness to me? Any topic
on which I have an interest in intellectual discussions concerns me,
as I live in a free country and will discuss whatever topic suits my
fancy without any brooking any interference or censorship from you.
I have simply inquired about statuses and expressed opinions as to the
unimportance of modern nobility, which you concurred carried no
recognition in status and stated did not carry a status anywewher in
the world. I was not discourteous to you, as I have merely inquired
about status of nobility in republics, a very odd thing which you
point out is something most French people also find abhorrent. Unless
I am greatly mistaken and you are one of the weakminded people who
fawn on modern nobility in which case I may have offended you for
which I make no apology considering your above nastiness. Why do you
care if I regard the sham that is modern nobility with appropriate
contempt?
-Jay
Pierre Aronax
<...>
> I was not commenting on the history of French nobility, but the modern
> uselessness of all nobility,
Present is part of history: how can you have an opinion on the French
nobility if you know nothing of its history?
> which you in fact also commented on.
> Your snide an dnasty comments are irrelevant.
>
> > Just a last question: how do you manage to use the word "I" in a post on
a
> > subject which does not concern you in any way? :)
>
> On question for you. What warrants such rudeness to me? Any topic
> on which I have an interest in intellectual discussions concerns me,
> as I live in a free country and will discuss whatever topic suits my
> fancy without any brooking any interference or censorship from you.
> I have simply inquired about statuses and expressed opinions as to the
> unimportance of modern nobility, which you concurred carried no
> recognition in status and stated did not carry a status anywewher in
> the world. I was not discourteous to you, as I have merely inquired
> about status of nobility in republics, a very odd thing which you
> point out is something most French people also find abhorrent. Unless
> I am greatly mistaken and you are one of the weakminded people who
> fawn on modern nobility in which case I may have offended you for
> which I make no apology considering your above nastiness.
Before I gave some explanation, you were all wrong about the present status
of noble titles in France: of course, it did not stop you to have an opinion
about it. I am one of this people (I don't know if they are weak-minded) who
are interested by history of nobility, from its origins until now, and who
are always surprised by other people who think they need to have an opinion,
preferably vehement and loud, on things they obviously know nothing about.
> Why do you
> care if I regard the sham that is modern nobility with appropriate
> contempt?
But I don't care: I was only amused by your pompousness and egocentrism.
Pierre
D. Spencer Hines
He's probably just a pig-ignorant Populist American or possibly a Brit.
We have millions of them.
DSH
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:401785f2$0$13706$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net...
|
| "Jay" <heli...@yahoo.com> a 馗rit dans le message de
Jay
> <...>
> > I was not commenting on the history of French nobility, but the modern
> > uselessness of all nobility,
>
> Present is part of history: how can you have an opinion on the French
> nobility if you know nothing of its history?
I do know something about its history, and you yourself have admitted
they are utterly useless in the present having NO OFFICIAL status to
their nobility only their titles have recognition in that they may use
them in official documents. This information I have obtained from
you. You also admit most French folks don't care much for these
titles, which is only natural in a republic.
>
> Before I gave some explanation, you were all wrong about the present status
> of noble titles in France: of course, it did not stop you to have an opinion
> about it.
I based my information on what you wrote, if I am mistaken than it is
your fault.
I am one of this people (I don't know if they are weak-minded) who
> are interested by history of nobility, from its origins until now, and who
> are always surprised by other people who think they need to have an opinion,
> preferably vehement and loud, on things they obviously know nothing about.
I do no something about it. I live in reality of the modern world
where such titles are a complete sham. To grovel and fawn over such
titles and prop up the snobbery of this foolish relict of the past is
a largely harmless delusion save that it promotes merit based on birth
rather than personal accomplishment which is an unfortunate social
blight not limited to aristocratic titles or France. I do not single
out France in my critique of aristocratic titles or other recognition
based on birth. They are equivalent to believing someone is better
because they are born of a given race.
>
>
> > Why do you
> > care if I regard the sham that is modern nobility with appropriate
> > contempt?
>
> But I don't care: I was only amused by your pompousness and egocentrism.
You were the only one who displayed pompousness and egocentrism. To
believe someone is better by virtue of being able to lay claim to a
title is equivalent to racism. There is no other reason for interest
in titles of nobility in this era except if one buys into snobberry
and classist bigotry. I do not admire such loathsome things, if you
do that is your character flaw. . It does not take in depth
knowledge of the topic to understant that yjr concept of titled
nobility in a modern age in a modern republic like France is not an
absurdity. You have admitted in your posts on this thread- all the
fact necessary to draw these conclusions, logic and reasaon
necessitate the obvious conclusion.
I was not surprised that most French people see things the way I do.
However you will no doubt attribute it to their pompousness and
egocentrism as well- or perhaps ignorance, rather than the admit to
the obvious fact of the absurity of titles of nobility in a modern
Republic, but that is your delusion and you are welcome to it.
Jay
Jay
> Ignore Him, Pierre....
>
> He's probably just a pig-ignorant Populist American or possibly a Brit.
>
> We have millions of them.
>
> DSH
>
And you are probably one of those ignorant weak minded lickspittles
who grovel, bow and scrape before any eurotrash with some silly little
title. They believe in snobbery that makes aristocrats somehow
inherently special. It is a sign of limited intelligence and poor
self-image. There are unfortunately too many of such fools who have
never gotten over fairy stories and think being the Duke of Flatulence
should mean something in the modern world. They probably also think
princesses are bruised by peas under the mattresses. Only a limited
intellect would think that being born into a title makes an
individual somehow superior. They fail to comprehend that such
bigotry is equivalent to believing someone is superior by virtue of
belonging to a certain race. Intelligent beings realize what makes
someone special is the content of their character and their own
accomplishments, not some stupid meaningless relict title from days of
yore. If this is popularism, then all hail popularism. Sentient
beings would regard it as reason and principle.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> I do no something about it. I live in reality of the modern world
> where such titles are a complete sham. To grovel and fawn over such
> titles and prop up the snobbery of this foolish relict of the past is
> a largely harmless delusion save that it promotes merit based on birth
> rather than personal accomplishment which is an unfortunate social
> blight not limited to aristocratic titles or France. I do not single
> out France in my critique of aristocratic titles or other recognition
> based on birth. They are equivalent to believing someone is better
> because they are born of a given race.
But you evidently think some people are "better" than others merely
because they were born with the potential for whatever you consider to
be "personal accomplishment". That kind of elitism is hardly more real
than the snobbery you condemn - or haven't you noticed that the bulk
of humanity don't get much chance, from nature or circumstances, to
achieve material and/or social success?
Most lucky and gifted individuals in the modern world try to improve
the lot of their children, as well as their own, so that privilege
rolls on & even snowballs from one generation to another - not unlike
titles of nobility.
If you had met a good many "aristocrats" of the present day, you might
realise that coming from a line of ancestors who had little more to do
each day than amuse themselves & each other, and to indulge highly
refined tastes in living, can be a real gift in itself, whatever their
brains & talents might be otherwise.
As for fawning over them, the only people I have encountered who did
or expected that were severely lacking in self-confidence rather than
intelligence - in other words, disadvantaged by a blight hardly more
their own fault than being born poor, lowly, lazy or stupid.
Peter Stewart
Jay
>
> But you evidently think some people are "better" than others merely
> because they were born with the potential for whatever you consider to
> be "personal accomplishment".
Nobody is "born with the potential" for personal accomplishment.
Persons of very different capabilities and birth origins have personal
accomplishment, and it doesn't necessarily require wealth or fame.
That kind of elitism is hardly more real
> than the snobbery you condemn -
Nothing elite about judging folks on their character and their
accomplishments. I did not say these accomplishments had to be
material or stauts oriented, that is your measures of success and your
elitism and snobbery.
> Most lucky and gifted individuals in the modern world try to improve
> the lot of their children, as well as their own, so that privilege
> rolls on & even snowballs from one generation to another - not unlike
> titles of nobility.
Unlucky and ungifted individuals try to do the same thing. The point
is judging the person on who they are not who their parents are or
were.
>
> If you had met a good many "aristocrats" of the present day, you might
> realise that coming from a line of ancestors who had little more to do
> each day than amuse themselves & each other, and to indulge highly
> refined tastes in living, can be a real gift in itself, whatever their
> brains & talents might be otherwise.
A person who bears a title can be an accomplished person, but that has
nothing to do with bearing the title. The need to have such a stupid
title is a character flaw.
>
> As for fawning over them, the only people I have encountered who did
> or expected that were severely lacking in self-confidence rather than
> intelligence - in other words, disadvantaged by a blight hardly more
> their own fault than being born poor, lowly, lazy or stupid.
They are disadvantaged by a blight that we can agree on. It is one
they can correct and thus is one of their own making.
Jay
Peter Stewart
> p_m_s...@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote in message news:
>
>>But you evidently think some people are "better" than others merely
>>because they were born with the potential for whatever you consider to
>>be "personal accomplishment".
>
>
> Nobody is "born with the potential" for personal accomplishment.
> Persons of very different capabilities and birth origins have personal
> accomplishment, and it doesn't necessarily require wealth or fame.
>
>
> That kind of elitism is hardly more real
>
>>than the snobbery you condemn -
>
>
> Nothing elite about judging folks on their character and their
> accomplishments. I did not say these accomplishments had to be
> material or stauts oriented, that is your measures of success and your
> elitism and snobbery.
Why set yourself up to judge people at all?
You seem to have entirely overlooked the point I was implying, which is
that titles of nobility are merely one of the ways that humans have
found - almost universally - to affirm and demonstrate their
accomplishments, _including_ those of character if you will.
People have been ennobled in the past for a great variety of reasons,
good and bad, just as they still become rich or otherwise successful in
life.
If you seriously believe that an admirable character is all that
matters, and that this is entirely earned through moral or spiritual
merit, which is in turn acquired only through personal effort rather
than luck, you are strangely naive. Haven't you observed that there are
both wild and domestic animals with individual characters, and worthy
attributes like generosity, courage, honesty, every bit as striking and
beneficial to their fellows as in humans?
Nature is capricious, not fair & equitable. Societies resolve into
classes sooner or later, as the Nomenklatura of the former Soviet Union
amply demonstrated. The qualities you admire so positively are either
innate or are cultural constructs, different from those that gave rise
to ideas of nobility in the first place only as one side of a coin is
from the other.
People like to be distinguished and take pride in themselves, their
families and their histories. Maintaining hereditary titles today is far
from being the worst expression of a kind of folly we all share. There
are far more harmful & vicious ways to get one-up on your neighbours,
friends or rivals.
Peter Stewart
Jay
>
> Why set yourself up to judge people at all?
Foolishness. The whole point of civilized society is to give value on
postive behavior and moral sanction on bad behavior. Otherwise there
would be no criminal system, no taboos, no conception of ethics. If
you want to live in a society without values I pity you.
>
> You seem to have entirely overlooked the point I was implying, which is
> that titles of nobility are merely one of the ways that humans have
> found - almost universally - to affirm and demonstrate their
> accomplishments, _including_ those of character if you will.
If one is given a title of some kind in recognition of their
accomplishments I have no problem with that. However these inherited
aristocratic titles do not do this. No one arguing for the other side
has in fact given one value these titles hold for modern society,
because they can't. They exist today merely to foster snobbery and
for no other reason.
>
> People have been ennobled in the past for a great variety of reasons,
> good and bad, just as they still become rich or otherwise successful in
> life.
I have never argued otherwise. So this point is moot. I am
discussing modern inherited aristocratic titles.
>
> If you seriously believe that an admirable character is all that
> matters, and that this is entirely earned through moral or spiritual
> merit, which is in turn acquired only through personal effort rather
> than luck, you are strangely naive.
Again you a creating a straw man creating arguments I have never made.
Clearly there is prejudices in society, and we shall never be free
from all biases, but it is another matter entirely to endorse such
bigotries.
Haven't you observed that there are
> both wild and domestic animals with individual characters, and worthy
> attributes like generosity, courage, honesty, every bit as striking and
> beneficial to their fellows as in humans?
Is this your plug for PETA? LOL
>
> Nature is capricious, not fair & equitable. Societies resolve into
> classes sooner or later, as the Nomenklatura of the former Soviet Union
> amply demonstrated. The qualities you admire so positively are either
> innate or are cultural constructs, different from those that gave rise
> to ideas of nobility in the first place only as one side of a coin is
> from the other.
Again there is a difference between acknowledging the evils of the
world and endorsing them. People who are noble in character, people
who have achieved great things are to be admired by rational beings.
People whose status is obtained through deceipt, corruption, and
influence are not to be admired. A person who is born into a family
that had born a title can be a good person and do wonderful things,
but the title does not acknowledge any of that, it is a relict of
bigotry and snobbery and rational people would not show it any favor.
>
> People like to be distinguished and take pride in themselves their
> families and their histories.
One can do that without titles.
Maintaining hereditary titles today is far
> from being the worst expression of a kind of folly we all share.
Ture, but it is an expression of folly-so why defend it?
There
> are far more harmful & vicious ways to get one-up on your neighbours,
> friends or rivals.
I don't disagree with this, but then you have essentially agreed with
my case that these titles are ludicrous, so why are you arguing-except
merely to argue?
Jay
Peter Stewart
long already.
Jay wrote:
> Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<Pk3Sb.33136$Wa.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
>
>>Why set yourself up to judge people at all?
>
>
> Foolishness. The whole point of civilized society is to give value on
> postive behavior and moral sanction on bad behavior.
This is the Ayatollah view of life, certainly. It doesn't make for
civilised debate. In my experience, most people who hold to this line do
so in rampant over-compensation for no longer believing in the real core
of their religion. Jay's motivation may be quite different - this is not
directed at him.
<snip>
>>If you seriously believe that an admirable character is all that
>>matters, and that this is entirely earned through moral or spiritual
>>merit, which is in turn acquired only through personal effort rather
>>than luck, you are strangely naive.
>
>
> Again you a creating a straw man creating arguments I have never made.
> Clearly there is prejudices in society, and we shall never be free
> from all biases, but it is another matter entirely to endorse such
> bigotries.
You have repeatedly said that a person's character is what counts. My
remarks were no straw man: your protest, however, is.
>
> Haven't you observed that there are
>
>>both wild and domestic animals with individual characters, and worthy
>>attributes like generosity, courage, honesty, every bit as striking and
>>beneficial to their fellows as in humans?
>
>
> Is this your plug for PETA? LOL
I have no idea at all what this means - and no interest whatever in
finding out.
<snip>
>
>>People like to be distinguished and take pride in themselves their
>>families and their histories.
>
>
> One can do that without titles.
And people can obviously do it _with_ titles. Your fixation with the
evils of hereditary distinctions is unbalanced. Does this extend to
Americans who call themselves John Smith, Jr, for instance, or use
ordinals like John Smith III, etc, to call attention to their family's
stability of naming practice (or - more usually - of good standing in
the community)?
>
> Maintaining hereditary titles today is far
>
>>from being the worst expression of a kind of folly we all share.
>
>
> Ture, but it is an expression of folly-so why defend it?
Because my prevailing folly is to like human beings and to enjoy their
foibles, without cantankerous outbursts at the harmless continutation
(or indeed revival) of any individual's lost heritage. In Britain, of
course, this isn't yet lost anyway, since hereditary titles like "earl
of Wessex" are still being created, with or without any discernible
merit on the part of the recipient.
>
> There
>
>>are far more harmful & vicious ways to get one-up on your neighbours,
>>friends or rivals.
>
>
> I don't disagree with this, but then you have essentially agreed with
> my case that these titles are ludicrous, so why are you arguing-except
> merely to argue?
No, merely to ensure that a more humane counter is made on SGM to your
intolerant & hysterical rants.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> If you had met a good many "aristocrats" of the present day, you might
> realise that coming from a line of ancestors who had little more to do
> each day than amuse themselves & each other, and to indulge highly
> refined tastes in living, can be a real gift in itself, whatever their
> brains & talents might be otherwise.
Anyone who wants to read a classic & hilarious account of nobility in
adverse modern times by just such an aristocrat could do no better
than Boni de Castellane's memoirs.
I especially recommend _L'art d'être pauvre_ (1926), of which I've
just been reminded - introduced by the author as follows: "La période
vraiment dramatique de ma vie ne date que de mon divorce. A
trente-huit ans, je suis devenu pauvre. Comment j'ai résisté à ce
choc? Comment j'ai trouvé la force de durer, malgré tout? Je vais le
conter dans ces pages. Certains de mes lecteurs en tireront peut-être
une leçon".
This marquis had no other purpose to his existence but to receive &
provide amusement of the highest quality: a truly _good_ mission in
life.
Peetr Stewart
Grant Menzies
I agree, Peter, and would add the memoirs of another pair of
aristocrats who met 20th century adversity with consistently high
spirits: Prince Serge Obolensky and his _One Man in His Time_ (my
signed copy included a letter, on St. Regis Hotel letterhead, from
Prince Obolensky to a friend, dated 1960, an excerpt of which tells
much about his bubbly personality: "Just bought myself a small shack
in the potato fields and having a lot of fun furnishing and decorating
it" ) and Prince Felix Yusupov - he who helped do in Rasputin.
Incidentally, a rather more tragic memoir by a Russian cousin of Boni
de Castellane's is Count Bohdan de Castellane's _One Crowded Hour_
(Allen & Unwin 1934), which contains some frightful accounts of the
Russian side of WWI and the count's skin-of-his-teeth survival under
the Bolsheviks.
Grant
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> This marquis had no other purpose to his existence but to receive &
> provide amusement of the highest quality: a truly _good_ mission in
> life.
>
> Peetr Stewart
This is the first time, I think, that I have misspelled my own name.
It certainly looked right to me before posting....
Someone called me Stewrat here once, but never Peetr.
Before anyone accuses me yet again of hiding my identity, or of really
being Speencr [sic] Hines, let me sign myself clearly as
Peter Stewart
J.L.Fernandez-Blanco
> This may vary from country to country, but in Spain at least one can
> still be noble without the 16 quarters.
>
> The degree of nobility you refer to may be the one called here
> "nobleza por los cuatro costados", that is, nobility on four sides,
> probably a reference to the four lineages a gentleman might display in
> a quartered coat of arms. This degree of nobility was (and is)
> required in order to enter some chivalric orders: one would have to
> prove that both of one's grandfathers, and the fathers of their wives
> (the applicant's great-grandfathers in those two lineages) were all
> noble.
>
> Exceptions were occasionally made by some of the chivalric orders and
> this is why modern researchers are cautioned not to immediately assume
> that a lineage had longstanding noble status simply because one of its
> members was inducted into an order.
>
> "Simple" nobility, if one may call it that, merely requires nobility
> in the direct male line and passes from father to son regardless of
> the mother's family status. Nobility does not pass from a mother to
> her children except in a few exceptional cases usually involving
> titles of nobility.
==> It looks like there is some misconceptions about the role women
play in Spanish "hidalguía." Each kingdom and principality had its own
rules regarding who was "hidalgo" and the way the status was inherited
by the offspring.
Certainly, women play a fundamental role in areas such as Asturias,
Galicia, and León.
In Asturias, there were three collective privileges (Páramo, Teverga,
and Plaza), of which Páramo seems to have originated in the XI
century. However, the first recorded "confirmation" of this privilege
is dated in León 30 jan 1345 and signed by Alfonso XI. In it, the king
acknowledged the validity of a privilege dated 17 set 1033 (probably
spurious) granted to certain Manulfo, later called Bellito Aurioles
for him and all his offspring, male and female, and the spouses of any
male or female descendent, regardless of their birth status.
This Privilege was confirmed by subsequent Castilian kings, the last
one is dated Madrid 20 jun 1961 by Carlos III.
As far as I know, the effectiveness of this privilege was such that
one of my 5th great grandmothers, who descended from a family
traditionally included in that privilege, married somebody who was not
"hidalgo." In the Padrón de Diferenciación de Estados (censi done
every approx. 7 years in Asturias), she and some other female members
of the family with their offspring were registered as "hidalgos"
without any mention whatsoever to the name or status of their spouses.
In order to give the status of "hidalgo" to their husbands, these
women presented their case to the Real Audiencia de Oviedo. Once
verified that all them came from families traditionally considered
descendants of the (probably inexistent) Manulfo, the status of
"hidalgo" was immediately granted to their spouses. To the point that
collateral members of the Ubiano family (that of my 5th great
grandfather, traditionally registered as "del estado llano" or
commoner), began to be registered as "hidalgos" from then on. This was
in 1753.
Also, I have found many other cases in the Padrones in which unmarried
"hidalgo" women (clearly stated "soltera hijadalgo") with children,
these children were also registered as "hidalgo" even though they were
born out of wedlock.
Needless to say, all children of male "hidalgos," regardless of their
legitimacy at birth, were also registered with their father and other
family members as "hijosdalgo."
Of course, this was Asturias. And Asturias was quite special in this
sense. The Padrones show an incredible variety of gradations for the
term "hidalgo" from the "hidalgo notorio de casa y solar conocido y
armas poner y pintar" (the highest one, always with the title of
"Don") to the simple "hidalgo" (in very few cases with the title of
"Don"). There were at least 6 different categories. Another very
peculiar thing was that there were endless rural parishes where ALL
the inhabitants were registered as "hidalgos," specially in the
mountains.
In the small mountain Concejo (sort of town, but smaller) of Somiedo
in the mountains, which was comprised of 12 parishes and some 30 small
villages, and from where my paternal family comes, there are no
members of the "estado llano" registered between 1585 (first census)
and 1831 (last census) in at least 25 of the 30 small villages, and
none in all the villages from 1759 to 1831.
The north of León was pretty much the same, while the south adapted
the Castilian rules that were completely different.
Galicia, because there were no censi every 7 years, was also
different. However, I have seen cases of women considered "hijasdalgo"
because their mother were from this class.
Another thing is that, in the three regions, illegitimate (sometimes
called sacrilegious) offspring of priests, who were considered as
"hidalgos" because of their using the "Don," were considered also
"hidalgos."
Something similar happened in certain regions of La Rioja and Burgos.
Another interesting case is that of the Basque area, where Biscay had
also a collective privilege of "hidalguía" confirmed by D. Tello
(illegitimate son of Alfonso XI and Leonor de Guzmán). Since the mid
XIV century until today proving "Vizcainía de origen" of the four
grandparents(originally from Biscay) was and is considered enough for
entering any of the four traditional chivalric orders (Santiago,
Calatrava, Alcántara, and Montesa).
The "nobleza de cuatro costados" refers to the status of "hidalgos" of
the four grandparents. This refers to the 2 males and the 2
females...not to their fathers as it's suggested above. This is clear
from all the records, where the 2 grandmothers are mentioned, not
their fathers. Women were registered as were men.
At any rate, women DID transmit "hidalguía" in many regions of Spain.
Even when there were "mayorazgos" (entails) women would inherit the
remaining estates and offices not included in the "mayorazgo" in equal
parts with the males.
Also, except just a very few cases (probably less than a dozen among
thousands of "mayorazgos"), "mayorazgos" were inherited by women, they
had the right to create a new one, and they could administered them
freely.
Many of these "free" rules tried to be changed when the Bourbons
succeeded the Habsburgs. They tried to import the French rules to
Spain, but, in may regions they failed.
> Nobility in Spain takes 3 continuous generations to become hereditary.
> To use a contemporary example, consider former president Adolfo
> Suarez, whom King Juan Carlos created Duke of Suarez. He was not
> previously (as far as I know) a member of the nobility. Suarez is now
> noble because he holds a title. In the second generation, the son who
> inherits the title will be noble, for the same reason, but the other
> children will not. Eventually, all of Adolfo's grandchildren through
> that son will be noble by birth, because they will be able to claim a
> noble father and grandfather.
===> However, the mere fact of being a "Title of Castile" (or any
other Spanish Kingdom) was not considered "per se" being "hidalgo."
This is clear from the fact that even the sons of titled nobility had
to prove their "hidalguia" to become members of any chivalric order,
regardless of the "titles" their parents held. Descendants of titled
nobility were not granted access to chivalric orders when they could
not prove that the FOUR grandparents were hidalgos. One grandparent
could have been a Duke and the rest simple commoners (usually
illegitimate offspring), then the person wouldn't be able to enter the
order. Regardless of the titles or assumptions about any family, ALL
pretenders to enter a chivalric order had to go through the same
process. Notorious rejections of members of the high nobility provoked
things like the "Tizón de la Nobleza Española."
> Most scholars I am in contact with believe that the noble class still
> exists in Spain, for two reasons. First of all, it was never formally
> abolished: all that was abolished were its privileges, such as certain
> tax exemptions. Secondly, in a 1982 ruling Spanish courts took away
> the title of a Marquis and gave it to his cousin, because the cousin
> proved in court that the original grant of the title stipulated that
> heirs with noble consorts would have preference over other heirs. The
> litigant claimed that while his wife was from a noble family, his
> cousin's was not: the court agreed with him and the defendant lost his
> title.
===> Of course, the noble class still exists in Spain. There are
plenty of organizations that group them, such as the Asociación de
Hidalgos a Fuero de España, Caballeros Hijosdalgo de la Nobleza de
Madrid, Real Hermandad del Santo Cáliz de Valencia, Hermandad de
Infanzones de Illescas, Real Cofradía de Caballeros Nobles de Nuestra
Señora del Portillo (Zaragoza), Real Cuerpo de la Nobleza Catalana,
Unión de la Nobleza Valenciana, Reales Maestranzas (Ronda, Sevilla,
Granada, Valencia, and Zaragoza) and many regional ones. Of course,
the four traditional chivalric orders (Santiago, Calatrava, Alcántara,
and Montesa) still exist. All these organizations require "pruebas de
nobleza," they vary in the quantity of quarters the applicants must
prove.
Regards,
J.L.Fernández Blanco
> "D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message news:<DYYOb.370$p07....@eagle.america.net>...
> > When did it become the rule that one must have 16 quarters [one's 30