Talk:Nobility

message: I am going to challenge this idea of Nobility and the concept of blue blood. 
Thank you Jordanp -map  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.233.207 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobility in Abstraction 

message: Nobility is a category contained within aristocracy, which is a term of wider application. Japanese nobles vis-a-vis samurai. Useful ideas for anyone working on this complicated sunject can be found in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. Is Burke's Peerage or G.E.C. Cockaigne useful too? Wetman 14:34, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to reiterate, given the fudge that had appeared in the story - aristocracy is a word with various, correct usages, one of which is to denote a general category of monied families, within which nobility is a more sharply defined, formal category. I will revert edits made on the basis that the modern usage is wrong, misguided, muddled, etc. True, the Ancient Greeks meant it to mean something similar to meritocracy. That's what they meant by it, but the word now serves other purposes in living usage. Words evolve. Let's not have wikipedia adjudicate on whether the way most people in fact use the word is etymologically legitimate. Adhib 14:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aristocracy

message: I repeat. Please do not assume an American audience. This article is called "nobility". Baronets, esquire etc.. are not members of the nobility. The anachronistic comparisons to modern concepts of middle class etc.. are simply not appropriate. I have put a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage for people to come here and comment. Mintguy (T)
This business of suggesting comparions between feudal nobility and the United States is beyond ludicrous, it offends me both as an American and as a historian.  America does not have a tiered system.  I suppose it can look that way, but to suggest a feudal organization belies a great ignorance. Mackensen 14:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  About American audience 

message: A reasonable phrase from unreasonable quarrel above:
I assume from your bearing Mintguy, that ignoblity has no relation to the nobility, as you seem openly against including them referenced in an article together.  Oh!  Would that devalue the nobility's prominence???  A pity, not.  They all deserve comparative analysis to demonstrate the intrinsic social values of each in relation to the others, showing the web of society, after all, without the ignobility to stomp on, there wouldn't be a nobility, Mintguy.  Kenneth Alansson 16:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that your comment about edit was as a joke. My only war actions were restoring info that was simply deleted without placing it elsewhere. The problem IMO is that all current active editors are not experts in the whole issue, for the whole world. Therefore please be more tolerant to each other's mistakes and misunderstandings. (for americans only: be smart, but not be smart ass :-) Just a few more logs into the fire: how does Indian caste system or Russian Table of Ranks fit here? (not even mentioned even in "Related articles") Mikkalai 17:49, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they, as different concepts with different names and their own articles, should be referred to in a "see also" context.  Theanthrope 17:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Why do you find it necessary or acceptible to selectively insult americans? - Nunh-huh 17:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems Americans vacillate between thinking the rest of the world hates us and wanting to believe the rest of the world hates us.  I don't know why this is but it's seemingly to justify the way we were acting anyway.  It's a big planet, let's all chill out a bit. Theanthrope 17:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking less globally, I was asking specifically why Mikkalai thought he should throw a gratuitous insult at americans onto this page, and why he thought it was appropriate. I don't think  another personal opinion about Americans addresses that. I was specifically wondering if it's considered good Wikiquette to insult nationalities. If it is, perhaps we need to consider a rewrite of Wikiquette. -- Nunh-huh 18:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry and apologize; it was badly phrased. The idea was something along the lines: an american would say "don't be a smart ass", while an English would insult you in the most proper and correct way (sorry, I cannot give a good example, being not of nobility and poorly bred :-). Mikkalai 18:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Really not a problem, I just see it a lot on Wikipedia and I don't think it's real helpful. In any case, it's probably a good thing not to know too many British insults :) - Nunh-huh 18:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the article and removing info 

message: Badly phrased and placed piece:
A nobleman was bound to his liege by a sworn oath of allegiance. The liege could be the monarch or another noble, forming a hierarchy, usually with a king at the top. Some of the other strata of feudal society were priests, burghers (i.e. city inhabitant) and peasants (i.e. farmer).
#All were bound by allegiance, not just nobles. 
#Nobles were not only in feudal society. 
#The article is not about feudal society. Besides, priests stil exist. Mikkalai 18:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liege, feudal strata 

message: I was looking for information about the nobility of metals.  Shouldn't there be a section on this page for this chemical process?  If I find out anything on noble metals elsewhere, I'll post something here. - unsigned
:You want noble metal. These are generally spoken of as a group, "noble metals", and the use of "nobility" to refer to them is rare, and I wouldn't expect "nobility" to reference metals any more than I'd expect "baseness" to. - Nunh-huh 00:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: dab proposed

message: Can a nobleman(Prince, Grand Duke, Duke, Marquess, Count, Viscount, Baron), besides Monarch(king/emperor) or Pope confer any noble title on a commoner ?
--Siyac 7 July 2005 11:19 (UTC)
:No. – Kpalion (talk) 7 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)
::Wrong. Sovereigns who are not kings, emperors or popes can grant titles of nobility. Such is the case in Luxembourg and was the case in many German grand duchies and duchies. Charles 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but a monarch is not a nobleman. Kpalion 20:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You neglected to say so. Grand dukes who are opnly noble do not exist. The context in which the original poster must have meant was that kings and emperors obviously could/can grant titles. Charles 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title conferral 

message: I have a question:
If a British baron was granted the title of Prince of HRE, does this mean that he anwsers to nobody except HRE Emperor ? Since the title of Prince of HRE is directly subject to HRE emperor.
Siyac 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank 

message: I am sorry to arrive on this talk page with such a critical message, but I feel this article needs severe editing. I have read through the talk page, and it looks as though there is some confusion about the scope of the article and about how material should be split between similar articles. I would give it a go, but I don't know enough about the subject. But something has to be done. I ended up on this page following a redirect. I read the introduction:
:The nobility represents, or has represented, the higher stratum of a society in which not only social classes are distinguished, but also formal estates, usually alongside the clergy. The most distinctive feature of nobilty is that once acquired, it is passed to descendants, possibly according to some rules. The word "noble" in "nobility" also means "doing an act worthy of respect" to people.
...and I had absolutely no idea what it meant. The rest of the article follows the same pattern as the introduction. It needs to decide whether it is talking about Europe or the world and whether post-chivalry or earlier; it needs referencing; and after that, it needs a severe copyedit.   
*Is it saying that to be noble, one must hold estate? (First sentence.)
*What is a formal estate? How does it differ from the estate of  non-noble people? Is it land?
*What is usually alongside the clergy?
*The most distinctive feature of nobility is that it can be passed on? But lots of things can be passed on, from shoes to copyright to books to money. This does not distinguish nobility very much.
*The dictionary definition looks poorly-worded at best and simply wrong at worst. My small desk dictionary lists four senses as an adjective and two as a noun, but "doing an act worthy of respect" is none of them. 
Going on to the first sub-section: 
:Initially nobility descended from chivalry (or warrior class) in the feudal stage of the development of a society.
*The article begins by claiming that nobility is a quality. At least, I think that's what it's saying. Chivalry isn't a quality. It's a set of codified behaviour from a particular period of European history. What has this to do with conceptions of nobility in Fiji, central America or in the Bible (which has numerous references to noblemen in both OT and NT)?  
:Originally, knights or nobles were mounted warriors who swore allegiance to their sovereign and promised to fight for him in exchange for allocation of land (usually together with serfs
*Again, context required. Is this also chivalry-related and Euro-specific, or can it reasonably be applied to, say, the Scythians, too?  
:The invention of the Musket slowly eliminated the privately owned and operated armies of nobles in feudal societies during the time period of the Military Revolution. 
*Quite apart from the grammar (really, armies composed of nobles? What a delightful image), surely the outlawing of private armies by monarchs had an equal effect in some countries? Henry VII of England did exactly that long before muskets went into widespread use.
The entire article is like this. The talk page suggests there has been some difficulty in the past in defining the scope and content, and I am sorry to rake up what may be a sensitive subject to some. I am also sorry that this message is so negative. I have tried to include examples of the sorts of things which might help the reader. Wikipedia has some really really good articles on matters related to this, and there is no reason why this article can't match them. This is why I have placed a {cleanup-rewrite} template on the article. It needs to decide whether it is talking about Europe or the world and whether post-chivalry or earlier; it needs referencing; and after that, it needs a comprehensive copyedit.  
--Telsa ((t)(c)) 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Telsa.--Counsel 21:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing required

message: The term blue-blood redirects to the article. I would like to see some mention (perhaps an etymological history) of the term in this article. 24.126.199.129 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't redirect here; it's a slang term for nobility rather than a proper synonym. If you want to, please write an article on the topic yourself. Walton monarchist89 09:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The term "sang bleu" exists as well in French. It refers to the pale skin of nobility (because they're "pure white" Europeans") and therefore their arteries are visible to the naked eye. The blood looks blue. 95.115.52.232 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Blue-blood

message: from the intro:
"Although the United States, like almost every society, has a privileged 'upper class' with great wealth and power, this does not entail a separate legal status"
*cough* OJ Simpson
The US has a de-facto system of nobility -- and why shouldn't it?
:De facto is not de jure. The United States Constitution expressly forbids states from granting titles of nobility, and also forbids those "holding an office of trust or profit under the United States" from "accepting any gift, emolument or title from a foreign King or Prince". Yes, the US has a privileged upper class with de facto hereditary status - but that isn't enough to make them noble. Nobility is a specific legal hereditary status; traditionally it must be conferred by a "fountain of honour", usually a king or prince.  Social and economic status has nothing to do with actual nobility - in the past there have been nobles who have lost their family fortunes and lived in poverty. It is quite clear that there is no system of hereditary nobility in the United States. Walton monarchist89 10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States does in fact have a small colonial aristocracy which, although lacking legal status, enjoys some equivalent prestige. Examples are the Lee family and Randolph family of Virginia, and the Carroll family of Maryland, the last actually descending from the ancient Gaelic nobility. Then there is the Kennedy family, ennobled by the Irish government and by the Vatican in the 20th century. See also First Families of Virginia and Boston Brahmin. DinDraithou (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States nobility 

message: There are absolutely no citations of the sources used in this article.  How can the sources of the claims here be traced to anyone but the author(s)?  Kemet 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources?? 

message: Someone (a Wiki user named 'Ghost rider1000') recently added an external link to a web site entitled "Royal Society of North America."  This web site appears to ofter noble titles for sale.  This would seem to almost certainly be some sort of a scam site.  Can someone confirm this? -- and remove the external link if the site is a scam? -RobertBlacknut 06:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links to scam web sites

message: Article Nobel: Nobility, a hereditary caste 
This article: Nobility is a government-privileged title which may be either hereditary (see hereditary titles) or for a lifetime.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.123.110 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: contradictio in terminis

message: I would have to say that, as it stands, both Articles need some grammatical revisions.
Combining the two might be a good opportunity to do so, but it might be just as well to deal with them as separate entities, get "the bugs" worked out of each and then take a look at what's what.
And being the Grammatical stickler I am I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I would think that if it is decided to merge the Articles "Ennoblement" belongs within the Article on "Nobility", as Nobility is the broader term/concept. 
Thank you for your time.
James
Rampant unicorn (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, nothing happening on this in 3 years, will perform the action if no one else does. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not enough discussion. I am reverting the merge. Concept of ennoblement has a separate nobility. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging this Article with Ennoblement. 

message: In reference to Sir Thomas Innes of Learney's comments on the status of armorial bearings in Scotland, FactStraight (talk) is removing any references to the status of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia in this article, claiming comments are not NPOV and use peacock terms.  The comments concerned state that the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia is authoritative and may be cited in the courts, and are supported by references.  The Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia is Scotland's version of the Halsbury's Statutes.  It is cited in courts as high up as the House of Lords, the UK's highest court.  See for example the following links for evidence of its citation in the courts: Blackburn v Cowie, Moncrieff and another v Jamieson and others and Regina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate and the Lord Advocate Ex Parte Granada Television Ltd (Search for 'Stair').  There are many others.  Authoritative when used in the sense here is a description of its legal status in that it carries an authority when cited in the courts.  This is shown in the Open University's description of the work (You have to scroll down to see this).  So these comments are simply a factual description of the status of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia and are thus demonstrative of a NPOV and are not peacock terms, as they are descriptive and supported by references.  I do not believe this description should be deleted repeatedly. Editor8888 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits are POV because they do not add relevant factual information (let alone "demonstrate the comments on the status of the Stair Memorial Encyclpaedia" -- who confers "status" on an encyclopedia?), but puffery: they are being inappropriately used to buttress one side of an argument (the current validity of Innes' opinion as to what constitutes "nobility" in Scotland). Simply let the quote speak for itself, and people can look up Innes and Stair to decide for themselves their "authoritativeness" (although I see that Wikipedia's article on the Stair encyclopedia is being suddenly "enhanced" to reflect its "authoritativeness"). Stair's general "authoritativeness" is not relevantly advanced in an article on "Nobility", and is off-topic. The contention that an encyclopedia has been cited in legal cases is meaningless and misleading because anything can be so cited -- and is then subject to rebuttal. Your claim that it is "authoritative" is not a declaration from either law or judge about Innes's opinion that there are non-peerage holders who are "nobility", but is a generic opinion about Stair intended to give the impression that Innes is authoritative because Stair reflects his POV, and that Stair has been cited judicially so Innes is somehow authoritative on this particular point. Peacockery is inappropriate and will be deleted. It isn't somehow acceptable because it can be referenced: it is how the referenced material is used that determines whether it is deletable exaggeration. Stop mixing opinion and fact to promote a POV that has been doubted by a judge of the Court of Session and increasingly challenged in recent years. FactStraight (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for outlining the basis for your view.  I suggest you read  this link.  You will see that status is conferred on this encylopaedia by the Law Society of Scotland, through this official Scottish professional body's patronage of its production.  Do not let the word 'encyclopaedia' confuse you; this is not simply one of any number of legal reference works, but is an authoritative statement of the Laws of Scotland.  It is not cited in court as anyone may be and is not open to rebuttal.  It would be necessary to demonstrate how and why it didn't apply.  It is an authoritative statement of the law.  If you are familiar with Halsbury's Statutes in England, you should know that Stair has the same status in Scotland. This is not opinion, but fact.  Someone with expertise in this area would know this.  The recent wording of the Nobility article was not neutral as it had been manipulated in a way to deny the present legal position as expounded in Scots law and to give undue emphasis to a single scholar who admits his opinions 'are far from definitive'.  To accentuate this over the Laws of Scotland, where is the credibility in that?  Also, the comments you refer to in the Court of Session were obiter, and the Court of the Lord Lyon has first jurisdiction over nobiliary matters.  The article on the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia was not "enhanced", but created as none existed.  Scots legal scholars and lawyers are free to verify its content.  Weak insinuations will add no substance to a misunderstanding of the status of an important legal work.  Nevertheless, I agree with you that a discussion about the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia is off topic for this article itself, so I have limited my amendment to state its provenance (i.e. who commissioned the publication).  As you say, it is for interested parties to explore for themselves the relative authority of the sources.  In fact other sources, such as the articles on Innes of Learney and Scottish heraldry, make it clear that nobility, or the noblesse, in Scotland encompasses what is known as the gentry in England.  Innes of Learney's adjudications need to be understood in this sense and in the knowledge that the term is employed differently in different contexts.  Editor8888 (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: FactStraight (talk) has now removed the note stating that the Law Society of Scotland sponsored the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia  despite a reference to the Law Society's journal confirming the same, and has also removed the link to the encyclopaedia's wikipedia page.  FactStraight wrote 'Stair has no special standing in Scots law or courts & didn't specifically commission cited article'.  It was stated that the Law Society, not Stair, sponsored the Encyclopaedia (not the article), which the source confirms to be the case.  Also, the claim that Stair has no special standing in Scots law or courts is incorrect. FactStraight dismissed this source as simply an advertisement of the publisher and implied it had no value as a response.  This source confirms 'the Encyclopaedia ranks among that select group of publications which is cited with approval before the courts' (echoed elsewhere, e.g. Amazon).  If FactStraight knew the relevant law, he would know that an advert could not legally make such a claim were it not true, in addition to being aware of the status of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia.  This is clearly a veiled attempt at denying the Scots law on this issue, by surpressing the weight of the law in question.  I had hoped the compromise suggested in my last message would be adhered to, but all edits have been reverted under the excuse of WP policies which really should not apply in this instance.  I am surprised by the dishonesty I have experienced here. Editor8888 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: At 05:35 on 3rd November 2008 FactStraight (talk) wrote (here): 'It is usually considered a no-no on English Wikipedia to revert an edit that has a footnoted source attached: there is no Wiki rule against using an "obscure" source, if it can be accessed by the public. Nor is there a rule against using a "biased" source, as long as the source does not attempt to conceal its bias.' Editor8888 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Inner Temple, one of the four Inns of Court of Barristers of England & Wales, has published a newsletter (Section: Focus on the Scots Law Collection) in which they refer to the status of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia. Editor8888 (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia 

message: Please re-read this grammatically ugly and barely comprehensible lede as it now exists. (The emphasis is mine.):
: « Nobility is a state-privileged status [define: status] which is generally hereditary. The privileges associated with nobility may constitute substantial advantages over or relative to non-nobles, or may be largely honorary (e.g. precedence), but are maintained, or at least officially acknowledged, by law or government. Titles of nobility have often been associated with present or past monarchies, but nobility also existed in such republics as the Dutch Provinces, Genoa and Venice, and remains part of the legal social structure of, e.g. San Marino in Europe. Hereditary titles often distinguish nobles from non-nobles, although in many nations most of the nobility have been un-titled, and a hereditary title need not indicate nobility (e.g. baronet). »
Will someone PLEASE completely rewrite this. It is unclear, full of ambiguity, and contains weasel words; simply hideous. With all of the books written on « nobility », surely some talented wordsmith can create a better definition. (Please do not forget to identify your reliable sources.) Thank you for your time and effort to improve this. Charvex (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rewrote a lot of it, because most of it is just wrong. I will get some sources when I have more time, and rewrite most of this article with sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: In the English speaking world we tend to view things with a skew towards the British system. In this system, titles are passed by primogeniture, the term peer and noble are used interchangeably, and there is little recognition of the untitled nobility. However, most European nations don't have peers, titles are inherited by more than one offspring, and there is an untitled nobility, even in Britain. The minor nobility could be said to include armiger in Scotland. So people categorized as commoners because they are not peers are still noble. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noble Classes 

message: this article lacks sources, and a good definition of nobility. I think it is largely in part because people edit based on their own ideas of what nobility means, and do not discuss it. Ideas about nobility has changed over time, and vary from place to place. Additionally, there remains conflicting ideas between different scholars, as well as the general use of the word. This is an encyclopedia article, and therefore should focus on the more technical and scholarly views, and merely acknowledge the popular use of the word. Anyway, since the method here seems to simply edit, that's what I will do, but forgive me if I go against the precedent of backing up my edits with unsourced and unfounded assertions. Tinynanorobots (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition 

message: Please see Template talk:Infobox nobility.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding an image of coat of arms to infobox nobility 

message: Moliere used sangbleu in 1666 (La Misanthrope), and Voltaire in 1782 (Des delits ed des peines). By the way, Voltaire reports the expression as having being already in use in 1181, during Philip II reign, but it doesn't report the source. Queen Victoria was born in 1819, and crowned in 1837. There is no way Queen Victoria's descendants emophily has anything to do with this expression.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.48.97 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph about blue blood 

message: There were certain possible ways how a peasant could earn their badges rights to nobleship titles, since the Modern Age, Renaissance, Middle Ages, the Iron Ages, and as far as throughout the ancient Bronze ages.
*Any peasant, by their own right of use or in times of emergency, can or possibly have to join the military, to protect their kingdom from invasion. Possibly, if one person or few still keep their position in the military, or some even protect a high officer, general, a relative of a noble family, or even the King in battle(worthy grant of a title), the soldier may have the right to become a high ranking officer, or unexpectedly in the Middle Ages, earn the title of Knight as an automatic commission to become a noble, although, the soldier will still have to go through the ceremony to become a knight, it was worth it, at the end of the ceremony and believing you made your country, family, and HONOR sacred. There are same stories with the Samurai. There have been reports of children of peasants secretly exchanged adoption to noble families so they can be safe from invasion and expand the land to prosperity by making them knights or samurai. 
The earning of honorary title similar to stories of Joan of Arc, and Genghis Khan(started out as a noble, but was later captured to slavery, and later became high ranking official, to finally as an Emperor of Mongolia)
*Any peasant may have the right to serve as a religious person. Most monk travellers would find the homeless and convince them to join a priesthood, after being initiated as a monk, nun, or priestess, they need not worry about the sickness and hunger, for they will eventually, know about karma, medicine, and trust in spirituality. If one does receive great admiration by the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, and other sanctuaries, they may become a higher authority in a religious council. Possibly, even become Bishop, Preacher, Imam Khatib, Rabbi, Sangha, and other clergy. 
A good example of a person is Pope Pius X.
*Any peasant may have found new land in a new world, or region may own the land, struck a gold or diamond mine, or even a  water spring or geyser, and become instantly rich, earn the laborer employees and become a tycoon person. 
A good example is the founder of the city of Tombstone, in Arizona, Ed Schieffelin.  
*Any peasant if they have to earn those characteristics, maybe used as a great singer, and may become the lead singer in a musical choir, or a become a great musician, actor, writer, and artist, as well as creating inventions; with these talents, and extra money, as well as becoming notable, may earn the title as a noble. 
Examples would be William Ostler, actor of the Globe Theatre and scattered Elizabethan Theatres and was greatly used by director William Shakespeare started out as an apprentice and later actor. Sacharias Jansen who has being also credited for inventing the first truly compound microscope. Isaac Newton famous English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian.
With earnings may come reward and wealth, with wealth may come class titles. Many ways how peasants may earn or secretly adopted the commission of a nobility title. --216.124.141.231 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ways Peasants can earn [[Nobility]] Titles

message: There seems to be an obvious misunderstanding in this section of the French seigneuries with the English lord. One and the other have actually nothing in common. In France, throughout the ancien régime, it was customary to designate the owner of an estate as the seigneur or sire of that estate. That estate could be sold or bought, and so naturally the new owner would take up that designation. But landownership (the respective seigneurie) did not of itself confer any nobility upon the owner, no more than being a property landlord in Britain today confers any nobility whatsoever. 
Similarly, the creation of a title, even by letters patent, could be made upon any subject of the King of France without conferring or confirming nobility. A comte de X could be so created by express wish of the Crown -- the X in this case standing most frequently for a previously existing property, a seigneurie. But neither property nor title represented the existence of any previous or current ennoblement (anoblissement). Furthermore, should the above-mentioned property be sold, the purchase would of course allow the new owner the respective seigneurie. But the same could not be said of the associated title (comte de X), which remained legally with the previous owner, and which would eventually be passed on to his descendants. Any examples contrary to this rule were the regular subject of prosecution.
In France, nobility is with very few known exceptions only traditional and transmitted exclusively through the male line. Out of the historical nobility, noble families in France today are simply those subsistantes. In such cases, nobility results from one or more ancestors in the male line being explicitly described in letters patent as Noble homme or gentilhomme or a similar designation. These designations often date back to the fourteenth century (if not to an earlier date), as attested by the numerous maintenues de noblesse that became compulsory in the 1660s for those with inherited rights of succession, as well as by individual preuves de noblesse made by those in the service of the King and the Royal Family, and by the Honneurs de la Cour, which were granted to the old nobility.
Normally the prerogative of noble homme was exclusively granted to individuals descending already from a known line of esquires (écuyers). In this sense, it represented the recognition of nobility to an individual by the sovereign. In contrast, the term anobli (lit. "ennobled") was also used, but mainly for those newly-entered into the rank of nobility, which is what ennoblement actually means (anoblissement). In other words, ennoblement proper applies mostly to those who had recently gained honour from the sovereign through the individual valour of their service to the Crown. 
Finally, and in tandem with this topic, it would also be worthwhile noting the differences in France between the nobility of ancienne extraction chevaleresque (before the fifteenth century), of ancienne extraction (fifteenth century), and of extraction (the sixteent century), the latter being most often associated with one or more cases of ennoblement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.74.192 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ennoblement 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: There is a common misconception among persons less familiar with the subjects that nobility (called peerage in Britain) and royalty (called royalty all over) are the same thing. This article would do well in not supporting that misconception and in making it clear in the lede that the two are distinctly different subjects. I have tried once, describing what is "normal", and will now try again, asking that I not be reverted but helped to create this needed clarity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. FactStraight (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobility versus royalty

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Nobility's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "cedre":
From Brazilian nobility: Les manuscrits du C.E.D.R.E. – Dictionnaire Historique et Généalogique, vol. III. Le Royaume de Portugal, L’Empire du Brésil. Cercle d'Études des Dynasties Royales Européennes (president, Jean-Fred Tourtchine), Paris, 1987, p. 51. (French). ISSN 0764-4426.
From Style (manner of address): 
From Portuguese nobility: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The last two are identical; the first is a reference to the same volume, but a different page (p. 51 rather than p. 103.). - Nunh-huh 23:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Nobility]] 

message: While any accurate historical claims of Descent from antiquity are dubious at best at this moment (more research need to be done), a statement claiming the impossibility of DFA is just as dubious. I therefore removed the sentence 'Modern European nobility have no connection to the Roman nobility, because they originated from the feudal/seignorial system that arose in Europe during the Middle Ages.' And replaced it with 'While ancestry of contemporary noble families from ancient Roman nobility might technically be possible, no well-researched, historically-documented generation-by-generation genealogical descents from ancient Roman times are known to exist in Europe.'
Such claims by noble families do exist though, for instance: http://www.balbifamily.com/balbisfamous.htm Grifo (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient ancestry 

message: The description under the first image should use the word 'nobility' rather than 'royalty'.  When attempting to edit, strangely I find that it does say 'nobility' but does not do so in the article itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.193.244 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Error or Technical Issue