Suchergebnisse

Stories of pageantry associated with kings, queens, and the upper class have long captivated readers of all ages. The reality behind how these entities have operated within set governmental systems has not always been as glamorous as these tales, but it retains an allure of its own nonetheless. This book provides a firm grounding in the historic political, social, and economic implications of rule by monarchy, including the prevalence of the feudal system in medieval Europe. Modern monarchies and the role of the aristocracy in every age are also detailed

Translation : Vicki-Marie Petrick ; International audience ; "Nobility of the Robe" and "Nobility of the Sword," two expressions commonly repeated in historiography of the nobility of the modern era, are not simple social descriptions. Their chronologically staggered appearance, and the development of their usage in the seventeenth century are the result of the transformations of the Second Estate, transformations which themselves stemmed from monarchical policy (development of the venality of offices, desire to control the definition of nobility) and from struggles for power among the elites of the realm. A social history of their uses should be confronted with an analysis of the social careers of Second Estate families. This would show to what extent these expressions are above all ascriptions referring to ideological confrontations, to value judgments about what the nobility should be, and, finally, to a desire to separate social spaces that were, nevertheless, porous. Such a history clearly shows how terms designating conditions become categories designating groups based on classification. These were changes that brought about great consequences as much for the future of noble families as for the concept of the nobility itself. ; « Noblesse de robe » et « noblesse d'épée », deux expressions couramment reprises dans l'historiographie de la noblesse à l'époque moderne, ne sont pas de simples descriptions sociales : leur apparition – décalée chronologiquement – et le développement de leur emploi au xviie siècle sont le fruit des transformations du second ordre, elles-mêmes conséquences de la politique monarchique (développement de la vénalité des offices, volonté de contrôler la définition de la noblesse) et des luttes de pouvoir au sein des élites du royaume. Une histoire sociale de leurs usages, confrontée à l'analyse des parcours sociaux des familles du second ordre, permet de montrer combien ces expressions sont avant tout des assignations qui renvoient à des confrontations idéologiques, à des jugements de ...

'Has the Austrian-German nobility had the same high degree of noble homogamy during the 20th century as the Dutch nobility? Noble homogamy among the Dutch nobility was one of the two main reasons for their 'constant noble advantage' in obtaining elite positions during the 20th century. The Dutch on the one hand and the Austrian-German nobility on the other can be seen as two extreme cases within the European nobility. The Dutch nobility seems to have had a lower degree of noble homogamy during the 20th century than the Austrian-German nobility. However, the analysis shows that this is a consequence of the different composition of the Austrian-German nobility (higher noble titles, more nobility with feudal origins), a more modern concept of nobility among the Dutch nobility (paternal family instead of noble stock of paternal and maternal ancestors) and a successful merger of the feudal and post-feudal Dutch nobility. If one takes these compositional differences between the Austrian, German and Dutch nobility into account, then the Dutch nobility had a higher degree of noble homogamy in the early 20th century, yet their homogamy declined faster during this century than that of the Austrian-German nobility.' (author's abstract)|

Catherine the Great's treatment of the Russian nobility has usually been regarded as dictated by court politics or her personal predilections. Citing new archival sources, Robert Jones shows that her redefinition and reorganization of the Russian nobility were in fact motivated by reasons of state. In 1762, Peter III had "emancipated" the nobility from obligatory state service, and in the early years of her reign Catherine attempted to govern Russia through a bureaucratic administration. Although this threatened the provincial nobles with social and economic decline, the government was oblivious to their plight until the peasant revolt of 1773-1775 convinced Catherine that she could not provide Russia with a government capable of defending and promoting the national interest without them. This realization led to the formation of a new alliance between the state and the nobility, based on a mutual fear of peasant revolt and expressed first in the provincial reforms of 1775 and finally in Catherine's Charter to the Nobility of 1785. In the 1760's Catherine had hoped to forestall peasant uprisings by improving the lot of the serfs and limiting the authority of the serf-owners. But faced with the choice between controlling the serfs in a way open to abuses and eliminating abuses in a way that might lead to loss of control, Catherine chose the former. Her Charter committed the state to the preservation of serfdom and the reactionary ancien régime.Originally published in 1973.The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905

The present article examines the impact of the 15th-century Renaissance debate on the true nobility on social beliefs of the English antiquarians of the 16th and 17th centuries. It is based on textual corpora of J. Ferne, T. Milles, J. Selden, M. Carter, and other well-known early modern intellectuals. The author of the article believes that a persistent tendency towards a coherent description and classification of nobility and more broadly — of any social group within the early modern British society — is inseparably connected with the antiquarian tradition of the 16th and 17th centuries. It was within this tradition that so called epistemological turn emerged that led to discursive fragmentation of the entire social order as well as social groups which formed its entirety and complexity. The antiquarian framing of all complexities of social order was based not only on the rejection of an idea of institutional entity — crucial for the medieval corporate theory. In contrast to corporate-functional homogeneity and consistency, it introduced particular group-wide characteristics. These features opened up opportunities for remodeling of the ancient regime with consideration of diversity inherent in social indicia. Nobilitas in the antiquarian texts acquired at least two interconnected meanings. The term was used as a reference to an assemblage of an entire nobility and in this way was very close to a group-wide identity. At the same time, it denoted a total gentility and, in this context, reflected the very complex of Aristotelian and Stoic understanding of the true nobility.