Talk:Prince-bishop

message: I stumbled onto this topic, and have heard of prince-bishops numerous times, but "bishopric"? I'd flag this as possible vandalism but I just don't know enough about the topic - would a clarifying statement for the word-usage not be a useful inclusion?
Tom Meakin (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishopric is valid, use Google, Merriam-Webster etc.--Yopie 23:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It would be helpful if we could be told how Prince-Bishops came to attain their positions, by appointment, by succession? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishopric? 

message: Having this as a separate section is misleading.
The prince-bishopric of Basel was never part of Switzerland. The city of Basel and the bishopric were two separate political entities. The city joined Switzerland but the bishopric remained part of the Holy Roman Empire, until it ceased to exist when it was annexed by Napolean and became part of France. Only in 1815 did (most) of the territory of the former bishopric become part of Switzerland.
I have moved the entry. TiffaF 06:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it again, because the titel says "in what is now Switzerland" - almost all the territory ruled by the prince-bishops are situated in nowadays Switzerland. Furthermore also the bishops where allies of the confederacy between 16th and 18th century. Apart from this - the Swiss Confederacy was part of the Roman Empire as well until 1648. The prince-abbot of St. Gall and the prince-bishop of Chur remained princes of the empire even after that time until 1806, their territory being part of the Confedercy simultaneously. Sidonius (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "In Switzerland" is misleading 

message: This article splits its coverage by political units which did not exist. It also created the impression that, for instance Austria, wasn't in Germany at the time when it was. A similar concern was left above. If the problem is not resolved I will restore the edit I made which was reverted without discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your solution is without knowledge of this matter. Status of  Prince-Bishop in HRE was different from Prince-Bishop in France, but all "P-B" in HRE have similar status, and this isnt depending on locality in modern Belgium, northern Italy, Germany or Austria. So, please, understand, that edit is unwelcomed. --Yopie 19:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are saying the same thing. john k (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I answered to Deacon of Pndapetzim. --Yopie 11:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Deacon is saying the same thing, as well - that it is anachronistic to suggest that these prince-bishoprics were, at the time, in different countries. john k (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: HRE covered definitiv the todays Kingdoms of Belgium and the Netherlands for a long time, I think untill 30-years-war (sorry, I should read first, but the book is not here this moment), aswell big parts of eastern French Kingdom (until Marseill and Lyon) in that time was no difference between PBs there and other parts of the HRE. If the PB afterwards only behold the title or if they really could stay in a status a ruling duke sorry, I don't know. Nevertheless I don't think that they had in fact a PBs power, for it doesn't agree to Netherlands or Belgiums staate-philosophy, nor to the french absolutism, to give a dukes power to a Bishops or Archbishops See. --Skipper Michael (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National history 

message: I have boldly reformatted the section for prince-bishoprics that were in the Holy Roman Empire into a large table, including listing the current nation(s) in which those territories existed and including a column of "Notes", that mention where these prince-bishops were not territorial sovereigns. I think this should resolved the problems caused by the artificial divisions of the bishoprics into modern nation states (particularly given that some of them cross our modern borders) and the inclusion of bishoprics such as Gurk, which were fiefs of Austrian duchies. In a similar vein, I have thus included the Livonian bishoprics of Terra Mariana, making clear that these were never (with the exception of Riga) a part of the Empire. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National history" problems 

message: My understanding is that these bishoprics were principalities, but were subject not to the emperor, but to the Duke of Styria or Carinthia.  That is, they were principalities, but not Reichsunmittelbar; this is comparable to the Prince-Bishops of Olmütz and Breslau, who were subject to the Bohemian crown. I'm not completely sure of that, though.  john k (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gurk and Seckau 

message: I propose merging Lord Bishop into Prince-bishop. The former is very short (three sentences) and seems like it could easily be covered here.  — Moriwen (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal