Discussion:
Question about Russian Succession
(too old to reply)
Alejandro
2005-11-13 01:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Probably this is a stupid question. Anyway, let's say a Russian Grand
Duchess marries a member of some of those foreign families of the
Russian Empire recognized as "equal" to the Russian Imperial Family
(Oldenburgs, Leuchtenbergs, Mecklenburgs). I understand that the Grand
Duchess would not have to give up her sucession rights (i.e. Olga
Alexandrovna's first marriage). Do the descendants of this marriage
would have to marry following the Russian Imperial Law?. I mean, i.e.
if Olga would have had a son from her first marriage to an Oldenburg,
and this person marries unequally, their descendants would have been
Princes (or Dukes I don't know) of Oldenburg and Russian dynasts?.

Thanks.
j***@yahoo.com
2005-11-13 03:12:32 UTC
Permalink
No, it's not a stupid question: the Fundamental Laws are extremely
complicated and confusing. But my understanding is that they don't
apply to a potential Russian imperial dynast until the claim (to
Romanov headship) actually falls on him.

Case in point: Prince Michael of Kent claims an unquestionable line of
descent from
"equal" marriages, from the Romanovs. Now his own marriage to Baroness
Marie-Christine von Reibnitz obviously doesn't conform to the standards
set by the said Laws -- but it's irrelevant now, since the claim hasn't
fallen upon him.

If tomorrow all those who genealogically precede him in the claim (to
headship of the Russian imperial dynasty) were to die, then he would
inherit it -- and his son (Lord Frederick Windsor) would be his heir.
The fact that Lord Frederick's parents' marriage is "unequal" is
irrelevant, since it was contracted before his father assumed the
claim.

I believe this is how the Laws should be interpreted -- although I
could be mistaken.
Post by Alejandro
Probably this is a stupid question. Anyway, let's say a Russian Grand
Duchess marries a member of some of those foreign families of the
Russian Empire recognized as "equal" to the Russian Imperial Family
(Oldenburgs, Leuchtenbergs, Mecklenburgs). I understand that the Grand
Duchess would not have to give up her sucession rights (i.e. Olga
Alexandrovna's first marriage). Do the descendants of this marriage
would have to marry following the Russian Imperial Law?. I mean, i.e.
if Olga would have had a son from her first marriage to an Oldenburg,
and this person marries unequally, their descendants would have been
Princes (or Dukes I don't know) of Oldenburg and Russian dynasts?.
Thanks.
p***@hotmail.com
2005-11-13 04:55:01 UTC
Permalink
If such an unusual situation were to occur then Prince and Princess
Michael of Kent would have to convert to Orthodoxy to conform to the
provisions of the Fundamental Laws, as would their son Lord Frederick
Windsor, if he was to be the heir.

The Fundamental Laws do not address the Sovereign Lord Autocrat having
an unequal marriage. Remember that Aleksander II was going to create
his second wife, Princess Ekaterina Mikhailovna Dolgorukova, Empress
before his plan were interupted by the assasination.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
No, it's not a stupid question: the Fundamental Laws are extremely
complicated and confusing. But my understanding is that they don't
apply to a potential Russian imperial dynast until the claim (to
Romanov headship) actually falls on him.
Case in point: Prince Michael of Kent claims an unquestionable line of
descent from
"equal" marriages, from the Romanovs. Now his own marriage to Baroness
Marie-Christine von Reibnitz obviously doesn't conform to the standards
set by the said Laws -- but it's irrelevant now, since the claim hasn't
fallen upon him.
If tomorrow all those who genealogically precede him in the claim (to
headship of the Russian imperial dynasty) were to die, then he would
inherit it -- and his son (Lord Frederick Windsor) would be his heir.
The fact that Lord Frederick's parents' marriage is "unequal" is
irrelevant, since it was contracted before his father assumed the
claim.
I believe this is how the Laws should be interpreted -- although I
could be mistaken.
Post by Alejandro
Probably this is a stupid question. Anyway, let's say a Russian Grand
Duchess marries a member of some of those foreign families of the
Russian Empire recognized as "equal" to the Russian Imperial Family
(Oldenburgs, Leuchtenbergs, Mecklenburgs). I understand that the Grand
Duchess would not have to give up her sucession rights (i.e. Olga
Alexandrovna's first marriage). Do the descendants of this marriage
would have to marry following the Russian Imperial Law?. I mean, i.e.
if Olga would have had a son from her first marriage to an Oldenburg,
and this person marries unequally, their descendants would have been
Princes (or Dukes I don't know) of Oldenburg and Russian dynasts?.
Thanks.
Dimitry
2005-11-13 09:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Remember that Aleksander II was going to create
his second wife, Princess Ekaterina Mikhailovna
Dolgorukova, Empress before his plan were
interupted by the assasination.
And promote her children before his first family in succession? Yes, it
is popular gossip. But wrong. Emperor is head of the Imperial House and
can not violate rules for its members.
---
Dimitry Macedonsky
Dimitry
2005-11-13 09:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alejandro
Probably this is a stupid question. Anyway, let's say a Russian Grand
Duchess marries a member of some of those foreign families of the
Russian Empire recognized as "equal" to the Russian Imperial Family
(Oldenburgs, Leuchtenbergs, Mecklenburgs). I understand that the Grand
Duchess would not have to give up her sucession rights (i.e. Olga
Alexandrovna's first marriage).
Why any Grand Duchess have to renounce her succession rights? There
were no such legislation or precedent. Only three princesses of the
blood should to renounce before unequal marriages.
---
Dimitry Macedonsky
Alejandro
2005-11-13 09:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry
Why any Grand Duchess have to renounce her succession rights? There
were no such legislation or precedent. Only three princesses of the
blood should to renounce before unequal marriages.
---
Dimitry Macedonsky
Hi Dimitry,
Yes I was wrong about that, since Grand Duchesses were not allowed to
marry unequally. But my main question was about their descendants (from
a Russian Grand Duchess and a Russian cadet of the House of Oldenburg,
Mecklenburg-Strelitz or Leuchtenberg) being considered Russian dynasts
when those enter in morganatic marriages. I don't know if the House of
Oldenburg (the line that lived in Russia) had its own Law or they were
ruled by the laws of the Grand Ducal House of Oldenburg or on the
contrary, as Russian citizens they had to marry accord to the Romanov
marriage rules.
Lisa Davidson
2005-11-13 18:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alejandro
Post by Dimitry
Why any Grand Duchess have to renounce her succession rights? There
were no such legislation or precedent. Only three princesses of the
blood should to renounce before unequal marriages.
---
Dimitry Macedonsky
Hi Dimitry,
Yes I was wrong about that, since Grand Duchesses were not allowed to
marry unequally. But my main question was about their descendants (from
a Russian Grand Duchess and a Russian cadet of the House of Oldenburg,
Mecklenburg-Strelitz or Leuchtenberg) being considered Russian dynasts
when those enter in morganatic marriages. I don't know if the House of
Oldenburg (the line that lived in Russia) had its own Law or they were
ruled by the laws of the Grand Ducal House of Oldenburg or on the
contrary, as Russian citizens they had to marry accord to the Romanov
marriage rules.
To be clear, the only offspring of Russian grand duchesses to be considered
Russian dynasts were the children of HIH The Grand Duchess Xenia
Alexandrovna, and only due to her marriage to a Russian grand duke. When
European women married, they assumed the rank of their husbands, and their
children were dynasts in their husband's houses, not in the House of
Romanov.
Alejandro
2005-11-13 20:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lisa Davidson
Post by Alejandro
Hi Dimitry,
Yes I was wrong about that, since Grand Duchesses were not allowed to
marry unequally. But my main question was about their descendants (from
a Russian Grand Duchess and a Russian cadet of the House of Oldenburg,
Mecklenburg-Strelitz or Leuchtenberg) being considered Russian dynasts
when those enter in morganatic marriages. I don't know if the House of
Oldenburg (the line that lived in Russia) had its own Law or they were
ruled by the laws of the Grand Ducal House of Oldenburg or on the
contrary, as Russian citizens they had to marry accord to the Romanov
marriage rules.
To be clear, the only offspring of Russian grand duchesses to be considered
Russian dynasts were the children of HIH The Grand Duchess Xenia
Alexandrovna, and only due to her marriage to a Russian grand duke. When
European women married, they assumed the rank of their husbands, and their
children were dynasts in their husband's houses, not in the House of
Romanov.
But those children were indeed in line of succession to the Russian
throne, I guess. And the Leuchtenberg children of The Grand Duchess
Maria Nikolaievna had succession rights as well.
Lisa Davidson
2005-11-13 21:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alejandro
Post by Lisa Davidson
Post by Alejandro
Hi Dimitry,
Yes I was wrong about that, since Grand Duchesses were not allowed to
marry unequally. But my main question was about their descendants (from
a Russian Grand Duchess and a Russian cadet of the House of Oldenburg,
Mecklenburg-Strelitz or Leuchtenberg) being considered Russian dynasts
when those enter in morganatic marriages. I don't know if the House of
Oldenburg (the line that lived in Russia) had its own Law or they were
ruled by the laws of the Grand Ducal House of Oldenburg or on the
contrary, as Russian citizens they had to marry accord to the Romanov
marriage rules.
To be clear, the only offspring of Russian grand duchesses to be considered
Russian dynasts were the children of HIH The Grand Duchess Xenia
Alexandrovna, and only due to her marriage to a Russian grand duke. When
European women married, they assumed the rank of their husbands, and their
children were dynasts in their husband's houses, not in the House of
Romanov.
But those children were indeed in line of succession to the Russian
throne, I guess. And the Leuchtenberg children of The Grand Duchess
Maria Nikolaievna had succession rights as well.
Yes, Sandro's and Xenia's children were both in the line of succession and
dynasts. MN's children did have succession rights and were not dynasts.

A modern comparable situation is that all Norwegian dynasts have succession
rights to the throne of the UK through their descent from Queen Maud. However,
these individuals are not UK dynasts, they are members of the Norwegian royal
house.
Alejandro
2005-11-13 23:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lisa Davidson
A modern comparable situation is that all Norwegian dynasts have succession
rights to the throne of the UK through their descent from Queen Maud. However,
these individuals are not UK dynasts, they are members of the Norwegian royal
house.
Yes Lisa, I was wrong about using the term "dynast" (english is not my
fort =P)
Anyway, those Leuchtenbergs had succession rights to the Russian Throne
but were not Russian dynasts, so they did not have to marry following
the Pauline Laws, am I right now?
Lisa Davidson
2005-11-14 06:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alejandro
Post by Lisa Davidson
A modern comparable situation is that all Norwegian dynasts have succession
rights to the throne of the UK through their descent from Queen Maud. However,
these individuals are not UK dynasts, they are members of the Norwegian royal
house.
Yes Lisa, I was wrong about using the term "dynast" (english is not my
fort =P)
Anyway, those Leuchtenbergs had succession rights to the Russian Throne
but were not Russian dynasts, so they did not have to marry following
the Pauline Laws, am I right now?
That is correct. They would have to observe the House Laws for the Leuchtenbergs, if
there were any, however.
Guy Stair Sainty
2005-11-15 08:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lisa Davidson
Post by Alejandro
Post by Lisa Davidson
A modern comparable situation is that all Norwegian dynasts have succession
rights to the throne of the UK through their descent from Queen Maud. However,
these individuals are not UK dynasts, they are members of the Norwegian royal
house.
Yes Lisa, I was wrong about using the term "dynast" (english is not my
fort =P)
Anyway, those Leuchtenbergs had succession rights to the Russian Throne
but were not Russian dynasts, so they did not have to marry following
the Pauline Laws, am I right now?
That is correct. They would have to observe the House Laws for the Leuchtenbergs, if
there were any, however.
Which there were not; only the requirement (a) that under Russian law their
marriages conformed to the Pauline laws for their heirs to be successible
in Russia, and (b) that their marriages conformed to Bavarian law and the
requirements of the Bavarian patent for the succession to the Bavarian
titles.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
c***@yahoo.com
2005-11-15 21:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Lisa Davidson
Post by Alejandro
Post by Lisa Davidson
A modern comparable situation is that all Norwegian dynasts have succession
rights to the throne of the UK through their descent from Queen Maud. However,
these individuals are not UK dynasts, they are members of the Norwegian royal
house.
Yes Lisa, I was wrong about using the term "dynast" (english is not my
fort =P)
"Dynast" is jargon in the atr community, not used in conformity with
the prevalent dictionary definition. Sometimes it is used to mean
"agnatic member of a reigning or formerly reigning family" and
sometimes it is used to mean "person who has succession rights to a
specified throne".

Probably the adjective should be used for the latter case, i.e. "Peter
Phillips is dynastic in the UK", as compared to "Lord Frederick Windsor
is a dynast in the UK". But the adjectival form is also used in
reference to dynastically valid/invalid marriages of agnates, e.g.
"Mabel Wisse Smit is the non-dynastic wife of Prince Friso of the
Netherlands."
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Lisa Davidson
Post by Alejandro
Anyway, those Leuchtenbergs had succession rights to the Russian Throne
but were not Russian dynasts, so they did not have to marry following
the Pauline Laws, am I right now?
That is correct. They would have to observe the House Laws for the Leuchtenbergs, if
there were any, however.
Which there were not; only the requirement (a) that under Russian law their
marriages conformed to the Pauline laws for their heirs to be successible
in Russia, and (b) that their marriages conformed to Bavarian law and the
requirements of the Bavarian patent for the succession to the Bavarian
titles.
I believe that when Eugene de Beauharnais was incorporated into the
French Imperial House he became subject to its dynastic laws, which
required imperial permission to marry and expelled from dynastic status
male-line issue that married without it. I don't know if this status
re-activated during the reign of Napoleon III.

Of course, non-compliance would only mean loss of Bonaparte
dynasticity, which the family probably considered irrelevant post-1815
(and there could have been implications for inheritance of the duchy of
Navarre). But it is remarkable that this unique family was
theoretically subject to the marital authority of three dynasties in
the 19th century -- not counting Portugese laws governing the progeny
of Queen Maria II da Gloria, had their been any of her marriage to
Auguste de Beauharnais.

Charles Stewart
Francois R. Velde
2005-11-15 22:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
I believe that when Eugene de Beauharnais was incorporated into the
French Imperial House he became subject to its dynastic laws, which
required imperial permission to marry and expelled from dynastic status
male-line issue that married without it. I don't know if this status
re-activated during the reign of Napoleon III.
It was, almost verbatim, in 1853. But I will have to check if its
wording would have included the Leuchtenbergs even in the absence of
the impediments below.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Of course, non-compliance would only mean loss of Bonaparte
dynasticity, which the family probably considered irrelevant post-1815
(and there could have been implications for inheritance of the duchy of
Navarre).
They lost the duchy of Navarre in 1853 because they were
naturalized in Russia without consent and because their
membership in the Russian imperial family precluded them
from taking the required oath. A fortiori, they were
not subject to the French imperial house laws.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Guy Stair Sainty
2005-11-16 12:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by c***@yahoo.com
I believe that when Eugene de Beauharnais was incorporated into the
French Imperial House he became subject to its dynastic laws, which
required imperial permission to marry and expelled from dynastic status
male-line issue that married without it. I don't know if this status
re-activated during the reign of Napoleon III.
It was, almost verbatim, in 1853. But I will have to check if its
wording would have included the Leuchtenbergs even in the absence of
the impediments below.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Of course, non-compliance would only mean loss of Bonaparte
dynasticity, which the family probably considered irrelevant post-1815
(and there could have been implications for inheritance of the duchy of
Navarre).
They lost the duchy of Navarre in 1853 because they were
naturalized in Russia without consent and because their
membership in the Russian imperial family precluded them
from taking the required oath. A fortiori, they were
not subject to the French imperial house laws.
Surely Eugene's children were not French imperial princes. Eugene and
Hortense were by adoption, and the latter's children by birth.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-16 15:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Habsburg /Hapsburg, one read hear too often this name. Since around
1280 upon bestowing with Austria: House of Austria, ex stirpe Habsburg,
extinct 1780; followed by .. [Haus Oesterreich, since 1804], ex stirpe
..
Francois R. Velde
2005-11-16 16:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Francois R. Velde
They lost the duchy of Navarre in 1853 because they were
naturalized in Russia without consent and because their
membership in the Russian imperial family precluded them
from taking the required oath. A fortiori, they were
not subject to the French imperial house laws.
Surely Eugene's children were not French imperial princes. Eugene and
Hortense were by adoption, and the latter's children by birth.
There is a distinction between being a French imperial prince and
being subject to the imperial house law of 1806. Adopted children
of the emperor *and their legitimate issue* were members of the
imperial house, even hough they had no dynastic rights to the French
empire. See art. 3 of the statute:

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/statut1806.htm
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
c***@virgin.net
2005-11-21 11:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Francois R. Velde
They lost the duchy of Navarre in 1853 because they were
naturalized in Russia without consent and because their
membership in the Russian imperial family precluded them
from taking the required oath. A fortiori, they were
not subject to the French imperial house laws.
Surely Eugene's children were not French imperial princes. Eugene and
Hortense were by adoption, and the latter's children by birth.
There is a distinction between being a French imperial prince and
being subject to the imperial house law of 1806. Adopted children
of the emperor *and their legitimate issue* were members of the
imperial house, even hough they had no dynastic rights to the French
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/statut1806.htm
So, one can be a prince or princess, but not have dynastic rights,
after all!
Guy Stair Sainty
2005-11-16 12:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
I believe that when Eugene de Beauharnais was incorporated into the
French Imperial House he became subject to its dynastic laws, which
required imperial permission to marry and expelled from dynastic status
male-line issue that married without it. I don't know if this status
re-activated during the reign of Napoleon III.
Of course, non-compliance would only mean loss of Bonaparte
dynasticity, which the family probably considered irrelevant post-1815
(and there could have been implications for inheritance of the duchy of
Navarre). But it is remarkable that this unique family was
theoretically subject to the marital authority of three dynasties in
the 19th century -- not counting Portugese laws governing the progeny
of Queen Maria II da Gloria, had their been any of her marriage to
Auguste de Beauharnais.
But this status would only have applied to Eugene, not his children who
were not imperial princes.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Dimitry
2005-11-14 15:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Issue of GDss Maria Nikolayevna was naturalized in few steps. In 1863
they were obliged to make equal marriages:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/browse_frm/thread/5aec7209a3f88d55/74d751b9b7bd6c52
---
Dimitry Macedonsky
Dimitry
2005-11-14 16:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Russian Oldenburgs were subjects of the laws of the Grand Duchy, they
were heretic foreigners :-)

The question you asked for is easy to resolve if understand first of
all that equal marriage requirement is not the first. The first is the
approval for a marriage. Lack of such approval and not rank of mother
is the reason why Nicholas Romanovich can not be prince of the blood
imperial.

Obviously children of Grand Duchesses should not ask Russian permission
to marry. So they could marry in accordance with rules of their houses.
Exceptions are the Romanovskys.

The first not equal marriage was in 1840 when Paul I'st granddaughter
married Count von Neipperg. But as Württemberg accepted this
misalliance then it was included into the Genealogical book (I have
seen the record).
---
Dimitry Macedonsky
c***@yahoo.com
2005-11-15 00:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry
The question you asked for is easy to resolve if understand first of
all that equal marriage requirement is not the first. The first is the
approval for a marriage. Lack of such approval and not rank of mother
is the reason why Nicholas Romanovich can not be prince of the blood
imperial.
Isn't it both? If an Emperor approved an unequal marriage in his
dynasty, that meant the marriage was legal in Russia, but the children
would still be morganatic. So would the spouse -- except in the case of
the Emperor's own spouse.

My understanding is that Alexander II's marriage to Princess Catherine
Dolgorouky would not have automatically been morganatic, since the
Pauline Laws do not require equality for his consort. Her children were
automatically morganatic (when legitimated by their parents marriage).
But the only reason she did not become Empress upon marriage was
because her new husband issued a ukase declaring that she would bear a
title less than Empress -- not because she "defaulted" to lower rank.
So Alexander personally decided that she not be empress consort -- and
did not change that designation.

If he had, is it likely that Alexander III would have allowed her to
remain an empress dowager? Nicholas II would have, but Alexander III? I
doubt it. That may be why Alexander II didn't do it.
Post by Dimitry
Obviously children of Grand Duchesses should not ask Russian permission
to marry. So they could marry in accordance with rules of their houses.
Only if the rules of their own houses outlaw marriages without
approval, e.g. the UK: as in Russia, an unapproved marriage by a dynast
in Britain is an illegal marriage -- the couple remain unmarried,
children are illegitimate.

But I don't see anything in the Pauline Laws that requires the
descendants of Romanov females to comply with another dynasty's
equality laws. Russian law only accepts cognates as dynasts if they are
legitimate (or, perhaps, legitimated by parents' later marriage)
because they must legitimately descend from a Russian emperor to
inherit the throne.

But cognates born of morganatic marriages are still legal descendants
of the "Emperor-progenitor", therefore they should be eligible to
inherit the claim to Russia's crown, even if morganatic abroad. Once a
cognate inherits, of course, Russia's Pauline Laws apply to him/her and
male-line descendants, whereupon morganatic marriages are no longer
allowed -- but not before inheriting the claim.

For instance, if Maria Pavlovna Jr. became the "nearest" female, her
son Prince Lennart of Sweden's descendants could inherit even though
Lennart violated Sweden's law requiring dynastic marriage (abolished in
1980) by twice marrying commoners. His descendants are all
"Count/Countess X Bernadotte" and are not in line of succession to
Sweden, nor are they members of the Swedish dynasty. But nothing in
Pauline Law requires that female-line heirs belong to a foreign
dynasty.
Post by Dimitry
Exceptions are the Romanovskys.
The first not equal marriage was in 1840 when Paul I'st granddaughter
married Count von Neipperg. But as Württemberg accepted this
misalliance then it was included into the Genealogical book (I have
seen the record).
Are you sure that a Wurttemberg marriage to a Neipperg was unequal? The
Neippergs are mediatized, even though they are only counts. Their
status was doubtful because they did not possess a territory that was a
Reichsstand, so they belonged to the Imperial Grafenbank as
"personalists" i.e. because the Emperor improperly gave them higher
rank than their territory deserved. See Velde:

http://groups.google.es/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/15a52b4123c3ba93

On the other hand, they were still included among mediatized houses
after the HRE was abolished (as were all "personalists" plus the
Bentincks), which means that their local sovereign had decided to
recognize their Reichsstand status. Moreover, the Wurttemberg dynasties
had several times accepted marriages of lower rank, although prior to
obtaining royal rank. See Velde:

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/g_morganat.htm#Wurtemberg-Beichlingen

It seems to me that in an ambiguous situation like this, the
Sovereign's decision must prevail (like the Leuchtenbergs'
Ebenburtigkeit in Russia). I recall that the marriage was accepted as
dynastic at the time by the King of Wurttemberg, who liberally decreed
that members of his dynasty would be allowed to marry for love, but I
can't find that documented so I may be mistaken.

Charles Stewart
Guy Stair Sainty
2005-11-15 08:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Dimitry
The question you asked for is easy to resolve if understand first of
all that equal marriage requirement is not the first. The first is the
approval for a marriage. Lack of such approval and not rank of mother
is the reason why Nicholas Romanovich can not be prince of the blood
imperial.
Are you sure that a Wurttemberg marriage to a Neipperg was unequal? The
Neippergs are mediatized, even though they are only counts. Their
status was doubtful because they did not possess a territory that was a
Reichsstand, so they belonged to the Imperial Grafenbank as
"personalists" i.e. because the Emperor improperly gave them higher
http://groups.google.es/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/15a52b4123c3ba93
On the other hand, they were still included among mediatized houses
after the HRE was abolished (as were all "personalists" plus the
Bentincks), which means that their local sovereign had decided to
recognize their Reichsstand status. Moreover, the Wurttemberg dynasties
had several times accepted marriages of lower rank, although prior to
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/g_morganat.htm#Wurtemberg-Beichling=
en
But if one looks at how the marriage of Marie-Louise, Duchess of Parma,
was treated, this was considered morganatic and the children were neither
Neippergs or Parmas, but given new names.

I have always been amused by the comment of Archduchess Luisa of Austria-
Tuscany, sometime Crown Princess of Saxony and later Countess of Montignoso
on the marriages of the former French Empress - of whom she wrote "as she
obeyed her family, she was made Duchess of Parma, had plenty of money,
unlimited toilettes, and her subsequent marriage ventures *with semi-plebeian
husbands* met with no active disapproval. Thus were Field Marshal Adam
Count von Neipperg and the Marquis de Bombelles casually dismissed!
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
coeurdelion
2005-11-15 17:40:14 UTC
Permalink
The decisive question is what would have happened to Neipperg-Austria
(Parma) children born in wedlock. The case of the Montenuovo children,
born from an adulterous liaison when the duchess of Parma's first
husband was still alive, cannot on its own be taken as an indication of
the Neipperg's formal inequality. Of course, socially and in terms of
political relevance, lineage and so on, they were not the kind of house
an Emperor's daughter was at that time supposed to marry into, but that
alone doesn't answer the legal question. Best regards,

Leonhard Horowski
michael james
2005-11-15 18:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by coeurdelion
The decisive question is what would have happened to Neipperg-Austria
(Parma) children born in wedlock. The case of the Montenuovo children,
born from an adulterous liaison when the duchess of Parma's first
husband was still alive, cannot on its own be taken as an indication of
the Neipperg's formal inequality. Of course, socially and in terms of
political relevance, lineage and so on, they were not the kind of house
an Emperor's daughter was at that time supposed to marry into, but that
alone doesn't answer the legal question. Best regards,
Leonhard Horowski
All this talk about the Russian succession!
Why not call it the Romanov succession?

There is not Russian succession. The Romanov's lost it in 1917. Have
they been restored to power? No. No Russian Succession. Just chatter
about a defunct house by dreamers.
Alejandro
2005-11-15 19:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by michael james
All this talk about the Russian succession!
Why not call it the Romanov succession?
There is not Russian succession. The Romanov's lost it in 1917. Have
they been restored to power? No. No Russian Succession. Just chatter
about a defunct house by dreamers.
It's nice to see that you have time enough to read and post on a
royalty group of "dreamers".
c***@yahoo.com
2005-11-16 00:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by coeurdelion
The decisive question is what would have happened to Neipperg-Austria
(Parma) children born in wedlock. The case of the Montenuovo children,
born from an adulterous liaison when the duchess of Parma's first
husband was still alive, cannot on its own be taken as an indication of
the Neipperg's formal inequality.
Agreed. There would have been no reason for the marriage of the Count
of Neipperg to an Austrian archduchess to produce progeny who were not
also counts of Neipperg except that the children were spurii. They
could not have succeeded their mother in her domains whether legitimate
or not because she held a non-hereditary interest therein. Presumably,
she signed the customary waiver of Habsburg archduchesses when she
married the first time, but probably not the second. Regardless, as
neither Austria, Hungary nor Bohemia were Salic realms, the Archduchess
could have inherited these crowns, but I'd hazard a guess that her
children could not, as both spurii and morganauts.
Post by coeurdelion
Of course, socially and in terms of
political relevance, lineage and so on, they were not the kind of house
an Emperor's daughter was at that time supposed to marry into, but that
alone doesn't answer the legal question. Best regards,
Agreed. Moreover, I cannot see how the Neippergs could have been
considered ebenbürtig by Habsburg standards: they were not on the 1900
list of approved families published at the time of Franz Ferdinand's
wedding.

But among those inexplicably included were the Fugger (ennobled 1512),
Looz-Corswarem (never Reichsfürsten, nor compliant with any standard
of Ebenbürtigkeit), the Salm-Horstmar (never Reichsfürsten), the
Starhemberg (whose Ebenbürtigkeit for purposes of marriage to a cadet
prince of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg had been challenged as recently as
1754), the Trauttmansdorff (Reichsfürsten in 1805; females only
countesses), the Thurn und Taxis (not even altgräfliche), the
Windisch-Graetz (Reichsfürsten only in 1804), etc.

Whereas princesses and countesses of such distinguished mediatized
families as Erbach-Schonburg, Isenburg-Budingen (the Isenburg-
Birsteins were listed!), Ligne, and Stolberg were excluded from the
Habsburg list.

Charles Stewart
coeurdelion
2005-11-16 03:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Very interesting - could you tell me where that list was published and
how official it was? The selection criteria certainly seem unclear
enough, though with a certain tendency to prefer families who were
princes by 1806 over those who weren't. About the only bit that strikes
as me logical is the omission of Ligne, as the famous prince sold
Edelstetten to the house of Eszterházy in (I think) 1805, just a bit
too early in other words to be still reichsständisch in 1806 and to be
included among the properly mediatized princes.
There is in fact an amusing, flowery and no doubt somewhat exaggerated
account in Ligne's memoirs of how he was received as the new sovereign
at Edelstetten, how exhausting it was to have his hand kissed by every
single subject ("fortunately I didn't have quite so many of them"), how
he first met 13 "honourable" robbers who severely outnumbered his own
police force, and then the noble canonesses of the Ex-monastery, how
charming the latter were, what funny games they played and how it was
only their obstinacy in profiting from the permission to marry out of
there (and at his expenses) which eventually made the whole place
boring and desolate. "Si elles avaient été laides, dédaigneuses,
désagréables, intéréssées, comme elles le sont dans presque tous
les chapitres [i.e. if they hadn't been acceptable brides], j'aurais
dix mille florins de rente de plus, et je ne les (sic) aurais pas
vendues comme je viens de le faire au prince Nicolas Esterhazy.... Si
elles avaient continués à vivre ensemble dans les chambres que je
leur ai conservées, sûr de les trouver quand j'y aurais été tous
les ans, je ne m'en serais jamais défait" (Charles-Joseph prince de
Ligne, Mémoires, lettres et pensées, Paris 1989, pp174-175). One
cannot but hope that Ligne's descendants, when reading this account of
why they had narrowly escaped a more evidently recognized position as
Standesherren and Mediatisierte, felt their ancestor's reasoning
compelling. Best regards,

Leonhard Horowski
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-16 07:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by coeurdelion
Very interesting - could you tell me where that list was published and
how official it was?
Never promulgated, not official at all.

The selection criteria certainly seem unclear
Post by coeurdelion
enough, though with a certain tendency to prefer families who were
princes by 1806 over those who weren't.
1825, not 1806

About the only bit that strikes
Post by coeurdelion
as me logical is the omission of Ligne, as the famous prince sold
Edelstetten to the house of Eszterházy in (I think) 1805, just a bit
too early in other words to be still reichsständisch in 1806 and to be
included among the properly mediatized princes.
There is in fact an amusing, flowery and no doubt somewhat exaggerated
account in Ligne's memoirs of how he was received as the new sovereign
at Edelstetten,
none of the mediatized families were ever sovereign!
how exhausting it was to have his hand kissed by every
Post by coeurdelion
single subject ("fortunately I didn't have quite so many of them"), how
he first met 13 "honourable" robbers who severely outnumbered his own
police force, and then the noble canonesses of the Ex-monastery, how
charming the latter were, what funny games they played and how it was
only their obstinacy in profiting from the permission to marry out of
there (and at his expenses) which eventually made the whole place
boring and desolate. "Si elles avaient été laides, dédaigneuses,
désagréables, intéréssées, comme elles le sont dans presque tous
les chapitres [i.e. if they hadn't been acceptable brides], j'aurais
dix mille florins de rente de plus, et je ne les (sic) aurais pas
vendues comme je viens de le faire au prince Nicolas Esterhazy.... Si
elles avaient continués à vivre ensemble dans les chambres que je
leur ai conservées, sûr de les trouver quand j'y aurais été tous
les ans, je ne m'en serais jamais défait" (Charles-Joseph prince de
Ligne, Mémoires, lettres et pensées, Paris 1989, pp174-175). One
cannot but hope that Ligne's descendants, when reading this account of
why they had narrowly escaped a more evidently recognized position as
Standesherren and Mediatisierte, felt their ancestor's reasoning
compelling. Best regards,
Leonhard Horowski
Francois R. Velde
2005-11-16 03:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Agreed. Moreover, I cannot see how the Neippergs could have been
considered ebenbürtig by Habsburg standards: they were not on the 1900
list of approved families published at the time of Franz Ferdinand's
wedding.
But among those inexplicably included were the Fugger (ennobled 1512),
Looz-Corswarem (never Reichsfürsten, nor compliant with any standard
of Ebenbürtigkeit), the Salm-Horstmar (never Reichsfürsten), the
Starhemberg (whose Ebenbürtigkeit for purposes of marriage to a cadet
prince of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg had been challenged as recently as
1754), the Trauttmansdorff (Reichsfürsten in 1805; females only
countesses), the Thurn und Taxis (not even altgräfliche), the
Windisch-Graetz (Reichsfürsten only in 1804), etc.
Whereas princesses and countesses of such distinguished mediatized
families as Erbach-Schonburg, Isenburg-Budingen (the Isenburg-
Birsteins were listed!), Ligne, and Stolberg were excluded from the
Habsburg list.
But keep in mind that equality was not formally required by the Habsburg
house law (at least the 1839 text). What was required was consent of the
head of house. I haven't seen the original text of the 1900 amendment, so
I don't know exactly what role this list plays exactly, but it surely
does not obviate the need for the consent of the head of house, who
also had the final word on validity of all marriages. Morganatic
marriages also required the consent of the head of the house.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-16 08:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Francois R. Velde a écrit :
..
Post by Francois R. Velde
But keep in mind that equality was not formally required by the Habsburg
house law (at least the 1839 text).
See § [sign known in the States] 1, required >>aus Standesgemässer
..Ehe<<.

What was required was consent of the
Post by Francois R. Velde
head of house. I haven't seen the original text of the 1900 amendment, so
I don't know exactly what role this list plays exactly, but it surely
does not obviate the need for the consent of the head of house, who
also had the final word on validity of all marriages. Morganatic
marriages also required the consent of the head of the house.
Francois R. Velde
2005-11-16 16:51:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
..
Post by Francois R. Velde
But keep in mind that equality was not formally required by the Habsburg
house law (at least the 1839 text).
See § [sign known in the States] 1, required >>aus Standesgemässer
..Ehe<<.
Sorry, my mistake. Art 1 requires descent in male line through equal
marriages approved by the then-head of house to be a member of the
Erzhaus. Equal being undefined, at least until the 1900 amendment.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
c***@yahoo.com
2005-11-16 08:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Agreed. Moreover, I cannot see how the Neippergs could have been
considered ebenbürtig by Habsburg standards: they were not on the 1900
list of approved families published at the time of Franz Ferdinand's
wedding.
But among those inexplicably included were the Fugger (ennobled 1512),
Looz-Corswarem (never Reichsfürsten, nor compliant with any standard
of Ebenbürtigkeit), the Salm-Horstmar (never Reichsfürsten), the
Starhemberg (whose Ebenbürtigkeit for purposes of marriage to a cadet
prince of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg had been challenged as recently as
1754), the Trauttmansdorff (Reichsfürsten in 1805; females only
countesses), the Thurn und Taxis (not even altgräfliche), the
Windisch-Graetz (Reichsfürsten only in 1804), etc.
Whereas princesses and countesses of such distinguished mediatized
families as Erbach-Schonburg, Isenburg-Budingen (the Isenburg-
Birsteins were listed!), Ligne, and Stolberg were excluded from the
Habsburg list.
But keep in mind that equality was not formally required by the Habsburg
house law (at least the 1839 text). What was required was consent of the
head of house.
Hmm. Emperor Maximilian I's motto comes to mind: Bella gerant alii; tu,
felix Austria nube ("Let others wage war; you, happy Austria, marry!").
Perhaps that explains why the Habsburgs' dynastic reach so long
exceeded that of houses which relied on armies rather than sex for
territorial conquest. Joanna went mad because Philip was so fair...
Post by Francois R. Velde
I haven't seen the original text of the 1900 amendment, so
I don't know exactly what role this list plays exactly,
Nor have I seen anything but a summary. The list was issued as an
attachment to and referenced in the body of the decree declaring Franz
Ferdinand's forthcoming marriage to Countess Sophie Chotek to be
morganatic, and explaining why. Below is the commentary on the wedding
contract that was apparently published with the list (warning: my
translation is tentative, but I no longer have the original German,
sorry):

"In the Family Statute of 3 February 1839, but more especially, in the
interpretation of Title 1 paragraph 1 of 12 June 1900, the conditions
are precisely defined for a marriage of equal status, and those
families are also enumerated with which an equal marriage with a member
of the Dynasty could be accepted. As Countess Chotek is neither a
member of the All-highest Dynasty, nor of another presently or formerly
sovereign Christian House, nor of any former immediate princely house
of the Empire -- as specifically enumerated in the appendix to the
House law -- Archduke Franz Ferdinand could only enter a morganatic,
that means an unequal, marriage with her."

Also, see:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/7af8da55e04b51c5
Post by Francois R. Velde
but it surely
does not obviate the need for the consent of the head of house, who
also had the final word on validity of all marriages.
No doubt. But let us not forget the tendency in some 19th century
German house laws to enjoin the Head of House from withholding consent
to equal marriages without compelling reason.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Morganatic marriages also required the consent of the head of the house.
Which presumably means that the marriages of those archdukes (and one
notorious archduchess) who eloped must not have been deemed legally
married in the Emperor-King's realms?

The 1900 list actually names 48 families, but several are branches of
the same family. They are specified, however, because not all branches
of mediatized families were included: those whose head had received the
title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (Reichsfürst) by 1806 are
included in the 48, but others are included as well, so the list is
inconsistent. There are 32 distinct families named.

(The Habsburg list only concerned itself with mediatized families, not
reigning and deposed dynasties. These latter were never specifically
named and did not need to be: In October 1851 Montenegro was an
Orthodox ecclesiastic state ruled by a Wladika selected for life from
the Petrovich Njegosch priestly family. In November 1851 Danilo I
declared Montenegro a secular principality and Petrovich Njegosch
daughters became eligible to become Empress of Austria literally
overnight. Hereditary sovereignty trumps genealogy -- and for the
Habsburgs it did not always have to be hereditary, e.g. Sigismund
Bathory.)

The list was divided into two categories; those families that were
Standesherren (highest nobility) in Austria-Hungary and those
"domiciled" elsewhere. The 3 Belgian families were marked as "ducal".
Spellings are as given.

I. In Austria:
Auersperg, Colloredo-Mannsfeld, Esterhazy, Kaunitz-Rietburg,
Khevenhuller, Lobkowitz, Metternich, Rosenberg,
Salm-Reifscheid-Krautheim, Schwarzenburg, Schonburg-Waldenburg,
Schonburg-Hartenstein, Starhemberg, Trauttmansdorff, Windisch-Graetz.

II. Elsewhere:
Aremberg, Bentheim-Steinfurt, Bentheim-Teklenburg uber Rheda, Croy,
Fugger-Babenhausen, Furstenberg, Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Langenburg,
Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Oehringen, Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Kirchberg,
Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Bartenstein,
Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Bartenstein-Jagstberg,
Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfurst, Isenberg-Offenbach-Birstein,
Leyen, Leiningen, Looz-Coswarem, Loewenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg,
Loewenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg, Oettingen-Spielberg,
Oettingen-Wallerstein, Salm-Salm, Salm-Kyrburg,
Salm-Reifferscheid-Krautheim, Salm-Horstmar,
Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein,
Solms-Braunfels, Solms-Lich und Hohensolms, Waldburg-Wolfegg-Waldsee,
Waldburg-Zeil-Trauchburg, Waldburg-Zeil-Wurzach, Wied, Thurn und Taxis.

Which mediatized houses were not included as ebenbürtig in the 1900
list?

Bentinck, Castell, Erbach, Fugger von Kirchberg, Fugger von Glott,
Giech, Harrach, Isenburg-Budingen, Konigsegg, Kuefstein,
Leiningen-Westerburg, Neipperg, Ortenburg, Pappenheim,
Platen-Hallermund, Puckler-Limpurg, Quadt, Rechberg, Rechteren-Limpurg,
Schaesberg, Schlitz dit Gortz, Schonborn, Schonburg-Glauchau,
Solms-Sonnenwalde, Solms-Rodelheim, Solms-Laubach, Soms-Wildenfels,
Solms-Baruth, Stadion, Stolberg-Wernigerode, Stolberg-Stolberg,
Stolberg-Rossla, Toerring-Jettenbach, Waldbott von Bassenheim,
Wurmbrand-Stuppach.

Note that other branches of these excluded Fuggers, Isenburgs,
Leiningens, Schonburgs and Solms are included on the list. While some
of the omitted branches were princely, none were Princes of the Empire.


Some of the omitted families are still known for their high marital
standards, e.g. Castell-Rudenhausen, Isenburg-Budingen, Schonborn,
Schonburg-Glauchau, Toerring; while some of the included families are
not e.g. Khevenhuller-Metsch, Looz-Corswarem.

Charles Stewart
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-16 09:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Agreed. Moreover, I cannot see how the Neippergs could have been
considered ebenbürtig by Habsburg standards: they were not on the 1900
list of approved families published at the time of Franz Ferdinand's
wedding.
But among those inexplicably included were the Fugger (ennobled 1512),
Looz-Corswarem (never Reichsfürsten, nor compliant with any standard
of Ebenbürtigkeit), the Salm-Horstmar (never Reichsfürsten), the
Starhemberg (whose Ebenbürtigkeit for purposes of marriage to a cadet
prince of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg had been challenged as recently as
1754), the Trauttmansdorff (Reichsfürsten in 1805; females only
countesses), the Thurn und Taxis (not even altgräfliche), the
Windisch-Graetz (Reichsfürsten only in 1804), etc.
Whereas princesses and countesses of such distinguished mediatized
families as Erbach-Schonburg, Isenburg-Budingen (the Isenburg-
Birsteins were listed!), Ligne, and Stolberg were excluded from the
Habsburg list.
But keep in mind that equality was not formally required by the Habsburg
house law (at least the 1839 text). What was required was consent of the
head of house.
Hmm. Emperor Maximilian I's motto comes to mind: Bella gerant alii; tu,
felix Austria nube ("Let others wage war; you, happy Austria, marry!").
Perhaps that explains why the Habsburgs' dynastic reach so long
exceeded that of houses which relied on armies rather than sex for
territorial conquest. Joanna went mad because Philip was so fair...
Post by Francois R. Velde
I haven't seen the original text of the 1900 amendment, so
I don't know exactly what role this list plays exactly,
Nor have I seen anything but a summary. The list was issued as an
attachment to and referenced in the body of the decree declaring Franz
Ferdinand's forthcoming marriage to Countess Sophie Chotek to be
morganatic, and explaining why. Below is the commentary on the wedding
contract that was apparently published with the list (warning: my
translation is tentative, but I no longer have the original German,
1900 has nothing to do with Franz Ferdinands marriage
Post by c***@yahoo.com
"In the Family Statute of 3 February 1839, but more especially, in the
interpretation of Title 1 paragraph 1 of 12 June 1900, the conditions
are precisely defined for a marriage of equal status, and those
families are also enumerated with which an equal marriage with a member
of the Dynasty could be accepted. As Countess Chotek is neither a
member of the All-highest Dynasty, nor of another presently or formerly
sovereign Christian House, nor of any former immediate princely house
of the Empire -- as specifically enumerated in the appendix to the
House law -- Archduke Franz Ferdinand could only enter a morganatic,
that means an unequal, marriage with her."
He could enter a marriage without any consent, a marriage which would
be less than a morganatic marriage; his brother did it
Post by c***@yahoo.com
The 1900 list actually names 48 families, but several are branches of
the same family.
Technically seen branches, but in reality considered as independent
Houses
Post by c***@yahoo.com
They are specified, however, because not all branches
correct

those whose head had received the
Post by c***@yahoo.com
title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (Reichsfürst) by 1806 are
included in the 48, but others are included as well, so the list is
inconsistent.
No, they respected the comital families, who in the *meantime* had
become pces, example: Bentheim
Post by c***@yahoo.com
There are 32 distinct families named.
(The Habsburg list only concerned itself with mediatized families, not
reigning and deposed dynasties. These latter were never specifically
named and did not need to be: In October 1851 Montenegro was an
Orthodox ecclesiastic state ruled by a Wladika selected for life from
the Petrovich Njegosch priestly family. In November 1851 Danilo I
declared Montenegro a secular principality and Petrovich Njegosch
daughters became eligible to become Empress of Austria literally
overnight. Hereditary sovereignty trumps genealogy -- and for the
Habsburgs it did not always have to be hereditary, e.g. Sigismund
Bathory.)
The condition was sovereign Christian family, age, etc did not mind.
The Head of the Domus Austriaca could marry the daughter of crownprince
of Norway, or the daughter of the head of the not very old Swedish
dynasty.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
The list was divided into two categories; those families that were
Standesherren (highest nobility) in Austria-Hungary and those
"domiciled" elsewhere.
The word Standesherren only figures in your mind.
The 3 Belgian families were marked as "ducal".

No. Belgium not mentionned. In () after the name not ducal but Duke,
which was a not higher title than prince
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Spellings are as given.
Auersperg, Colloredo-Mannsfeld, Esterhazy, Kaunitz-Rietburg,
-berg
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Khevenhuller, Lobkowitz, Metternich, Rosenberg,
Salm-Reifscheid-Krautheim, Schwarzenburg,
-berg
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Schonburg-Waldenburg,
Schonburg-Hartenstein, Starhemberg, Trauttmansdorff, Windisch-Graetz.
Aremberg, Bentheim-Steinfurt, Bentheim-Teklenburg uber
oder
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Rheda, Croy,
Fugger-Babenhausen, Furstenberg, Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Langenburg,
Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Oehringen, Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Kirchberg,
Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Bartenstein,
Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Bartenstein-Jagstberg,
Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfurst,
Isenberg
-burg
Post by c***@yahoo.com
-Offenbach-Birstein,
Leyen, Leiningen, Looz-Coswarem, Loewenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg,
Loewenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg, Oettingen-Spielberg,
Oettingen-Wallerstein, Salm-Salm, Salm-Kyrburg,
Salm-Reifferscheid-Krautheim, Salm-Horstmar,
Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein,
Solms-Braunfels, Solms-Lich und Hohensolms, Waldburg-Wolfegg-Waldsee,
Waldburg-Zeil-Trauchburg, Waldburg-Zeil-Wurzach, Wied, Thurn und Taxis.
Which mediatized houses were not included as ebenbürtig in the 1900
list?
Why, because they were in 1825 of only comital rank

No need to list, as they were not included!
..
c***@yahoo.com
2005-11-16 21:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by c***@yahoo.com
The 1900 list actually names 48 families, but several are branches of
the same family.
those whose head had received the
title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (Reichsfürst) by 1806 are
included in the 48, but others are included as well, so the list is
inconsistent.
No, they respected the comital families, who in the *meantime* had
become pces, example: Bentheim
But most of the countly families granted the princely title by other
monarchs after 1815 were not included on the list -- yet a few were.
Reichsgräfen elevated to Fürsten by Prussia before 1825 seem to be
included, but I don't have a complete list of Prussian elevations to
confirm that.
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by c***@yahoo.com
There are 32 distinct families named.
The list was divided into two categories; those families that were
Standesherren (highest nobility) in Austria-Hungary and those
"domiciled" elsewhere.
The word Standesherren only figures in your mind.
The word "Standesherren" was not used in the list, true; that was my
annotation. The list was captioned:

"Verzeichnis der mittelbar gewordenen ehemals Reichsständischen
fürslichen Häuser"

The two groups were described on the list as:
1. "Mediatiserte Fürsten, welche in der österrichischen Monarchie
domiziliert sind."
2. "Mediatiserte Fürsten, welche außerhalb der österreichischen
Monarchie domiziliert sind."
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
The 3 Belgian families were marked as "ducal".
No. Belgium not mentionned. In () after the name not ducal but Duke,
which was a not higher title than prince
You're correct, the 3 parenthetical notations handwritten on the list
were "Herzog" and they were not identified as "Belgian"; that was my
annotation. I stand corrected. But I believe "Reichsherzog" was a
higher title than "Reichsfürst".

Charles Stewart
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-16 10:06:21 UTC
Permalink
What kind of word is mariageable, cowboy-English?

In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her ..
and therefore is e..
d***@infonie.fr
2005-11-16 17:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Marriageable just means fit for marriage, whether it be from the
physical point of view or concerns of suitability.

Regards,
David Eades
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-16 19:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@infonie.fr
Marriageable just means fit for marriage, whether it be from the
physical point of view or concerns of suitability.
Regards,
David Eades
Not necessary Langmans opinion.
c***@yahoo.com
2005-11-16 22:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
What kind of word is mariageable, cowboy-English?
Yup! And ya better SMILE when ya say that, pardner!
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her ..
and therefore is e..
estrous? excitatory? eager? erubescent? erumpent? eutrophic? evil?
evocative?

Charlie
George Lucki
2005-11-16 22:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
What kind of word is mariageable, cowboy-English?
Yup! And ya better SMILE when ya say that, pardner!
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her ..
and therefore is e..
estrous? excitatory? eager? erubescent? erumpent? eutrophic? evil?
evocative?

Charlie
-----------------------
Charlie,
What are you thinking!
Ehefähig - lit. fit for marriage

You could fill in the sentences as follows...
In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her *parents'
permission to marry and has reached the age of majority* and therefore is
ehefähig.

Seems obvious.
George Lucki
Francois R. Velde
2005-11-16 23:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her ..
and therefore is e..
estrous? excitatory? eager? erubescent? erumpent? eutrophic? evil?
evocative?
Charlie
-----------------------
Charlie,
What are you thinking!
Ehefähig - lit. fit for marriage
You could fill in the sentences as follows...
In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her *parents'
permission to marry and has reached the age of majority* and therefore is
espousable.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Seems obvious.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
George Lucki
2005-11-17 00:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her ..
and therefore is e..
estrous? excitatory? eager? erubescent? erumpent? eutrophic? evil?
evocative?
Charlie
-----------------------
Charlie,
What are you thinking!
Ehefähig - lit. fit for marriage
You could fill in the sentences as follows...
In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her *parents'
permission to marry and has reached the age of majority* and therefore is
espousable.
:)
Well done. So to summarize - When of age, she is espousable when her parents
can espouse her espousal.
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-17 07:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Lucki
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her ..
and therefore is e..
estrous? excitatory? eager? erubescent? erumpent? eutrophic? evil?
evocative?
Charlie
-----------------------
Charlie,
What are you thinking!
Ehefähig - lit. fit for marriage
You could fill in the sentences as follows...
In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her *parents'
permission to marry and has reached the age of majority* and therefore is
espousable.
:)
Well done. So to summarize - When of age, she is espousable when her parents
can espouse her espousal.
espousable

espouse

espousal

du cowboy of a c, who has been to Nouvelle Orléans?
George Lucki
2005-11-17 15:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Lucki
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her ..
and therefore is e..
estrous? excitatory? eager? erubescent? erumpent? eutrophic? evil?
evocative?
Charlie
-----------------------
Charlie,
What are you thinking!
Ehefähig - lit. fit for marriage
You could fill in the sentences as follows...
In German it could be, if correctly translated as; ehefähig. It would
however rather be used for a girl, who for the first time has her *parents'
permission to marry and has reached the age of majority* and therefore is
espousable.
:)
Well done. So to summarize - When of age, she is espousable when her parents
can espouse her espousal.
espousable

espouse

espousal

du cowboy of a c, who has been to Nouvelle Orléans?

------------------
Of course the true cowboy's first love is ...

Oft treibt's ihn zu Pferd hoch
in die Einsamkeit raus,
da sieht er dann nimmer
wie ein Schreibtischhengst aus.

Da sitz er in Jeans
und uraltem Hemd,
im Sattel des Gaul's,
den schon lange er kennt.

Er summt sich ein Lied,
der Gaul hört ihm zu,
so vergeh'n für die Beiden
die Stunden im Nuh.

Und sind sie entflohen der Zivilisation,
erzählt er dem Gaul
in gedämpften Ton,
wie schön es doch wär' ein Cowboy zu sein!

(H.-Dieter "Grufti" Riehm Refugium-Ranch - A)
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-16 15:32:58 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com a écrit :

..
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Which mediatized houses were not included as ebenbürtig in the 1900
list?
Bentinck, Castell, Erbach, Fugger von Kirchberg, Fugger von Glott,
Giech, Harrach, Isenburg-Budingen, Konigsegg, Kuefstein,
Leiningen-Westerburg, Neipperg, Ortenburg, Pappenheim,
Platen-Hallermund, Puckler-Limpurg, Quadt, Rechberg, Rechteren-Limpurg,
Schaesberg, Schlitz dit Gortz, Schonborn, Schonburg-Glauchau,
Solms-Sonnenwalde, Solms-Rodelheim, Solms-Laubach, Soms-Wildenfels,
Solms-Baruth, Stadion, Stolberg-Wernigerode, Stolberg-Stolberg,
Stolberg-Rossla, Toerring-Jettenbach, Waldbott von Bassenheim,
Wurmbrand-Stuppach.
Let's hope list is complete. Their rank at the court of Vienna &
Budapest, at best that of castrated men. Such people were not entitled
to marry, therefore never any wife of these families could rank at
court.
Francois R. Velde
2005-11-16 17:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Francois R. Velde
But keep in mind that equality was not formally required by the Habsburg
house law (at least the 1839 text). What was required was consent of the
head of house.
My statement was incorrect, edespalais pointed out my mistake.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Francois R. Velde
I haven't seen the original text of the 1900 amendment, so
I don't know exactly what role this list plays exactly,
Nor have I seen anything but a summary. The list was issued as an
attachment to and referenced in the body of the decree declaring Franz
Ferdinand's forthcoming marriage to Countess Sophie Chotek to be
morganatic, and explaining why.
Do you have a reference for this decree? All I have is a statement
by the archduke himself on June 28, 1900 declaring his marriage to
be morganatic, and witnessed by a long list of relatives and officials.

The text of the 1839 law is here:
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/hg1839.htm
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Francois R. Velde
Morganatic marriages also required the consent of the head of the house.
Which presumably means that the marriages of those archdukes (and one
notorious archduchess) who eloped must not have been deemed legally
married in the Emperor-King's realms?
According to the house law, yes (marriages contracted without consent are
"als null und nichtig anzusehen"), although I don't know that this was
ever enforced in the courts; usually, elopers submitted renunciations
and were left married.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-16 20:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Francois R. Velde a écrit :

It seems you may look for the House Law of 1900. One does hold a
photocopy, probably from HHStA (Vienna), shelfmark /Signatur porobably:
Ministerium des kais. und kgl. Hauses, Hausgesetze, Karton 4, folio
17recto - 25recto. One does think, that Monsieur Charenton hold a copy,
that Monsieur is able to scan, but one is not sure.
Francois R. Velde
2005-11-17 03:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
It seems you may look for the House Law of 1900. One does hold a
Ministerium des kais. und kgl. Hauses, Hausgesetze, Karton 4, folio
17recto - 25recto. One does think, that Monsieur Charenton hold a copy,
that Monsieur is able to scan, but one is not sure.
I'm afraid I am not in Monsieur Charenton's good graces; and the closest I've
been to Vienna these recent years is Sopron (Ödenburg). If someone else is
willing to send a copy to me, I will pay for the costs.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-17 07:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
It seems you may look for the House Law of 1900. One does hold a
Ministerium des kais. und kgl. Hauses, Hausgesetze, Karton 4, folio
17recto - 25recto. One does think, that Monsieur Charenton hold a copy,
that Monsieur is able to scan, but one is not sure.
I'm afraid I am not in .. good graces; and the closest I've
been to Vienna these recent years is Sopron (Ödenburg). If someone else is
willing to send a copy to me..
Sopron, third class capital of the Hungarian nobility, one should
therefore be able to find here a lot in the church registers before
1830/1850. (Budapest fourth ..

If one receive your address ..,

en république des lettres ..
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-17 08:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Francois R. Velde a écrit :

..
Post by Francois R. Velde
I'm afraid I am not in Monsieur Charenton's good graces
too much surrounded by imbecile youngsters, see Royauté2, who offended
censor everything which is not up to their extremely poor knowledge,
they act piqués au vif, as one would encounter with pédérastes and
lesbians
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-18 11:10:29 UTC
Permalink
.. a écrit :

..
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
It seems you may look for the House Law of 1900. One does hold a
photocopy,..
.. If someone else is
willing to send a copy
A copy was send to:
1761 N. North Park Ave
Chicago
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-18 20:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
..
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
It seems you may look for the House Law of 1900. One does hold a
photocopy,..
.. If someone else is
willing to send a copy
1761 N. North Park Ave
Chicago
Mailed to a third party, with difficulties, one had to reopen at the
postoffice. A reader of German nationality could be usefull, he must be
able to read German handwriting. 1900 was not printed before 1919,
afterwards one does not know (partially yes printed). Mailed were also
more or less related items.
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-27 08:43:22 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.fr a écrit :
House Law of 1900.
to whom it may concern

The list of names is /was only an introduction (the order of the names
has no importance; this concerns particularly the House of Tassis). The
name may have a place just by error. Furthermore
a house had to have - as shown - the necessary quartiers; and perhaps a
House law, which needed the consent of the House's master (Austria
never gave), if one remember well.

- Uwe accepted to help with a transcription

- Perhaps one can copy, scan such, that the law can be read here
Francois R. Velde
2005-11-27 15:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
- Perhaps one can copy, scan such, that the law can be read here
I will in time add it to my page:
www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/ps1713.htm
which already has the text of the 1839 Austrian house law.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-27 16:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
- Perhaps one can copy, scan such, that the law of 1900 can be read here
www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/ps1713.htm
which already has the text of the 1839 Austrian house law.
There were later some interpretations: Windisch-Graetz (unequal),
Waldburg (in 1900 one had not imagined cadets could be counts), Salm-S
(equal yes, but capacitas succedendi was left open); after 1918 there
has been all kind of changes. Emperor Charles decided the Archduchess
Stolberg stays Imperial and Royal highness (that may have bean opening
towards the none mediatized pces, the mediatized comital families; who
knows)
c***@yahoo.com
2005-11-16 22:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Do you have a reference for this decree? All I have is a statement
by the archduke himself on June 28, 1900 declaring his marriage to
be morganatic, and witnessed by a long list of relatives and officials.
Maybe what I have posted in this thread is an excerpt of that. What
I've posted is all that I received, provenance unknown.

Charles Stewart
Francois R. Velde
2005-11-16 23:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Francois R. Velde
Do you have a reference for this decree? All I have is a statement
by the archduke himself on June 28, 1900 declaring his marriage to
be morganatic, and witnessed by a long list of relatives and officials.
Maybe what I have posted in this thread is an excerpt of that.
No; the archduke's statement does not contain a list or make reference
to one. See http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/ps1713.htm#1900
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-16 07:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by coeurdelion
The decisive question is what would have happened to Neipperg-Austria
(Parma) children born in wedlock. The case of the Montenuovo children,
born from an adulterous liaison when the duchess of Parma's first
husband was still alive, cannot on its own be taken as an indication of
the Neipperg's formal inequality.
Agreed. There would have been no reason for the marriage of the Count
of Neipperg to an Austrian archduchess to produce progeny who were not
also counts of Neipperg except that the children were spurii.
No further discussion is needed as the Archiduches never married
Neipperg, Bombelles. She died as the very respectable widow of
Napoleon.
..
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Agreed. Moreover, I cannot see how the Neippergs could have been
considered ebenbürtig by Habsburg standards: they were not on the 1900
list of approved families published at the time of Franz Ferdinand's
wedding.
No comital family were included, see Stolberg.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
But among those inexplicably included were the Fugger (ennobled 1512),
Looz-Corswarem (never Reichsfürsten, nor compliant with any standard
of Ebenbürtigkeit),
L were mediatized in 1806, that to be included, but in 1900 it was
extinct, but this was unknown, court officers were victimized of kechup
coloured book Almanach. but mistake could always be corrected, see
Windisch-Graetz, the marriage was not ebenbürtig.

the Salm-Horstmar (never Reichsfürsten),

pce before 1825, therefore mediatized pce, therefore in the 1900-list.

the
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Starhemberg (whose Ebenbürtigkeit for purposes of marriage to a cadet
prince of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg had been challenged as recently as
1754),
the extinct line were of course ebenbürtig, but the line now ketchup
included.
the Trauttmansdorff (Reichsfürsten in 1805; females only
Post by c***@yahoo.com
countesses),
see SH, cadets, but this was corrected via the Waldbourg-case. In 1900
the court-officers were unable to there exist pcly families, wherre the
cadets are counts.
the Thurn und Taxis (not even altgräfliche),
1825 included
the
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Windisch-Graetz (Reichsfürsten only in 1804), etc.
the elder line was included 1825, the Archduchess made indeed a
not-ebenbürtig(e) marriage
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Whereas princesses and countesses of such distinguished mediatized
families as Erbach-Schonburg, Isenburg-Budingen (the Isenburg-
Birsteins were listed!), Ligne, and Stolberg were excluded from the
Habsburg list.
Not in, because in 1825 not pces.
..
Uwe
2005-11-15 10:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Dimitry
The first not equal marriage was in 1840 when Paul I'st granddaughter
married Count von Neipperg. But as Württemberg accepted this
misalliance then it was included into the Genealogical book (I have
seen the record).
Are you sure that a Wurttemberg marriage to a Neipperg was unequal? The
Neippergs are mediatized, even though they are only counts. Their
status was doubtful because they did not possess a territory that was a
Reichsstand, so they belonged to the Imperial Grafenbank as
"personalists" i.e. because the Emperor improperly gave them higher
http://groups.google.es/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/15a52b4123c3ba93
On the other hand, they were still included among mediatized houses
after the HRE was abolished (as were all "personalists" plus the
Bentincks), which means that their local sovereign had decided to
recognize their Reichsstand status.
To state that the "Emperor improperly gave them higher rank than their
territory deserved" sounds somehow odd. The importance of the
Reichsstandschaft came only at a time when the HRE was long gone. The
everlasting imperial diet (immerwährender Reichstag) was not as
important as authors like Arenberg (on whom many of us are apparently
indirectly relying) wants us to make believe.
The relations among the ruling houses of Germany were more often direct
and not just on the imperial level in Regensburg. The HRE was in its
last centuries too weak to state that the Reichsstandschaft was the sole
meaningful concept of sovereignity in the 18th century. To me, it seems
just to be a helping construction in the 19th century to determine more
or less accurately who was to be considered of higher nobility and who
was not.
To look at the personalists reveals a lot: Some of them were heirs to
fractured counties like Limpurg or Wolfstein, while some others were
holders of an immediate fief of considerable size (which is of course
still very small but not smaller than others with a shared vote). To me,
the personalists and their territories deserve to be seen in a much more
positive light. The admission to one of the comital benches was probably
more difficult to achieve than an getting a promotion from count to
prince from the emperor (which was itself not easy to get).
It is obvious that one had to draw the line somewhere, but one should be
aware that the status of some families near that line is perhaps
underestimated as the families of Gemmingen-Horbach or
Degenfeld-Schonburg could show, or even overestimated as the Stadion or
the Waldbott-Bassenheim families could show.

Regards
Uwe
Francois R. Velde
2005-11-15 15:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uwe
To state that the "Emperor improperly gave them higher rank than their
territory deserved" sounds somehow odd. The importance of the
Reichsstandschaft came only at a time when the HRE was long gone. The
everlasting imperial diet (immerwährender Reichstag) was not as
important as authors like Arenberg (on whom many of us are apparently
indirectly relying) wants us to make believe.
The relations among the ruling houses of Germany were more often direct
and not just on the imperial level in Regensburg. The HRE was in its
last centuries too weak to state that the Reichsstandschaft was the sole
meaningful concept of sovereignity in the 18th century. To me, it seems
just to be a helping construction in the 19th century to determine more
or less accurately who was to be considered of higher nobility and who
was not.
It is definitely not a 19th c. construction and is not derived solely
from Arenberg, on whom some of us have ceased to rely directly or
indirectly. See Pütter, Über den Unterschied der Stände
(1795; available in a recent facsimile reprint)) for a contemporary
view that personalits did not belong to the Hochadel. Of course,
Pütter was a hardliner on the subject of unequal marriages, and
one will find different views expressed elsewhere.

It is true that the use of membership in the Reichstag as a criterion
for membership in the upper nobility is a late construct, but not as
late as the 19th c. It took place in reaction to the emperor's more
increasingly frequent creation of titles, which threatened to dilute
the caste of ruling houses (and, in cases where the emperor made
unequal spouses into nobles to the fury of the agnates, wreak havoc
with what were supposed to be internal family matters). The closure
of the Reichstag in 1582 was one step in the reaction against the emperor,
the rules imposed on the admission of new members in 1653 was another.
Having delineated a category (members of the Reichstag) whose boundaries
they controlled, the upper nobility naturally tended to use this category
for their own purposes, namely controlling the marriages of their members.
At least that is my interpretation.

Ultimately, though, a general rule such as "personalists were not
equal for marriage purposes" is at best a subsidiary rule that comes
into play as a last resort, even if one accepts its validity. The
first source of law were the written house laws (statutes, testaments,
treaties, compacts): when a phrase like "gut gráfliche Häuser"
was used, it would exclude personalists and perhaps even post-1582 comital
houses. The second source was "Observanz", i.e. the custom of the
particular house elevated to the status of law by consistent practice.
This means not just examining what types of marriages were contracted
and accepted (which one can do from genealogical sources) but also
which ones were not accepted and why (which relies on statements
of the head of house or other archival sources; see e.g. the type
of documentation produced in the Lippe dispute). Only if these two
sources were lacking or ambiguous might one resort to general rules.

All this to say that there is plenty of room for discussion...
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
c***@yahoo.com
2005-11-16 04:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Uwe
To state that the "Emperor improperly gave them higher rank than their
territory deserved" sounds somehow odd.
The Emperor yielded lawful authority to unilaterally confer
Reichsstandschaft on families. That status came to depended upon the
size of a noble's immediate fief and upon being admitted as a voter to
the Electoral College, the Princes Diet, or the Counts Bench. From 1653
these bodies had to vote to accept new members, which they were
reluctant to do because it diluted the value of their own votes.

Of course, the Emperor controlled the imperial bureaucracy, so
presumably his officials kept the roster of membership and votes. Thus
it was probably difficult in practice, and perhaps politically
dangerous, to challenge the Emperor when he added a "Personalist" to
the Grafenbank who didn't meet the criteria. There were already more
than 100 members whose collective 4 votes counted for less than the
accumulated votes of some of the individual Electors. By so doing the
Emperor could gratify the ambitions of important political, financial
or military players (e.g. Marlborough with Mindelheim) by making them
"sovereign" princes at the negligible cost of a fraction of a vote in
the Imperial Diet. As with modern corporations, I understand why it is
hard to resist conceding titles in lieu of money, assets or power.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Uwe
The importance of the
Reichsstandschaft came only at a time when the HRE was long gone. The
everlasting imperial diet (immerwährender Reichstag) was not as
important as authors like Arenberg (on whom many of us are apparently
indirectly relying) wants us to make believe.
The relations among the ruling houses of Germany were more often direct
and not just on the imperial level in Regensburg. The HRE was in its
last centuries too weak to state that the Reichsstandschaft was the sole
meaningful concept of sovereignity in the 18th century.
Napoleon taught the Emperor that lesson, both within and without the
HRE. But the organization of the Empire at the end served as the
skeleton of 19th century Germany. Prussia switched heads and amputated
Austria, but left the body substantially intact until World War I.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Uwe
To me, it seems
just to be a helping construction in the 19th century to determine more
or less accurately who was to be considered of higher nobility and who
was not.
By the 19th century, the class known in Germany as the "higher
nobility" had divided into those who were "royalty", i.e. sovereign,
and those who were mediatized, i.e. eligible to marry royalty although
not sovereign. Laymen didn't try to parse out the particulars: they
relied upon the Almanach de Gotha. If anything, what has been
transpiring slowly on atr is a de-bunking of the Gotha's categorization
process. If its categories were over-broad, Arenberg and Toumanoff
erred, IMHO, in the other direction out of apparent pique that their
families were excluded from the categories to which they aspired.
Post by Francois R. Velde
The closure
of the Reichstag in 1582 was one step in the reaction against the emperor,
the rules imposed on the admission of new members in 1653 was another.
Having delineated a category (members of the Reichstag) whose boundaries
they controlled, the upper nobility naturally tended to use this category
for their own purposes, namely controlling the marriages of their members.
At least that is my interpretation.
It seems to me that jurists helped, by readily re-interpreting
Privatfurstenrecht (German princely law) to incorporate dynastic
practice, wills and other limitations even when lacking imperial
sanction, not to mention lending legal legitimacy to such distinctions
as "neufurstliche", "stiftsmäßig" and "notoriously unequal
misalliances".
Post by Francois R. Velde
Ultimately, though, a general rule such as "personalists were not
equal for marriage purposes" is at best a subsidiary rule that comes
into play as a last resort, even if one accepts its validity. The
first source of law were the written house laws (statutes, testaments,
treaties, compacts): when a phrase like "gut gráfliche Häuser"
was used, it would exclude personalists and perhaps even post-1582 comital
houses. The second source was "Observanz", i.e. the custom of the
particular house elevated to the status of law by consistent practice.
This means not just examining what types of marriages were contracted
and accepted (which one can do from genealogical sources) but also
which ones were not accepted and why (which relies on statements
of the head of house or other archival sources; see e.g. the type
of documentation produced in the Lippe dispute). Only if these two
sources were lacking or ambiguous might one resort to general rules.
But by the second half of the 19th century such minutiae were becoming
less relevant, I think, partially because the world shrank. Hochadel
that continued to reign merged into the single international
class/family of "royalty"; e.g. Saxon dukelings stopped marrying German
noblewomen of debatable degrees of Ebenburtigkeit, instead marrying
non-German brides and mounting thrones abroad.

Standards of "equality" were exported and enforced less by law than by
Gotha-memorizing German princesses and Scottish nannies in Florence,
Athens, Copenhagen, Sinaia, Amsterdam, Turin and St. Petersburg (It was
not Emperor Paul of "Pauline Laws" fame who first imposed written
marital standards on the Romanovs, but Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst aka
Catherine the Great, who instructed her ambassadors which of Germany's
Reichsgrafen were acceptable to scour for potential brides, and which
were verboten). Approaching the 20th century, no German (and few
non-German) sovereign below the rank of duke accepted brides below
Standesherrliche rank, until Queen Victoria began shopping about for
in-laws that would not bring international conflict to her breakfast
table.

The ubiquity of primogeniture in post-Napoleonic Europe was also a
reason for this change. Another is one you identified here previously:
"Testaments, house laws, customs over time created a common law of
unequal marriages, assigning them the same consequences as morganatic
marriages. Ultimately, however, in the 19th c. consent of the head of
house became the universal tool, subsuming equality requirements."

That ties this thread with a contemporaneous one, explaining why in
1923 the UK and Sweden executed a treaty upon the marriage of a
commoner named Louise Mountbatten, at the behest of their respective
sovereigns.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/4396e20999f414fe

Charles Stewart
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-16 08:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Uwe
To state that the "Emperor improperly gave them higher rank than their
territory deserved" sounds somehow odd.
The Emperor yielded lawful authority to unilaterally confer
Reichsstandschaft on families. That status came to depended upon the
size of a noble's immediate fief and upon being admitted as a voter to
the Electoral College, the Princes Diet, or the Counts Bench. From 1653
these bodies had to vote to accept new members, which they were
reluctant to do because it diluted the value of their own votes.
Of course, the Emperor controlled the imperial bureaucracy, so
presumably his officials kept the roster of membership and votes. Thus
it was probably difficult in practice, and perhaps politically
dangerous, to challenge the Emperor when he added a "Personalist" to
one of
Post by c***@yahoo.com
the Grafenbank who didn't meet the criteria. There were already more
than 100 members whose collective 4 votes counted for less than the
accumulated votes of some of the individual Electors. By so doing the
Emperor could gratify the ambitions of important political, financial
or military players (e.g. Marlborough with Mindelheim) by making them
"sovereign" princes at the negligible cost of a fraction of a vote in
the Imperial Diet.
Very few with Reichstandschaft were sovereigns, if such becauses they
owned .. outside the Empire, for example Brandburg: Prussia (later
called East Prussia)

As with modern corporations, I understand why it is
Post by c***@yahoo.com
hard to resist conceding titles in lieu of money, assets or power.
Post by Uwe
The importance of the
Reichsstandschaft came only at a time when the HRE was long gone. The
everlasting imperial diet (immerwährender Reichstag) was not as
important as authors like Arenberg (on whom many of us are apparently
indirectly relying) wants us to make believe.
The relations among the ruling houses of Germany were more often direct
and not just on the imperial level in Regensburg. The HRE was in its
last centuries too weak to state that the Reichsstandschaft was the sole
meaningful concept of sovereignity in the 18th century.
Napoleon taught the Emperor that lesson, both within and without the
HRE. But the organization of the Empire at the end served as the
skeleton of 19th century Germany. Prussia switched heads and amputated
Austria, but left the body substantially intact until World War I.
Post by Uwe
To me, it seems
just to be a helping construction in the 19th century to determine more
or less accurately who was to be considered of higher nobility and who
was not.
By the 19th century, the class known in Germany as the "higher
nobility" had divided into those who were "royalty", i.e. sovereign,
and those who were mediatized, i.e. eligible to marry royalty although
not sovereign.
In Austria a higher nobility did not exist, what did exist were
families having rank at court, included were not-mediatized families.
Not medfiatized princes ranked higher, much higher than med. comital
families such as Stolberg.
coeurdelion
2005-11-15 17:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Really Arenberg or, as I am tempted to guess, Aretin? (Who is indeed
perhaps a little too much in love with the Empire's smaller parties,
and too much of a conscious Schönborn nephew). Best regards (and very
glad to see there are discussions here beyond
whether-one-should-hate-Camilla-or-Diana),

Leonhard Horowski
Dimitry
2005-11-15 12:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Lack of such approval and not rank of mother is the reason why
Nicholas Romanovich can not be prince of the blood imperial.
Isn't it both?
Yes, but lack of approval is main, basic and sufficient reason.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
My understanding is that Alexander II's marriage to Princess
Catherine Dolgorouky would not have automatically been
morganatic, since the Pauline Laws do not require equality
for his consort
I disagree. As we know, the Fundamental Laws (let's use this term
because equal marriage requirement was established only by Alexander I)
should not be read textually. In other case, for example, brothers of
the Emperor could not succeed.

When in 1820 Alexander I complemented the legislation his nephew
Alexander Nikolayevich was merely member of the imperial house who was
obliged to marry equally to transfer dignity to spouse and succession
rights to children. In 1834 Alexander Nikolayevich took oath to fulfill
this requirements.

Emperor is head of the family, etalon (in theory) for each its member.
He should be most pious, faithful, meritorious and so on. It is strange
to legislate rule that heir can just wait his accession to marry woman
of unequal birth.

Two precedents of emperor's marriage with woman of doubtful equality
show that both Alexander Nikolayevich and Vladimir Kirillovich thought
equality is necessary. Alexander II based his grant of princely title
on articles 14 and 147 of the Code (36 and 188 in last edition).
Post by c***@yahoo.com
But cognates born of morganatic marriages are still legal descendants
of the "Emperor-progenitor", therefore they should be eligible to
inherit the claim to Russia's crown, even if morganatic abroad
Textually and from XXI century. In XIX century the marriage was based
on marriage contract between Russian Imperial House and foreign house.
Thus to exclude Lennart's issue it will be enough to write something
like "With respect to rules of the High and Mighty House of the Kingdom
of Sweden..."
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Are you sure that a Wurttemberg marriage to a Neipperg
was unequal?
I am not sure Neipperg was suitable for Russian.
---
Dimitry Macedonsky
new e-mail ***@transkeino.ru
c***@yahoo.com
2005-11-17 04:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry
Post by c***@yahoo.com
My understanding is that Alexander II's marriage to Princess
Catherine Dolgorouky would not have automatically been
morganatic, since the Pauline Laws do not require equality
for his consort
I disagree. As we know, the Fundamental Laws (let's use this term
because equal marriage requirement was established only by Alexander I)
should not be read textually.
Do you mean "...should not be read literally"?
Post by Dimitry
In other case, for example, brothers of
the Emperor could not succeed.
Two precedents of emperor's marriage with woman of doubtful equality
show that both Alexander Nikolayevich and Vladimir Kirillovich thought
equality is necessary. Alexander II based his grant of princely title
on articles 14 and 147 of the Code (36 and 188 in last edition).
Article 36: "Children born of a marriage between a member of the
Imperial Family and a
person not of corresponding dignity, that is, not belonging to a Royal
or
Ruling House, have no right of succession to the Throne."

Article 188: "A person of the Imperial Family who has contracted
marriage with a
person of a status unequal to his, that is, not belonging to a Royal or
Ruling
House, cannot pass on to that person or to the posterity that might
issue from
such a marriage the rights that belong to members of the Imperial
Family."

I see now that I had misremembered Article 188. Even a literal
interpretation of it would exclude Princess Catherine Dolgouroky from
becoming empress upon marriage to Alexander II. I stand corrected.

Actually, I agree with your reply to David Pritchard that even if the
language of the law did not require the Emperor to marry equally, and
despite his autocratic authority, it is unlikely that Alexander II
would have tried to elevate his second wife to Empress. First, the
scandal was too great (he married Catherine 6 weeks after his firs
wife's death, having already fathered four children on her
out-of-wedlock); second, she would have been scorned for rising above
her station by most of society -- especially by the Caesarevich,
especially after he became Alexander III; and third, surprisingly
Alexander II waited nearly five months after their marriage to confer
on Catherine the title of HSH Princess Yurievska. It seems unlikely
that he would have allowed their eldest child, George Aleksandrovich b.
1872, to go untitled and without surname until nearly nine years old if
he was eager to make him a grand duke. Clearly he wanted to make
Catherine his wife, but it is not clear he wanted to make her his
Empress.
Post by Dimitry
Post by c***@yahoo.com
But cognates born of morganatic marriages are still legal descendants
of the "Emperor-progenitor", therefore they should be eligible to
inherit the claim to Russia's crown, even if morganatic abroad
Textually and from XXI century. In XIX century the marriage was based
on marriage contract between Russian Imperial House and foreign house.
Thus to exclude Lennart's issue it will be enough to write something
like "With respect to rules of the High and Mighty House of the Kingdom
of Sweden..."
Agreed, if Russia executed a marriage treaty that stipulated issue of
the marriage would have dynastic rights if they comply with the rules
of both dynasties (or "the Swedish dynasty"), that would create an
additional restriction on the descendants of that marriage which is not
in the Fundamental Laws. But I have never seen any (non-German) treaty
language so precise or so awkward.

However, in the case of Sweden I think that such a treaty would not be
necessary, because the Swedish law did not morganatize unequal
marriages, but forbade them -- as the UK does with unapproved
marriages. As I said before, in cases where non-dynastic marriages are
unrecognized by the law, one can argue that the issue are born out of
wedlock and therefore not legitimate descendants of Paul. But this
would not work in monarchies whose law recognizes non-dynastic
marriages as valid.
Post by Dimitry
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Are you sure that a Wurttemberg marriage to a Neipperg
was unequal?
I am not sure Neipperg was suitable for Russian.
The Neippergs, being only counts, were certainly not considered
suitable to provide the consort to any western European monarch of the
rank of Duke or higher in the 19th century. But because Russia signed
the 1815 Congress of Vienna Treaty, which eventually created and
validated the process of mediatization, the Neippergs were an ambiguous
case for Russia like the Leuchtenbergs, so I think the Emperor would
have been within his legal rights to do what the King of Wurttemberg
did in accepting the marriage as dynastic.

Or not: per Guy Sainty, in 1922 Alfonso XIII rejected the dynastic
rights in Spain of the issue of Princess Barbara of Bourbon-Sicily's
1922 marriage to Count Franz Xaver zu Stolberg-Wernigerode, yet
approved that of Prince Gabriele of Bourbon-Sicily in 1927 to Princess
Margareta Czartoryska. Clearly the prefix of "princess" made the
difference. Whereas in Russia the vast majority of princesses were
ineligible to dynastically marry a Romanov -- like Princess C.
Dolgouroky.

Charles Stewart
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-17 07:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Dimitry
I am not sure Neipperg was suitable for Russian.
The Neippergs, being only counts, were certainly not considered
suitable to provide the consort to any western European monarch of the
rank of Duke or higher in the 19th century. But because Russia signed
the 1815 Congress of Vienna Treaty, which eventually created and
validated the process of mediatization, the Neippergs were an ambiguous
case for Russia like the Leuchtenbergs, so I think the Emperor would
have been within his legal rights to do what the King of Wurttemberg
did in accepting the marriage as dynastic.
Signature means nothing, as 1815 not promulgated as a law, of no value
for any humble human being. Problem was solved 1825 by a special law,
which was promulgated as law in Vienna, Budapest, etc
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-17 07:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
..
Or not: per Guy Sainty, in 1922 Alfonso XIII rejected the dynastic
rights in Spain of the issue of Princess Barbara of Bourbon-Sicily's
1922 marriage to Count Franz Xaver zu Stolberg-Wernigerode, yet
approved that of Prince Gabriele of Bourbon-Sicily in 1927 to Princess
Margareta Czartoryska. ..
There is some little difference between the House Cz and the St
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-17 07:41:15 UTC
Permalink
.. in Russia the vast majority of princesses were
ineligible to dynastically marry a Romanov -- like Princess
One avoids to marry one's mistress by just marrying morganatically!

One must also have some notion of comme il faut, etc
Francois R. Velde
2005-11-17 08:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Dimitry
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Are you sure that a Wurttemberg marriage to a Neipperg
was unequal?
I am not sure Neipperg was suitable for Russian.
The Neippergs, being only counts, were certainly not considered
suitable to provide the consort to any western European monarch of the
rank of Duke or higher in the 19th century. But because Russia signed
the 1815 Congress of Vienna Treaty, which eventually created and
validated the process of mediatization, the Neippergs were an ambiguous
case for Russia like the Leuchtenbergs, so I think the Emperor would
have been within his legal rights to do what the King of Wurttemberg
did in accepting the marriage as dynastic.
The act creating the German Confederation (I presume that is what you allude to)
did not create or validate the process of mediatization, which had started in
1805-06 and was over by 1815. It did try to provide some guarantees, within the
framework of the new Confederation, for the members of the mediatized families,
and protect some of the privileges they used to enjoy under the HRE from their
new sovereigns. As regards Ebenbürtigkeit, article 14 did not create any rights
that did not exist before. It essentially told the new sovereigns of Germany:
"*if* you previously regarded these families as ebenbürtig, then you should
continue to do so, their loss of sovereignty (Landeshoheit) notwithstanding."
(The obvious example was, in fact, Württemberg, which wrote down an
extraordinarily high standard of marriage in its house law of 1808, excluding
all mediatized houses; this standard disappeared in the 1819 house law).

But all of this was an internal matter to the Confederation (and moot after
1866). That Russia signed the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, to which the
Bundesakt was an annex, did not make it subject to article 14 of the Bundesakt
anymore than it made it subject to the internal laws of any other state created
by that Final Act.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-17 08:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
The act creating the German Confederation (I presume that is what you allude to)
did not create or validate the process of mediatization, which had started in
1805-06 and was over by 1815. It did try to provide some guarantees, within the
framework of the new Confederation, for the members of the mediatized families,
and protect some of the privileges they used to enjoy under the HRE from their
new sovereigns. As regards Ebenbürtigkeit, article 14 did not create any rights
that did not exist before. It essentially told the new sovereigns
some were allready s
Post by Francois R. Velde
..
But all of this was an internal matter to the Confederation (and moot after
1866). That Russia signed the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, to which the
Bundesakt was an annex..
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-29 08:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Third party has just acknowledged to have receive a copy of Law of
1900. Perhaps one may therefore more or less see the item here in
German and in translation? Uwe has offered to help.
Uwe
2005-11-29 09:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Third party has just acknowledged to have receive a copy of Law of
1900. Perhaps one may therefore more or less see the item here in
German and in translation? Uwe has offered to help.
My help does not seem to be necessary any longer. See posting by F.
Velde earlier this day (with included link to his website).
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-29 10:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Uwe a écrit :

.. See posting by F.
Post by Uwe
Velde earlier this day (with included link to his website).
This gentleman seems to work quicker than quick

Uwe
2005-11-21 09:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
A reader of German nationality could be usefull, he must be
able to read German handwriting.

I only read this message today. Perhaps I can try to help?
e***@yahoo.fr
2005-11-21 10:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
A reader of German nationality could be usefull, he must be
able to read German handwriting.
I only read this message today. Perhaps I can try to help?
Interested person may contact you, suppose your message will be read.
Upon receiving your address you will of course also receive a photocopy
of the 1900 item!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...