Talk:Papal States

message: If someone knows something about the Papal army I'd love to know anything. Exept abot the Vatican guard(I already know about them,but hey if you know something I don't, DO share), Im mean like the Papal navy and Roman militia/army. Thanks.--Philippe Auguste 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Pope Pius IX#Military and Zouave#Papal Zouaves for some relevant content.  Papal army now redirects to Papal States, but probably merits its own article.  --Una Smith (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To help with literature searches, its name in Italian:  Armata Pontificia. --Una Smith (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merci beaucoup. There's heaps of stuff on the Net, in  Italian. Mio Italiano is a bit rusty, but I'll have a go.--Gazzster (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.  See also Frédéric-François-Xavier Ghislain de Mérode and links in that article to some other key players.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal Army 

message: The first paragraph of this article implies that "the Papal States" effectively ended in 1870, but it says nothing about when they started. The article itself seems a bit vague on this seemingly important point. Would that beginning be:
* 321 C.E., when the Church was first "allowed to hold and transfer property";
* sometime "after the 600s", as "large gifts became less common";
* 754 C.E., when "Church control became more explicit";
* 781 C.E., when "Charlemagne codified the regions over which the Pope would be temporal sovereign";
… or some other year or range of years? — Jeff Q 18:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning date 

message: I think Prisoner in the Vatican should be merged into the appropriate section of this article. — OwenBlacker 00:30, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Why  do you think so? CheeseInTea (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: The inclusion of the "Pentapolis" in the list included in the "Donation of Pepin" section is ambiguous (See Pentapolis article). Terry Thorgaard (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentapolis 

message: I'm just recovering from a major system crash, so I'm not able myself at the moment (but might be able sometime soon), but does anyone fancy creating one or more maps of the Papal States, with any map showing either all of modern Italy or all of the Holy Roman Empire? — OwenBlacker 22:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like an anachronistic map of all the territories ever in the Papal States, including Avignon. --84.20.17.84 09:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map? 

message: I don't know for sure, but should it be mentioned in the main article- it does give a 'mythological' raison d'être for the papal states. Reynaert-ad 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Donatio Constantini? 

message: Is the flag authentic? Its presence in the disinfobox tells nothing of where and when it was used. --Wetman 10:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag

message: It'd be nice to have a map that shows Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin. john k (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: "for the modern State of Vatican City, an enclave within Italy's national capital, Rome, which was founded in 1929, again allowing the Holy See the practical benefits of territorial sovereignty."
I was under the impression that Rome was founded somewhat earlier than 1929, or have I significantly missed the context in which it is being stated here? JonEastham (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is a little gnarly.   Vatican City (in its current form) was founded in 1929.  I'll try to reword. --Jfruh (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rome - founded 1929 ?!? 

message: Now exist a retirect from Duchy of Rome to Papal States. Duchy of Rome needs a own page, so i suggest a translation from it.wiki ducato romano. Thanks and bye --Wento (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Duchy of Rome]]

message: The article on the Donatio Constantini, whereby the Popes became owners of large parts of Italy by using forged documents, should be merged with this article.
Poldebol (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's necessary. The Donation of Constantine was used to justify the temporal rule of the popes, but the foundation of the temporality predates the forgery.--Gazzster (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The Donation of Constantine is a single forged document. Perhaps it deserves fuller mention in this article.  --Wetman (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means make a link to Donation of Constantine if it isn't there already.--Gazzster (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donatio Constantini 

message: To state that the Papal States existed continuously from 752 to 1870, as the infobox currently does, is factually wrong.  They did not exist from 1808 to 1814.  The box really should state "752-1808, 1814-1870" or something similar. 68.62.0.178 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's strictly true. I do think though that 752-1870 can be stated as generally true. In a similar way we state that the Kingdom of the Netherlands or the Kingdom of Belgium continued to exist in a moral sense during the Nazi occupation. I'm not, of course, comparing Napoleon to Hitler.--Gazzster (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in infobox 

message: United Italian provinces redirects here, but I found no mention of them in the article 130.251.167.41 (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  odd redirect 

message: The new map is wrong, if fails to display the Comtat Venaissin and the papal communes in the Kingdom of Naples. Therefore, I'm going to revert the edit.
Regards (Jack1755 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, the map has now been updated to include its enclaves. -GabaG (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Map - PapalStates1700.png 

message: This flag is not of the Papal States! It is the flag of the Comtat Venaissin. --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: wrong flag

message: The article should maybe try to reflect on whether buying islands in the Pacific might procure a greater legal security to the Holy See. Such islands would presumably be listed along with other properties of the Holy See, which already include churches in Italy. The existence of small native populations in these islands might serve as a practical socio-political replacement to the Pontifical States, who were also known as the States of the Holy See. ADM (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the papacy or anyone associated with the Papal States ever actually proposed doing this?  If not, it shouldn't go into the article. --Jfruh (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And in any case, any property owned by the Church of Rome outside of the Vatican (excluding a few in Italy with extraterritorial status, like Castel Gandolfo) would fall under the jurisdiction of the nation in which they exist,and would not form part of the Pope's sovereign territory.--Gazzster (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Buying islands in the Pacific

message: The infobox describes the Papal States as a theocracy. This seems inaccurate, both since, according to the article: "In practice, the Popes were unable to exercise effective sovereignty over the extensive and mountainous territories of the Papal States, and the region preserved its old Lombard system of government, with many small countships and marquisates, each centered upon a fortified rocca." So, for most of its history "feudalism" would be more accurate than "theocracy".
And, even in theory, it wasn't really a theocracy - the Pope was both monarch of the Papal States and head of the Church, but, IIRC, they were separate legal entities.  Even now, the Holy See is a separate legal entity from Vatican City, and part of the reason why is because it had always been separate from the realms ruled by the pope's temporal power. (In the same way that Elizabeth II is Queen of both Britain and Canada, but that doesn't make Canada part of Britain.) The Papal States' government was not actually theocratic... Vultur (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Theocracy?

message: The article says that "Papal States" is the preferred English term for the Stato Pontificio, but "Papal State" is clearly the correct translation. If it were "Papal States", the Italian name would have been "Stati Pontifici", which was much less frequently used. So why is the plural version considered the preferred English name? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Preferred" here means not "the correct translation" but rather what the entity is actually called in English.  If you look at both historical and contemporary English-language sources, the political unit under discussion is invariably referred to as the "Papal States."  This might be an incorrect translation, but it's not the job of Wikipedia to make things more rational or correct. --Jfruh (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Papal States" or "Papal State" 

message: Thus this is the last sentence as it stands now;
"By 1300, the Papal States, along with the rest of the Italian principalities, were effectively independent. During the Renaissance the Spanish Emperors fought wars over the Papal States, often against the Pope."
Wow, it seems a lot of time is ignored here!  How about the Sack of Rome by Charles V, etc.?
If you are telling a story, you do not ignore so many important events!  This is, of course, only my humble opinion.96.19.147.40 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would suggest some additional material should be added to the "Renaissance" section; 

message: Thus we read there;
"With the Christian emperorship of Constantine I, the Church's private property grew quickly through the donations of the pious and the wealthy; the Lateran Palace was the first significant donation, a gift of Constantine himself."  As historians, you must know that the reported "conversion" of Constantine is the subject of much debate, especially charges of "forged documents", etc.!  But your site, gives this event if indeed it ever occured, a "fait accomli!"
Perhaps it merely should be alleged?96.19.147.40 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any serious historians doubt that Constantine converted to Christianity. Also, Constantine's donation of the Lateran Palace to the church (which actually happened) is entirely different from his donation of all of central Italy (which never happened). --Jfruh (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Origins" section needs cleaned up! 

message: Found in the "Origins" section is this;
"It would, however, be wrong to suppose that all papal claims of secular jurisdiction, taxation and service, etc. were exactly defined, or that they applied with equal force all over a large region of central Italy, or that local warlords or others readily conceded obedience to Rome. This was no modern state yet, no equivalent to the contemporary strong monarchies of France or England. Force of tradition and forceful possession counted more than written deeds of donation. –D.S. Chambers[2]
And history be damned, there does exist the real facts that until the 19th century CE, there seems to be no "real" evidence of a prior unified Italy!96.19.147.40 (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins!  Just suppose? 

message: Should there be a list of the actual 'states or provinces'? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: Substituted at 02:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Just saying. Leaving flag up for now. Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unable to discern the neutrality question 

message: While the papal "STATES" have not existed since 1870 the Church still has a state the Vatican city a papal "STATE" singular soo that is a problem thingy 2A04:241E:202:6900:D16C:544F:39F3:C117 (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican city now 

message: Greetings fellow Wikipedians! Information from this article is likely relevant to the article Catholic Church and politics. I'm flagging this here in case anyone with time and knowledge or interest in this topic wishes to add some of this information to Catholic Church and politics, which would be greatly appreciated and help round out that article some more. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Church and politics 

message: In the intro section, it states:
"By 1860, much of the Papal States' territory had been conquered by the Kingdom of Italy."
In the "Italian Unification" section, it states:
In 1860, with much of the region already in rebellion against Papal rule, Piedmont-Sardinia invaded and conquered the eastern two-thirds of the Papal States, cementing its hold on the south.
The later section gives a more nuanced explanation of who the papal states were at war with, but the complexity of what the alliance around the Kingdom of Sardinia actually is is not captured well.
I would propose making a decision about what this alliance should be named and linked to, and carrying it forward to the intro section. The sentence "Kingdom of Italy, in 1860" is a bit absurd, since the first line of the KoI article is "...was a state that existed from 17 March 1861...".
It doesn't seem appropriate to me to link to the result of this pre-unification alliance. 136.226.76.189 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian Unification