Talk:Immemorial nobility

Uradel could become a section of Immemorial nobility, as it is a particular case. (Qqtacpn (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Spanish immemorial nobility

I removed the comment about the counts of Lemos, because the cited Spanish-language article doesn't make the claim that they are immemorial. In fact, it states that the first count to be recognized as a grandee of Spain was Rodrigo Enríquez Osorio (b. 1459-d. 1522), which would make him quite memorial. Secondly, he's the second count after the county was passed to a non-royal family (prior to that it had been a domain of the royal family). So the Osorio-Castro family is also not immemorial. Here's the original with translation:

Pedro Álvarez Osorio (1457 - 1483), I Conde de Lemos. Su matrimonio con Beatriz Enríquez De Castro conllevó la concesión del condado de Lemos, anteriormente ligado al de Trastámara y Sarria, con carácter hereditario y perpetuo, por real carta de Enrique IV, fechada en Sevilla, el 26 de junio de 1456 y dirigida a la Casa De Lemos.

Rodrigo Enríquez Osorio o Rodrigo Enríquez de Castro (1459 - 1522), II Conde de Lemos, Grande de España.

Peter Alvarez Osorio (1457-1483), First Count of Lemos. His marriage to Beatrix Enriquez de Castro brought with it the concession of the County of Lemos—previously linked to the County of Trastamara y Sarria—by letter of patent issued by Henry IV in Seville on June 26, 1456, and directed to the House of Lemos.

Roderick Enriquez Osorio or Roderick Enriquez de Castro (1459-1522), Second Count of Lemos, Grandee of Spain [my emphasis].

The Spanish-language article Nobleza also mentions the following:

Nobleza Inmemorial, nobleza inexistente en España, la cual se refiere aquellas grandes familias cuyos orígenes se remontan a la época de la caída del Imperio Romano. Estas familias son, por ejemplo, las ramas descendientes de los de Vasconia y de los duques de Septimania. Es decir, la casa de Béarn, de Bigorre, de Cominges, de Carcassonne, de Beziers, de Foix, de Toulouse, de Rouergue, de Turenne, de Limoges... Esta nobleza ni se otorga ni se puede acceder a ella. Es la nobleza real, ya que el resto de los tipos de nobleza se refiere a personas que adquirieron los títulos de nobleza por concesión de un Soberano.

Immemorial Nobility, a nobility which does not exist in Spain, which refers to those great families whose origins go back to the era of the fall of the Roman Empire. These families are, for example, the branches descendant from those of the Vasconia and the dukes of Septimania. That is to say, the houses of Bearn, Bigorre, Cominges, Carcassonne, Beziers, Foix, Toulouse, Rouergue, Turenne, Limoges… This nobility can not be granted nor achieved. It is a royal nobility, since the other kinds of nobility refer to persons who acquired the titles of nobility as a concession of a sovereign. [Which is what happened in the case of Second Count of Lemos.]

All this needs to be researched further.TriniMuñoz (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TriniMuñoz. I've got two references to help you:

Soria Mesa, Enrique (2007): La nobleza en la España moderna, Ed. Marcial Pons, pp. 76-85. You can read it online at http://books.google.com/books?id=qFr1KoonjUMC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=nobleza+inmemorial+espana&source=bl&ots=ccDIrKgTcK&sig=wNMvV_luBJSWlcsfztN7K2LJzG4&hl=en&ei=GNASSv3JJsafmAeM3IHjAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA77,M1. This shows that, in fact, Nobleza de Sangre or Hidalguia de Sangre is Spain's Immemorial Nobility.
As you correctly say, the Counts of Lemos were recognized as Grandees of Spain. The original letter of patent granting the title of Count of Lemos didn't grant the Grandee title. However, they have been considered Grandees for centuries. That's the reason for the famous historical anecdote of la grandeza de los Condes de Lemos la ha hecho Dios y el Tiempo, i.e. claiming their Grandeza is immemorial.

I hope this helps (Irmandino (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

New sources on "immemorialibility" in Spain

¡Ya me están sacando de quisio! No, these sources do not help, because they confirm what I noted above. Enrique Soria Mesa's La nobleza española en la España moderna does not make the claim that there is an immemorial nobility as defined originally this article and in the Spanish article from which I quoted. The pages to which you referred me deal with the issue of the creation of grandees by Charles I of Spain upon his coronation as Holy Roman Emperor. Soria proposes a hypothesis, which he doesn't back very well simply because he's arguing from the absence of evidence, that Charles did not create a new status, but only reconfirmed an old one (pp. 60-63). He then argues that the word grande was used in "hundreds" of cases in medieval chronicles and that it was a synonym for rico hombre, and defines this pre-1520 use as, "the most relevant magnates of Castilian society, the feudal [señorial], holders of enormous riches, political power and social prestige and closely related to the very crown" (64-65). That's all fine and dandy, but I actually think this undermines his argument. If the word was a synonym, then it didn't distinguish a special class. And this leaves us back in the same boat: it's only under Charles that the term acquires a special meaning. The rest of the chapter is spent trying to argue that there is a "true nobility" or "ancient nobility," but which he admits he can never really show. The only definition he can come up with is that it is "no less than the groups that under the reign of the Catholic Monarchs [fifteenth century] already enjoyed a supposed immemorial nobility, which in general was not disputed" (p. 76-77, my emphasis). This is hardly conclusive evidence. The discussion then moves on to note and disparage vast number of families which became ennobled in the modern era (he calls them "parasites" of the crown at one point, 77), even though he has to admit that the process by which they gained access to the class is the same as before: "The Modern Era, therefore, is not in this sense a new thing but a stage in the evolution of the nobility, in which perhaps the changes came with greater speed and notoriety, but which did not differ essentially from previous centuries; only that in it the process was more numerous and more visible" (76, my emphasis). Page 79 onwards discusses the origins of the Osorio family from a son of a bishop of Jaen, Luis Osorio (born out of wedlock, of course). Again, the origins of this family is very documentable. Finally, I would expect the Lemos counts to have a handy and witty saying about themselves ("The greatness of the counts of Lemos only God and time has made"), because what are they going to claim, "Nos emamus nostrum titulus"? TriniMuñoz (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting theories. But let's not speculate. The term hidalgo de sangre is clearly defined as immemorial nobility in the Kingdom of Spain. Following the tractatus of Juan Huarte de San Juan, Examen de ingenios para las ciencias (1575), hidalgos de sangre are those for whom there is no memory of its origin and there is no knowledge of any document mentioning a royal grant, which obscurity is universally praised even more than those noblemen who know otherwise their origin. This definition also quoted in the Memorial Histórico Español of F. J. Sánchez Cantón (1948, p. 355) is the universally acepted. Please also read the research by Prof. Dr. Elisa Ruiz Garcia, the authority on this matter, published by the Universidad Complutense de Madrid under the title La carta ejecutoria de hidalguia: Un espacio grafico privilegiado. Take care (Irmandino (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

"Interesting theories" no. Up until now you've done a lot of sleight of hand with your sources. Yet when I've read them—and I can read Spanish—they don't say what you've claimed they say, and I have pointed this out. Second, nothing is "clearly defined," especially when you are dragging out sixteenth century tractates. Third, now the definition of immemorial has shifted to just "beyond recorded history." This is very different from the definition given originally in the article, but it's one that seems very reasonable to me, and should have been stated as such from the beginning. In fact this is the definition that Soria Mesa gives in the book you cited above. I also noticed that this is the definition you or an ally have now put in the Spanish version of the nobility article, but again, that is fine, as long as the sources back it up. Finally please review the style of manual, especially the Citing sources style page. The formating in English is a bit different from Spanish, as is to be expected, but it should be followed. TriniMuñoz (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Immemorial nobility

I have now created the Category:Immemorial nobility and will be adding to it those few families of whom I am sure. Please put your family or relations in there if you know for sure you or they belong, as well as others you are sure belong. If you are not absolutely sure you should wait.

There remains the question of those families like the famous O'Brien dynasty, belonging to the once subject Dál gCais, formerly classed as Déisi in ancient times. Yet they became Kings of Ireland and Munster well before the arrival of the Normans, and with little help from anyone besides the sept of Ivar of Waterford. Thus they are immemorial in comparison to the fabricated House of Burke, (FitzGerald dynasty), and Butler dynasty, two or three of whom are fine people but simply do not belong. In the case of the FitzGeralds they descend from Nest ferch Rhys, a Welsh princess of the ancient royal family of Deheubarth, and can thus regarded as semi-immemorial, that dynasty being defunct. The Tudor dynasty also derived from Deheubarth in some manner. DinDraithou (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case: FitzGerald dynasty

I very much want to add the FitzGerald dynasty for two reasons. Firstly they and their kin are effectively the only surviving noble issue of the royal family of Deheubarth, and secondly their earliest known male line ancestor Otho was recorded by the Normans as a kind of baron, Saxon or Danish, when they arrived.[1] The circumstances were fairly extraordinary and the Anglo-Saxon-Danish aristocracy they apparently belonged to was destroyed. Because of this they have remained desperate for immemorial status and many have gone the wrong direction of claiming descent from an ancient Florentine ducal family, the similar sounding Gherardini. But I believe they belong anyway. Otho's son became a tenant under the Normans but this should not disqualify them.[2] Opinions? DinDraithou (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singling out

Hello. I noticed at Immemorial nobility that you singled out the British Isles for needing citations but left the rest of Europe alone. Obviously you're not terribly familiar with the subject, easy to tell from your rewording of a certain passage, and I recommend you don't do that again. Surely the article can use more citations but singling out a particular region you are not familiar with for punishment is unacceptable. DinDraithou (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This probably isn't an issue for anyone else editing this article, but for the record, here is the 500 word explanation for 20 words of editing.)

The reason the British Isles were singled out for needing citations is that's where I saw the uncited claims. Furthermore, after I did it, I spent over an hour trying to find any case of any British peerage being considered immemorial, and couldn't find it. Even the Earl of Arundel is the result of a known, documented creation in 1138. Not only did I tag it, but I think it may be a WP:HOAX. So, to be clear about my edits:

The fact tag on the English claim is because it looks to be false, and I was tagging it as a courtesy to give someone time to fix it, rather than removing it, which is what is supposed to happen to it. I'm removing it now; if someone believes it's true and wishes to re-add it, see WP:PROVEIT.
The fact tags on the Irish claims are because they have a citation at the end that only concerns the last sentence, not the rest.
I was already going to sort alphabetically, but then I realized that having Germany in the middle of two British peerage systems doesn't make much sense, so I grouped the British Isles together. The British Isles claims were moved to the top because I didn't want to create a specific header named "British Isles" in the article itself and irritate people who don't appreciate Irish titles being called British. Therefore, the only way to do it is to put it at the top without a subheader. As most people have no solution for no way of dealing with those who are offended by behavior specifically designed not to offend, I have no solution for this complaint. (Though, I might add, it seems to have solved itself for now since Ireland is the only one remaining so far.)

As for "Obviously you're not terribly familiar with the subject, easy to tell from your rewording of a certain passage": I am, however, familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. Here are a few:

One does not remove maintenance tags without correcting errors, particularly when removing the tags itself re-introduces false sources, as with Ireland by removing the necessary citation-needed tag between unsourced claims and the unrelated citation at the end.
WP:Assume good faith is a major guideline. I've never DinDraithou's edits before, but perhaps 7800 edits would be a good time to (re?)view ASG. I particularly enjoy the claim that I have singled out an entire "region you are not familiar with for punishment". It's been over 12 hours now and I have yet to receive any urgent correspondence from the Irish ambassador or the Court of St. James's concerning the public outrage over my anti-island conspiracy to place a citation-needed tag on that which needs citation. I going to go out on a limb and assume that, since both Her Majesty and the President of Ireland have undoubtedly been notified and done nothing, perhaps they don't consider it all that aggressive, and editors may safely follow their lead.
Editors should not re-introduce errors that have been corrected: such as claiming "some recent scandals" instead of "at least once has caused scandal". Per WP:ASTONISH, editors should not replace someone's name with the words "some recent scandals" with their article hiding behind the link; that's also a WP:BLP violation, since "at least once" was explicitly changed to plural involving him again after being fixed before.

Editors are, of course, responsible for the errors they re-introduce. --Closeapple (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I'm sorry. Despite what you might think you really did give the impression you didn't belong there, you say because you hadn't finished. Fine. So let's be friends and work on getting rid of the trash together. I agree that England is a huge pretentious problem and misunderstood your intentions for the Irish. Citations for the latter are easily found and yes their section needed and needs more rewording. Will try to get to all that soon.

Scotland is a huge problem too. There is this giant mass of clans making all sorts of claims but very few can prove them. An exception are the Clann Somhairle, who can. Probably the Clan MacLeod should be allowed too but they are currently having a succession dispute, which I just discovered today. See Chiefs of Clan MacLeod. Apparently a non-agnate has changed his name and the so-called Clan MacLeod Society, who are not the historical clan, have recognised him and denied the legitimate claimant. The false chief has even been allowed the arms by the Lord Lyon. Disgusting. Tell your friends because the real one needs support and is probably not of great means, while the impostor sits on 40,000 acres. They've been trying to keep the dispute hidden and it makes me want to vomit. Tell everyone you know who might care.

Another family, an Irish one, the Cotter family, claim to be descendants of Óttar of Dublin, king of Dublin from 1142 to 1148. There is good evidence of various kinds but we currently lack a pedigree. I have asked a wizard to see if he can find one for them in the works of Duald Mac Firbis but have not yet heard back regarding it. Anyway, I look forward to working with you, so sorry. I am an illegitimate and inconsequential but verifiable descendant of this person and apparently this person too. DinDraithou (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was a Cotter in my family, but not in my direct line. Yeah, Scotland's titles are a can of worms; but then so is every set of nobility, it seems. So far I've summarized the following Scottish mormaerdoms (earldoms), but just from looking at Wikipedia articles linked by Template:Mormaer — I don't have WP:RS. All the ones I've looked at so far either became extinct or are traceable to their creation; but some of them nevertheless did have a line recognized from untraceable memory at one time:

Earl of Angus: pre-937 to c. 1314 (immemorial line extinct; recreated later). A Mormaerdom mentioned as "mormair Oengusa" in the 11th-century Chronicle of the Kings of Alba as a description of Dubacan of Angus, who died in battle in 937. That peerage, however, appears to have been forfeit around 1314, via Robert de Umfraville, Earl of Angus, and died out anyway with his son Gilbert de Umfraville in 1381. (2nd creation was sometime between 1314 and 1389; 3rd creation was in 1389; technically a 4th creation in 1633 for the same person who held the 3rd creation. 4th creation has always been united with the Marquess of Douglass, itself united with the Duke of Hamilton in the 1760s.)
Earl of Atholl: 1629 to present (not immemorial). United with the Duke of Atholl since the Dukedom's creation in 1703.
Earl of Buchan: pre-1131 to 1310s (immemorial line extinct; recreated later). Earliest known is Gartnait, Earl of Buchan, mentioned in notes in the Book of Deer. Second creation (1382) was for Alexander Stewart, Earl of Buchan when he married and got a big section of the former earldom's lands. Third creation (1469) is the one surviving today.
Mormaer of Caithness: pre-1100 to 1334 (immemorial line extinct; recreated later): Skuli Thorfinnsson of Orkney, son of Gruaidh and Thorfinn, confirmed by Kenneth II of Alba. Described as Earl of Caithness by the time of Maol Íosa V, Earl of Strathearn, who promptly lost it 1334. Maurice de Moravia, Earl of Strathearn was the moramer shortly after. "2nd" creation as Earl of Caithness for David Stewart, 1st Earl of Caithness in 1375; 3rd in 1452; 4th in 1455 still exists.
Mormaer of Carrick and Earl of Carrick: title is 1186 to 1306, then recreated repeatedly, then then fixed in meaning from 1469 to present (not immemorial). Issued to Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick based on his father's ownership of territory that had been split into Carrick and Galloway around 1161. Merged into the crown of Scotland with Robert I of Scotland in 1306 and recreated several times, explicitly reverting to the crown as heir after each. Recreated for David Stewart, Duke of Rothesay, eldest son of the king, in 1398, and has been associated with the Duke of Rothesay and the first-born son of the Scottish monarch ever since. Explicitly tied to that position in 1469.

--Closeapple (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start. It's clear these lines are all extinct. I draw your attention now to the dubious pedigree of the House of Neville, who once claimed and might still that they share a common ancestor with the royal House of Dunkeld, the obscure Crínán of Dunkeld. There would appear to be no support for this, but their ultimate ancestor Uhtred and his "estate" are interesting. Hmm. Nobility? Maybe. If we allow them then we certainly allow the FitzGeralds. DinDraithou (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacLeods

I have gone ahead and added the Chiefs of Clan MacLeod to the category, and included a note in their article about this category. The article on Leod goes on and on but rather misses the point, and the fact that Mac Firbis focused on them makes it obvious they are in the right place here. Leod himself is a non-entity but he is just one generation, the one with the funny name which stuck. All sources agree their ancestors were high Norse-Gaelic nobility, and they were sovereign within their territories. The pedigree by the Irishman Mac Firbis surely uses the earliest material. In any case the appearance of this Iamhar (Ímar/Ivar) in both his and the Kilbride MS is notable because that was the greatest of the old royal names (Uí Ímair). Probably their descent from one is not paternal but he is still there. It tells us who they played with. For one interesting tract see [3]. DinDraithou (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I should never have touched the MacLeod situation. I forgot most Scots are rabid fools and will follow anyone pretending to be royal. These are the same ignorant people who kept the worthless Stuarts one failure after another, and probably still worship them.

Anyway I'll close on the MacLeods by saying that the legitimate Talisker line needs to be recognized somewhere. I've sent a note to the O'Neills about it because the MacLeods appear to have once fought under them as gallowglass. Thus Ireland could be a real possibility some day. I'm probably not the first to discover all this but I feel good about doing what I can with my own limited associations, since I'm just a relatively young American on the internet who came across it all by accident, here at Wikipedia. It's difficult to tell how well known the dispute actually is, but I see clear attempts to erase the existence of the rightful chiefs. They were once even mentioned in the Clan MacLeod article but followers of the Wolrige family removed them. DinDraithou (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

so, there is all these goings-on here on this talkpage, and nobody so far has even succeeded in showing that the term "immemorial nobility" even exists and is used in the sense claimed in the article? That's really sad.

Yes, Wikipedia welcomes your listcruft. Do it under a descriptive title such as "list of noble families by date of earliest record" or something, but don't make up terminology that doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. If it does exist, the burden is on you to show that it does and that it is used in serious literature. --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so apparently this was in origin intended as a piece on a technical term in Spanish heraldry, by a user who claimed to be a hidalgo themselves, and who then went on to make a complete ass of themselves, resulting in a permanent ban.

Then well-meaning people took up the torch and turned this into the standard kind of unreferenced listcruft synthesis.

So, if there is a concept of nobleza inmemorial in Spanish tradition, kindly present a referenced discussion of the topic under Spanish nobility. A comparative discussion of related concepts in various heraldic tradition, needless to say (one should think?) would need to be based on academic secondary literature. --dab (𒁳) 13:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]