Talk:Grand Duchy of Hesse

Hesse and by Rhine

Moved from Talk:Hesse-Darmstadt, which is now a disambiguation page - 52 Pickup 09:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a question as to whether Hesse and by Rhine was sovereign or not from 1871 to 1918. My argument is that there was no Empire of Germany but a German Empire, where all members were sovereign in their own right. Saying that Hesse lost its sovereignty would also mean that Prussia was no longer a sovereign state, nor were Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, Oldenburg, Baden, etc. The German Empire was an association of states with the King of Prussia (German Emperor, not Emperor of Germany) acting as the "speaker of the house". Since after 1871 "Germany" was composed of a certain number of principalities, duchies, grand duchies and kingdoms, I believe that the rules for consorts of sovereigns apply to the ladies who married these princes, dukes, grand dukes and kings. All other German princelings had lost their sovereignity became members of the high nobility. Such was not the case with Grand Ducal Hesse. Charles 17:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course they were not sovereign any more, neither de facto and not de jure. They became mere monarchies of the greater Second Reich and were called Bundesfürsten or Bundesfürstentümer. Although some didn't like it and kept a large degree of control, such as Bavaria, the Foreign Policy was outside their control (controlled from Berlin), areas of the army, police, communication systems, taxes, etc... was lost. The only sovereign of the German Empire was the emperor, whose position as supreme head of state was unquestioned. Gryffindor 17:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, within the German Empire and between each other, they were sovereign. Even you concede that they were monarchs. A monarch by definition is sovereign. He (or she) is sovereign within his (or her) state and reigns over it. To treat Grand Ducal Hesse differently from Bavaria (in respect to consorts) is inconsistent. There is a real difference between Grand Ducal Hesse and say, the Nassau duchies, which were undoubtedly not sovereign. Charles 17:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter what form of government you have. Would you argue that the monarchies of Uganda such as Buganda are sovereign today? And that the tiny princely Anhalt was as sovereign as France? Where is this definition coming from that a monarch is sovereign? I quote from the article on monarchs "A sovereign is the monarch of a sovereign state. Although non-sovereign states have often had monarchs historically (not least within the Holy Roman Empire), all European monarchs since 1918 have been sovereigns." You are confusing two issues here between "sovereign" as a monarch in itself, and sovereignty. None of the German monarchies with the Empire were truly sovereign states after the founding in 1871. Why they weren't I have pointed out above. Gryffindor 17:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, every single ducal, grand ducal and royal consort of a duke, grand duke or king of the German Empire must be renamed. Why is a Grand Duchess of Hesse to be treated any different than a Queen of Bavaria, Saxony, or Württemberg? Charles 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Charles that for purposes of naming articles about monarchs, past and present, it is best to stick with the notion that all members of families that were headed by de jure hereditary monarchs should continue to be treated as belonging to the same dynastic class -- Whether or not their titles or de facto exercise of sovereignty differed. It is not necessary to resolve here the issue of "sovereignty" in order to decide whether bios on the Prince of Liechtenstein and the Prince of Lippe, both reigning in 1900 for example, should follow the same naming conventions. There may be other distinctions that dictate that they not be listed in exactly the same way, but the matter of their respective degrees of sovereignty have not been grounds for treating them differently as monarchs heretofore, and need not be grounds for doing so hereafter.Lethiere 08:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that they have to be re-named. Wikipedia uses naming conventions for the sake of consistency. There may be exceptions. Please do not re-name anything where there could be controversy, unless you take a sounding of opinion first. Deb 17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree: since it is now clear that we are discussing this here and at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) in order to work out a resolution, please don't modify pages and their contents to implement a theory of "consistency" that is not yet agreed upon -- otherwise we're headed toward revert war.

Deb's also right on the scope of consistency. The version of "consistency" that is applicable here is that which complies with WP policy. That policy is clear: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English". This is applicable even if it means that names of articles appear inconsistent according to some other notion of consistency. Exceptions to that policy should be discussed before re-naming and editing occurs.Lethiere 07:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, it is a matter of Wiki standards for consorts. If Hesse doesn't fall within the guidelines, neither to Bavaria, Saxony, etc. That would be for the sake of consistency. Charles 18:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Deb we should talk first. However it is undeniable that these German(ic) monarchies were not sovereign in the classic sense as let's say Russia or France. The only monarchies left from the Holy Roman Empire who were truly sovereign de facto and especially de jure were Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Austria (which became Austria-Hungary). ok, pack in Belgium and the Netherlands as well if you will. I am not denying that the HRE states as well as those of the Second Reich had a large share of autonomy, however that is not the same as sovereignty. The article on monarchs makes that quite clear as given by the quote above. Gryffindor 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Even so, if that's the case, it opens up for new guidelines for kings, grand dukes, dukes and princes of the German Empire from 1871 to 1918. I stand firm that the consorts should be treated as if they had married the Emperor of Austria or the King of Spain. If we can come to an agreement on it and come up with a proposal, we can put it to practice. Charles 18:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Should we start treating every little single prince and princes and count as a sovereign on the same rank as the emperor of Austria or czar of Russia? Gryffindor 18:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No. But the Grand Duchesses of Hesse ought to be treated the same as the Queens of Bavaria (etc) in that they both were married to grand dukes and kings in the German Empire. Charles 18:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then Russian Grand Dukes would also be sovereign? Gryffindor 18:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Absurd. In German, Grand Dukes of Russia are Grossfuersten von Russland. A Grand Duke of Hesse is Grossherzog von Hessen. They aren't even exactly Grand Dukes of Russia in English. Translation from Russian to English renders the title as Grand Prince. Charles 19:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO the only Grand Duke or Grand Duchy that was sovereign was Luxembourg. Gryffindor 15:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not actually completely true that Berlin controlled foreign policy fully. The individual states maintained their own embassies - Hesse-Darmstadt kept an embassy in St. Petersburg. Obviously, the smallest states within the German Empire had a very limited degree of sovereignty. But they also had a very limited degree of sovereignty before 1871. Anhalt's foreign policy before 1866, for instance, would largely have consisted of activity in the Diet in Frankfurt. This is only slightly different from its behavior afterwards in the Bundesrat, save that Prussia was so dominant in the latter. Obviously, the rulers of the German states were not completely sovereign, but they weren't completely non-sovereign, either. In terms of how to treat them, I think Charles's position makes some sense, although I'd dispute that the Houses of Hesse-Kassel or Hanover after 1866 can be considered to be merely "high nobility." john k 23:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Another question, Gryffindor, are you saying that all the Germn states before 1866 were sovereign? I don't see how Anhalt was notably more sovereign in 1865 than it was in 1872. And Liechtenstein and Luxembourg were just as much part of the Germanic Confederation before 1866 as Anhalt, and had their sovereignty just as limited. Did Liechtenstein become sovereign in 1866 when it hadn't been before? Or did Anhalt stop being sovereign in 1867? Positing a discrete choice of sovereign/non-sovereign is seriously problematic. john k 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Anhalt was barely sovereign in the international law sense. These German states were hardly as sovereign as France or Russia. I am speaking of the de jure viewpoint that one could possibly argue that German states enjoyed any sovereignty was after the end of the Holy Roman Empire and the founding of the Second Reich. If you want to argue that the Germanic Confederation had legal status on par with the HRE or the Second Reich, well then this just confirms the statement given in the article about monarchy that none of the states were sovereign. "A sovereign is the monarch of a sovereign state. Although non-sovereign states have often had monarchs historically (not least within the Holy Roman Empire), all European monarchs since 1918 have been sovereigns." The PLO as well as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic have embassies across the world. That still does not make them sovereign. So yes, strictly speaking none of the German states were sovereign. Gryffindor 15:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Gryffindor confounds two distinct questions:

• Were the German principalities legally sovereign?
  • Yes, absolutely. Since 1815, if not 1806 or even 1648.
• Did they have free rein in foreign policy?
  • Not much to none.

These two statements are fully compatible. Consider the situation of Luxembourg now, hemmed in, in law, by the EU, and in practice by its neighbors. Liechtenstein or San Marino has even less discretion. The states of the United States cannot have any foreign policy whatsoever, but they are unquestioned sovereignities; most US constitutional law consists of deciding how this is compatible with the sovereignity of the Federal Government. Septentrionalis 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not confusing anything here. I never said that the German states were not sovereign after the end of the Holy Roman Empire until the founding of the Second Reich. Some of the states acted as sovereign states like Prussia, and some could barely be considered sovereign. Certainly in the legal de jure sense none of them were however, this is confirmed in the article on monarchy which I have quoted many times now. A sovereign country is independent, one which has a territory, a government, a population (or people), and especially international recognition, and full control of its own affairs, de jure and de facto. United States states such as Wyoming or whatever are certainly not sovereign, where does it say so? They are states within a federation or union (not to be confused with a confederation), not internationaly recognised entities sitting for example in the UN, with full control of their foreign policy. And please do not confuse the issue of the EU, member states agree to coordinate their foreign policy, however ultimate power of this foreign policy still lies with the sovereign, independent member countries (as was seen with the controversy on the Iraq war). Gryffindor 09:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

For Wyoming, see page 5 of this brief filed in Federal court by the Attorney General of Wyoming: [1]; for the general principle, see any textbook on American constitutional law. Septentrionalis 18:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That still does not change the fact that Wyoming or any of the U.S. states is not on the same level if you will with truly sovereign nations such as France or Russia or China. Gryffindor 07:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Uuh. how much text :) I believe monarchs do not need to be sovereign. Monarch, basically, is just a high hereditary office, supreme in some area, but not necessarily not subjected to anything else. But I also believe that the so-called Second Reich resembled "constitutionally" more the today EU than the today France. Regarding US states, they actually are sovereign in US constitutional jurisprudence - the idea seems to be that they have surrendered a part of their sovereignty to the federal government, but that the conveyed powers are just those enumerated in the constitution. Marrtel 13:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)