Talk:German nobility

message: Message to the helpdesk email list:
:Your article on this subject has lifted a large group of entire sentences from my copyrighted material. (see: http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.html#p3-2
:While I do not mind the material being used, it must be properly credited with my copyright information. This comes up quite often, with some persons trying to pass off my work as theirs.
:thanks,
:Gilbert von Studnitz
Please investigate. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-04t12:18z
:The Article was started by me, based on various sources. I rewrote everything and did not copy any texts. The source given above was not used (I guess I must have missed it, since it is quite good). Later, another anon  added more material (diff), which seems to be copied with only minor variations from the source above. I have removed this material as copyrighted. I also added the link to the source stated above. Hope this solves the problem, and my apologies to Mr. Gilbert von Studnitz -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try posting on alt.talk.royalty and see if you can draw his attention to it if you really feel that it is important. I doubt that he actively watches this page nor do I believe he would be interested in editing it for sure, but it's worth a try if you so desire.  Regards, Charles von H. 19:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are probably correct about whether he would be willing to have it placed in Wikipedia and be edited up by others.  He might accept it if a statement was inserted stating that the basis of much of the initial enlargement article was his article.--CSvBibra 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: email

message: On the page Royal and noble ranks, grand duke is listed as higher than archduke yet this page has it the other way around.  Which is more important?  Which article is wrong?  Also, the same page says that prince is above grand duke yet this article says prince is lower than duke.  Could someone please correct whichever article is wrong or tell me so I can do it.  Emperor001 17:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lists do not reflect rank, even though they roughly are ordered that way. Please note that the systems of rank vary from country to country and not all nobilities contain all titles. Charles 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Duke is higher than Prince in Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. Grand Duke and Archduke are roughly the same. I have recently edited it to reflect more on rank and I added some titles not included. FranzSebastianvH (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: This page translates the English term Lord in German as "Herr". I understand this is technically correct, however wouldn't "Edler Herr" be a more accurate translation?
I understand that Germany didn't have a gentry like the United Kingdom - but instead an untitled nobility in its place. However English speakers think of Herr as meaning Mister. While historically they refer to the same class of people, in English we would never address a commoner as Lord, no matter how high and lofty they are.
Do people agree with my analysis? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally "Herr" was a form of adress that corresponded to "Milord" or "Your Grace". In the 17-18th century it changed to a phrase of civility, similar to "Sir" in English, which doesn't neccessary mean, that the adressed was ennobled. Today, "Herr" simply means "Mister", as Germany has no "Sirs" anymore. "Der Herr" still means "the lord" (i.e. god), though.--84.156.35.111 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title translations 

message: I would be interested to know how noble status and titles were transmitted.  My understanding is that at least large parts of the empire outside the Salic Law and primogeniture, and thus inheritance of titles and status, if not land, was partibly inherited.  Can someone clarify?  If someone had, say, a Lombardic or Swabian count in their family tree in the 13th century, does that make everyone of their descendants counts? 69.205.246.5 (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmission of titles and noble status 

message: Could someone please explain why nobility in the Russian Empire held Holy Roman Imperial titles of nobility? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian nobility? 

message: Hi,
I am courious where you got your example "Kasimir Count von der Recke" from. In my family the firstname Kasimir was never used
Kind regards
83.194.159.118 (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kasimir von der Recke 

message: User Robertgreer has suggested that Uradel is merged into this article's section Divisions of nobility.
I disagree, because (1) the term is found in several languages, (2) the term is used for and within several noble estates, and (3) there is enough information for an independent article.
I suggest that German nobility#Divisions of nobility follows the same solution that Norwegian_nobility#Nobility as a term does: A brief explanation of a term together with a link to its main article.
Of the same reasons I suggest the move of Briefadel from this article's section Divisions of nobility and to Briefadel. I desire the opportunity to describe this word's history and usage in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. This is not possible today.
— Breadbasket 02:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that the term Uradel, while deserving mention,  is over-emphasized and of relatively recent usage, that it needs no more than to be part of Germany's nobility and that the attempts to generalize its usage to other nobilities (especially Norway's) is undue weight and substantially original research. FactStraight (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals: ''Uradel'' and ''Briefadel'' 

message: The article says several times that nobility enjoyed "certain privileges" that commoners did not but never identifies any of those privileges except for some inter-marriage circumstance. What were these privileges?  Surely there must be some substance to it other than a title.
"Certain" is a weasel word that attempts to assert the existence of something without revealing it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.205.88 (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the institution of the family fidei-commissum was restricted to nobility up to 1918. Then it was briefly opened for everyone, before it was abolished.--2001:A60:1534:9401:A8D9:60F2:390F:EC8 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What were the privileges? 

message: This seems a bit misleading. The Holy Roman Empire both conferred and recognized titles. The German Confederation, as far as I understand it, simply recognized titles granted by the member states. The title of "Prince of Battenberg," for instance, was conferred by the Grand Duke of Hesse, not by the German Confederation. I'm not sure about the German Empire, but my feeling is that any conferrals of noble titles were by the King of Prussia, not the German Emperor as such. My understanding is that throughout the life of the Empire, you had an old Imperial nobility and separate Prussian, Bavaria, Württemberg, Saxon, Hessian, etc., nobilities, but no German nobility as such. john k (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Imperial nobility (Reichsadel) was not granted after the end of the Holy Roman Empire and the Emperor of the Second Empire only granted nobility and titles in his capacity as the King of Prussia. Some members of the imperial nobility use the prefix Reichs- with their titles, i.e. Reichsfreiherr, Reichsgraf. Nobility granted by anybody other than a Holy Roman Emperor or a Reichsvikar is not German but Austrian, Saxon, Bavarian, Prussian, Bohemian etc... nobility. Even after 1871, nobles needed to apply for an indigenate to use noble privileges in a different part of the Empire. Artem Wiktorowitsch Nazarov (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institutions that "conferred or recognized titles" 

message: :
So how is Bismarck's title an example of primogeniture?? —Tamfang (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Bismarck's dukedom was personal, but the princely title did and does descend by male primogeniture. Artem Wiktorowitsch Nazarov (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bismarck 

message: The article is seriously lacking in that its name excludes royalty, i.e. due to fact that it only covers nobility, whereas German royalty also should be included, or have a similar article of its own. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobility and royalty are not the same thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: German royalty