Author Topic: "Mediatized" - what is it?  (Read 45559 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Greenowl

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
    • View Profile
"Mediatized" - what is it?
« on: July 25, 2007, 05:50:20 PM »
I’m afraid I am not too familiar with the meaning of the term “Mediatized Noble Families”, but I assume it implies “non-ruling” yet noble families. Am I correct? If so, do families such as de Lannoy and de Ligne (Belgium) and Lewenhaupt and Hammarskjöld (Sweden) qualify for inclusion, i.e. can they be discussed here? Clarification would be most welcome and apologies for my lack of knowledge in this area.

Offline Marc

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4335
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2007, 10:43:36 PM »
Of all the families you mentioned just de or von Ligne family is mediatized. .

Offline Greenowl

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
    • View Profile
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2007, 07:38:47 AM »
Thanks for your prompt reply Marc. However, I am still a bit "at sea" and do not fully understand the meaning of "mediatized" or what makes the De Ligne family (for example) different from the De Lannoy family (especially as Princess Beatrice de Ligne married to Comte Paul de Lannoy...they were the parents of Comte Philippe de Lannoy, the current head of the family).

Offline G_Lermontov

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2007, 12:51:28 AM »
From Wikipedia:

Quote
Mediatization, defined broadly, is the annexation of one monarchy by another monarchy in such a way that the ruler of the annexed state keeps his or her noble title, and sometimes a measure of power. Thus, for example, when a sovereign county is annexed to a larger principality, its reigning count might find himself subordinated to a prince, but would nevertheless remain a count, rather than be stripped of his title.

The term "mediatization" was originally applied to the reorganization of the German states during the early 19th century. This process is sometimes known simply as "the Mediatization". Mediatization has occurred in a number of other countries, however: Italy (e.g., Orsini, Doria) and Russia (e.g., Sibirsky, Vorotynsky) are notable examples.

Often, mediatized noble houses were officially ranked higher than other houses of nominally equal (or higher) rank who had never ruled a state.[citation needed] This division was considered of great social significance, as mediatized nobles were considered legally equal to royals for marriage purposes; in essence they were regarded as royalty. This meant for example that if a woman from the most obscure mediatized family (say the daughter of an impoverished mediatized count) married an emperor or a king, their alliance was considered equal and their children were not regarded as morganatic, retaining their succession rights. On the other hand, if the daughter of a non-mediatized noble married a royal, their children were treated as morganatic and excluded from the succession line in most monarchies. This is one of the reasons why so many monarchs married German princesses: German mediatized families were especially abundant.

The authoritative guide to the royal and noble houses of Europe, the Almanach de Gotha, is divided into three sections: sovereign houses, mediatized houses, and other noble houses.

I didn't know what it meant, either.  :-[

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4441
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2007, 01:03:23 AM »
From Wikipedia:

Quote
The term "mediatization" was originally applied to the reorganization of the German states during the early 19th century. many monarchs married German princesses: German mediatized families were especially abundant.

I didn't know what it meant, either.  :-[

Does anyone know what the German term is?

Thanks in advance,

Margarita
  :)


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Marc

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4335
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2007, 03:11:54 PM »
De Lannoy family never had souverenity granted from the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire unlike de Ligne family who were ruling family until the first half of the 19th century!

Offline Mischa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2007, 04:28:47 PM »
From Wikipedia:

Quote
The term "mediatization" was originally applied to the reorganization of the German states during the early 19th century. many monarchs married German princesses: German mediatized families were especially abundant.

I didn't know what it meant, either.  :-[

Does anyone know what the German term is?

Thanks in advance,

Margarita
  :)

German it is "Mediatisierung" .

M.

Offline Greenowl

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
    • View Profile
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2007, 06:16:06 PM »
Thank you for that information, I think I understand the concept now. Basically they are former ruling families who were permitted to retain their titles. Would the descendants of Wallenstein (Albrecht Wenzel Eusebius von Waldstein/Albrecht Václav Eusebius z Valdštejna) Duke of Friedland qualify as a mediatized noble family? Having said that, he had no direct male descendants (only one daughter) and he may have lost the title conferred on him by Emperor Ferdinand II in 1625 when the Emperor accused him of high treason in 1634 and subsequently had him murdered. However, the castle in Mnichovo Hradiště/Münchengrätz remained in the possession of the Wallenstein family until 1945. Thus I wonder if they could be described as mediatized?

Offline allanraymond

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
    • Monarchies of Europe
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2007, 03:49:13 PM »
You may possibly find the information via the following link of some help: http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/mediatize.html ?

Allan Raymond

I’m afraid I am not too familiar with the meaning of the term “Mediatized Noble Families”, but I assume it implies “non-ruling” yet noble families. Am I correct? If so, do families such as de Lannoy and de Ligne (Belgium) and Lewenhaupt and Hammarskjöld (Sweden) qualify for inclusion, i.e. can they be discussed here? Clarification would be most welcome and apologies for my lack of knowledge in this area.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2007, 09:29:08 AM »
Not only (embarrassed) did I not know what it meant, but I have never seen the word immediate explained or its root sources explained in that way.

Great site!  Thanks

Offline Clemence

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2008, 01:55:13 PM »
anyone knowing the greek term for it (in case there is one)?

'' It used to be all girls without clothes. Now it’s all clothes with no girls. Pity.''

Naslednik Norvezhskiy

  • Guest
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2010, 08:47:46 PM »
Thank you for that information, I think I understand the concept now. Basically they are former ruling families who were permitted to retain their titles. Would the descendants of Wallenstein (Albrecht Wenzel Eusebius von Waldstein/Albrecht Václav Eusebius z Valdštejna) Duke of Friedland qualify as a mediatized noble family? Having said that, he had no direct male descendants (only one daughter) and he may have lost the title conferred on him by Emperor Ferdinand II in 1625 when the Emperor accused him of high treason in 1634 and subsequently had him murdered. However, the castle in Mnichovo Hradiště/Münchengrätz remained in the possession of the Wallenstein family until 1945. Thus I wonder if they could be described as mediatized?

Apart from the fact that he no male descendants, the main point is that these estates were in the Kingdom of Bohemia. Thus they were mediate (subject to the King of Bohemia) and not immediate (subject only to the Emperor). It doesn't matter if these two sovereigns actually were the same (Habsburg) person, legally they were to different persons!

Since this seems to be a thread about mediatisation itself, I'll post this question here:

According to the German Acts of Confederation, all mediatized sovereign houses, whether comital, margravial, princely or ducal were equal. But in reality it seems some were more equal than others...Did ever a member of an Illustrious (Erlaucht) mediatized comital house marry into a reigning royal family?
Hardly into a reigning princely or ducal family, I think.

Remember the Harrach case in the Prussian RF and the Limburg-Stirum case in the Dutch RF. The families were officially mediatized, but still not accepted as royal spouse material. And mediatized comital houses didn't even appear on the list of approved, ebenbürtige houses that Emperor Franz Joseph added to the Habsburg house laws in 1900!

Was this because the mediatized counts had not been Princes of the Empire with individual votes in the Imperial Diet, but members of Colleges of Counts with collective votes?
Was this a violation of the German Acts of Confederation?

Offline Marc

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4335
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2010, 09:56:40 PM »
Good point about Nassau and Limburg-Stirum case...Limburg-Stirums were one of the oldest families and also a senior branch of at that time extinct Dukes of Jülich,Kleve und Berg...but Countess Mathilde was product of a non-equal union between her "equal" father Count Leopold von Limburg-Stirum and a "commoner" Julie Marie Barre...so,despite the fact that she has descended several times from Wihlem von Nassau or known in Dutch history as Willem de Rijke and also from Ursula,sister of Amalia von Solms she was not treated equal...

There is also an example of Countess von Harrach and Friedrich Wilhelm III...She belonged to mediatized House of Harrach but was not treated equal...the official reason she was not treated equal was because she was a member of collateral branch of the family who did not gain those equal privileges as the main branch did...that's why she was ceated Princess von Liegnitz!

Here is what Prince Nikolai Romanov said about possible marriage of "non-equal" Princess Obolensky and "equal" Countess Harrach with the Grand Duke for example:

"Russia, with its very Germanic notion of dynastic propriety, found itself accepting all the Almanach de Gotha rulings.
And so if some unfortunate Russian Grand Duke wanted to marry a Princess Obolensky, descendant of the Grand Dukes of Kiev, who reigned in Russia, at the time his Romanov ancestors were probably still lurking in the woods, draped in pelts or wading through the marshes of East Prussia or Pomerania, he would have had to change his plans.
That marriage would have been impossible, but an Austrian lady, say a daughter of an Illustrious Highness, Count von Harrach zu Rohrau und Thannhausen, lord of the county of Rohrau, Freiherr zu Prugg und Pürrhenstein, lord of Starkenbach, Jilenice, Sadowa & Storckow, would have been acceptable!"

So,for a Grand Duke Countess von Harrach would have been in some sort of way acceptable,unlike Princess Obolensky!


There is similar example with Wilhelm I and Princess Elize Radziwill...although from an equal family she wasn't considered equal because it was discovered that Radziwill family bought the title of Reichsfürst from the Emperor rather than earned it!
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 09:59:07 PM by Marc »

Naslednik Norvezhskiy

  • Guest
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2010, 10:17:16 PM »
Hehe, I had a feeling I shouldn't have brought up those specific cases, because they are specific:

Good point about Nassau and Limburg-Stirum case...Limburg-Stirums were one of the oldest families and also a senior branch of at that time extinct Dukes of Jülich,Kleve und Berg...but Countess Mathilde was product of a non-equal union between her "equal" father Count Leopold von Limburg-Stirum and a "commoner" Julie Marie Barre...so,despite the fact that she has descended several times from Wihlem von Nassau or known in Dutch history as Willem de Rijke and also from Ursula,sister of Amalia von Solms she was not treated equal...
OK, I didn't know that her mother was a commoner. (And her father allegedly could have been Willem III himself, or is that just a rubbish rumour?)

Quote
There is also an example of Countess von Harrach and Friedrich Wilhelm III...She belonged to mediatized House of Harrach but was not treated equal...the official reason she was not treated equal was because she was a member of collateral branch of the family who did not gain those equal privileges as the main branch did...that's why she was ceated Princess von Liegnitz!

What exactly was the Harrachs' immediate imperial fief? I see that they sat in the College of Swabian Counts, but the only Swabian fief I've seen them linked to is Thannhausen, and that was the immediate imperial county of the Stadions.... As far as I can see Auguste von Harrach was a direct male-line descendant of the younger Pruck/Prugg line which DID have imperial immediacy, but I think her marriage really was a specific situation in which her Catholic religion and the fact that Friedrich Wilhelm's first wife was the saintly Luise played a role...

Quote
Here is what Prince Nikolai Romanov said about possible marriage of "non-equal" Princess Obolensky and "equal" Countess Harrach with the Grand Duke for example:

"Russia, with its very Germanic notion of dynastic propriety, found itself accepting all the Almanach de Gotha rulings.
And so if some unfortunate Russian Grand Duke wanted to marry a Princess Obolensky, descendant of the Grand Dukes of Kiev, who reigned in Russia, at the time his Romanov ancestors were probably still lurking in the woods, draped in pelts or wading through the marshes of East Prussia or Pomerania, he would have had to change his plans.
That marriage would have been impossible, but an Austrian lady, say a daughter of an Illustrious Highness, Count von Harrach zu Rohrau und Thannhausen, lord of the county of Rohrau, Freiherr zu Prugg und Pürrhenstein, lord of Starkenbach, Jilenice, Sadowa & Storckow, would have been acceptable!"

So,for a Grand Duke Countess von Harrach would have been in some sort of way acceptable,unlike Princess Obolensky!

That is strange, for two reasons:
Firstly I thought that the Pauline laws specified that spouses had to be from "reigning families", which I interpret as even stricter than "sovereign families". (After all, mediatized families had sovereign rights, even though they had no countries to be sovereigns of. Of course the original Russian word choice would be important here.) I can see how the whole Bagration case can be interpreted to mean that mediatized families were OK, but is there any other example of a Romanov actually marrying into a mediatized family?

Secondly the comital Harrachs were not ebenbürtig with the Habsburgs according to Emperor Franz Joseph's draconian 1900 addition to the Habsburg House Laws, which had a list with approved mediatized families - only princely, no comital ones! Strange if the Romanovs were less strict.

Quote
There is similar example with Wilhelm I and Princess Elize Radziwill...although from an equal family she wasn't considered equal because it was discovered that Radziwill family bought the title of Reichsfürst from the Emperor rather than earned it!
Or rather, their imperial immediacy was personal; they did not posess an immediate fief which gave them a vote in the Imperial Diet, I think.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 10:25:10 PM by Tainyi Sovetnik »

Offline Marc

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4335
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: "Mediatized" - what is it?
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2010, 11:33:13 PM »
Well,tough things to call...We have different situations for every House...here Prince Nikolai said that Russia did follow Almanach de Gotha-and they placed Harrach in 2nd section,but Austrians had their own rules-it's the matter of choice for every House!

Iit is also difficult to say something about Auguste von Harrach because Hohenzollern family in Prussia did not have any document left in which they say something about equal marriage rules!Here is a quote for Auguste not being equal:

"Auguste belonged to a junior branch of the family, descended from Otto Friedrich (d. 1639), younger son of Karl I Bernhard who was created count in 1627.  It was the elder branch, descended from Karl Leonhard (d. 1645) that became reichsständisch (albeit as a personalist) in 1752.  It was the head of the elder branch who received in Austria in 1830 (six years after the marriage) the qualification of Erlaucht pursuant to the German Confederation's decision of 1829 conferring such treatment to mediatized comital families.  Auguste was 5th cousin once removed with the head of the elder branch."

I have never heard that Wilhelm III was considered Mathilde's father...interesting information-thanks!