Talk:Estates of the realm

message: Earlier content of the three estates, replaced by a redirect here:
: "This term used in regards to Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales describes how every one living in medieval England was easily categorized as either from the highest noble class, the holy (sometimes not so holy) Church class, and the working class."
I suspect that this (anonymously contributed) is just someone's partial understanding from a college course, but if anyone feels that all or part of this belongs in the article, feel free to mine it. -- Jmabel 22:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "To no estate belonged propertyless farmers, farmhands, servants, travelling salesmen, vagrants, parasites." What is the basis for saying "parasites" here? The term is a judgment, not a station in life. One could as easily argue (and many have) the the clergy and nobility are "parasites" as anyone else. - Jmabel | Talk 07:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not found any other term for the people who don't own property, don't have a family, or possess any skills that would guarantee a livelihood despite this. The result was that these people would live in other peoples' houses, without contributing much to the household. "Vagrancy" involves lack of housing, but being a "servant" implies a contribution to running the household. --Vuo 17:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Parasites" 

message: ...the Dutch Estates-General? Or was that a fluke? 68.39.174.238 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about... 

message: Isn't it ironic? And I don't know how to add... Chevrox 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No link to the French page 

message: This article claims that this form of sociery was in all Europe. I`m do not have data but i do not think that kingdoms/empiers such as Early Germanic Kingdoms(in places such as Italy)/The Republic of Venice/Genoa/Alaina(or Alanian Kingdom)/Tatar Crimeea/Kievan Pricipality/The Byzantine Empire/Sicilian Emirate/Early Leon/Vizigothic Spain/Pre-Hastings British Iles/Serbia/Bosnia/Bulgaian I,II/Defensive Marks(Early Basarabia,Andorra,etc.)/Pre-Livonian Baltic States/Armenia/Georgia/The Khazar Khanate and many more where implementing the sistem in such way as in the west,at least not as an official policy as in western countrys,in plus, in the Republic of Novgorod or Al-Andaluz such devisions of society would seem at least strange.So until some proof,argument or source i am changing it to "some parts of Europe"! AdrianCo (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe? 

message: should this and the subsidiary articles have their own project now? Weve done some subbing at fourth and fifth estate and while not perfect are probably not accused of being too french now (and i translate french articles but not this one). It would obviously be a small project, like this main article and its five estates in it, but it seems to be a trend on WP to group these things together that way. Opinions? SimonTrew (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  own project? 

message: The see also section of this article is almost comical in its overkill.  I understand the desire to include articles that have some relation to the article here, but listing every government that makes reference to estates is a bit much.  Perhaps a page with governments that make such use should be created and serve as a single "see also" link to cut down on the excessive links. See Also would seem to be the appropriate place to list concepts at a similar level of abstraction rather than laundry lists of specific instances. 143.239.96.226 (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also overkill

message: This article is quite inadequate.  It conflates two separate, but related ideas - first the idea of "estates" as a kind of legally defined status for individuals in the medieval and early modern state; and second the idea of those estates assembled together as parliaments.  We currently have the ludicrous statement that
Two medieval parliaments derived their name from the estates of the realm:
This is just wrong.  An enormous number of medieval parliaments derived their name from the estates of the realm.  Just in some recent reading I've come across the estates of Lower Austria, for example.  Not to mention the States-General of the Netherlands.  More importantly, "Estates" is used by historians as a kind of general term for medieval/early modern parliaments of this sort.  This article gives little sense of this.  This is a very important concept, and it doesn't seem like wikipedia has an article about it.  This article is mostly about estates as social classes, Diet (assembly) is about English usage of the term "Diet" for an assembly, Parliament is much too broad.  
I'm also pretty down on this title.  "Of the realm" is incredibly amateurish. john k (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some issues 

message: There could be some mention of the correlation of playing card suits to the estates of the realm vis.
* Clubs : villeins 
* Diamonds: merchants
* Hearts: clergy
* Spades: nobility
20040302 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing cards... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Estates of the realm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.uvic.es/central/campus/gabinet/aulass/ca/albareda.html
*Added  tag to http://www.magnesium.net/~locutus/work/eurohist2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204105931/http://www3.uakron.edu/hfrance/reviews/crubaugh.html to http://www3.uakron.edu/hfrance/reviews/crubaugh.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a new merger proposal. I thought the old one was killed in 2006, and again in 2010. Nothing new has occurred since then. There is still a difference between a parliament and the social classes therein represented. Creuzbourg (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Where will I find details of this merger proposal? I'm surprised that it's possible to propose merging an article without mentioning it on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New merger proposal 

message: Medieval Era how it work 124.105.187.113 (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: 3 page essay 2604:2D80:4882:9B00:898E:B2E3:AC0B:A927 (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identify and discuss the tension between the three estates that may have contributed to the revolution  

message: The final image in this article, 'Image of the Three Estates under the Trinity in heaven (Tyrol, 1800)' has the following caption:
Ich mit meiner Lehr', Viel Leut zu Gott bekehr
Ich mit meiner Macht. Viel Land und Leut an mich gebracht
Ha! Ha! Wann Gott und ich nichts thät', Ihr beide nichts zu essen hätt 
I with my teaching, convert many people to God.
I, with my might, brought much land and people to myself.
Ha! Ha! When God and I did nothing, you two had nothing to eat!
It's the last line that I think is incorrect. 'Wann' is translated 'when', but in light of the rest of the line, I think it should actually be 'if' ('wenn' in modern German; it's plausible that 'wann' was synonymous with 'wenn' in Middle Age German): 'tät' and 'hätt' are both the conditional tense. They are also both elided – elisions/contractions are quite common in German, which are often the root of words like 'am' (by/at/on the) = 'an dem', just one example of many such words. In spoken/informal German they're almost ubiquitous particularly in the first person singular, present tense: 'ich geh/lauf/ess/würd' (I go/walk/eat/would) have all dropped the final -e that is the regular ending: 'ich gehe/laufe/esse/würde'. Note that 'ich bin' (I am) present tense of 'sein' (to be) is an exception to the -e.
For it to translate as "When God and I did nothing, you two had nothing to eat", if keeping to the style of the original, the German would have been something like "Als Gott und ich nichts tan, ihr zwei nichts zu essen hatt". Note 'als' (as, as if, than, though, when) rather than 'wann'. If 'when' had been intended it would have made that much clearer. The past tense of 'tun' first person plural is 'taten'. The elided form is 'tan' not 'tat', which is the root of the past tense (eg 'wir tat-en', 'ich tat-e'; the past participle is 'getan'). Also 'two' should really be 'both'; hence my replacing 'beide' with 'zwei' in the German – more on that later. I think the translation should read:
Ha! Ha! If God and I did nothing, you'd both have nothing to eat"
I know it's only a minor point and doesn't make a huge difference to the meaning, but there is a subtle difference in connotation: it's more like saying, "Yes, but where would you be without me?" rather than merely stating a fact. The peasant is making fun of the cleric's and nobleman's airs & graces, as the "Ha! Ha!" implies, saying that for all their learning and power they'd be nowhere without him.
As for the translation of 'beide' (both) as 'two', that really is incorrect and I don't understand why the translator chose to do so. Using 'you two' instead of 'you both' makes a fairly significant difference, like saying 'neither of you' rather than 'none of you'. The former implies a dependency limited to those two particular individuals, whereas the latter implies not only them, but also whom they represent.
Perhaps it isn't worth making such a fuss about. After all, it's a very small detail in a much larger article and a fairly inconsequential one at that. But I am very interested in language in general and in its subtext in particular. I may be particularly aware of or sensitive to it as I'm bilingual. I noticed that I felt differently about things if I expressed them in German or in English from a fairly young age (I learned English when I was seven, but didn't really start noticing those differences until I was in my early teens). They may be more apparent between languages, but they apply just as much to the words we choose to express something. Psychologically the implications can be considerable and influential, a significant aspect of the 'nudge effect'. As such I think it's actually an important subject, especially given its increasing use by governments and other authorities to influence our behaviour. By its very nature the use of language to steer us towards certain attitudes or responses is very subtle, difficult to guard against and manipulative. After all, that is its intention, but I digress. That discussion is best left to another place. SaintIX (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption translation