Copyright © V. Rozn 1999-2009
Comments and questions can be mailed to
the author
Last updated : Jan 10, 2009
The High Nobility of the Holy Roman
Empire
In the Middle Ages, there was no clear stratification of
nobility in the Holy Roman Empire. One side effect of the Imperial Reform, which
began in 1495, was the establishment of three noble groups: the High Nobility,
the Imperial Knighthood, and the Territorial Nobility. The Imperial constitution
defined the context that made the High Noble families distinct from other
groups: they possessed both the Imperial immediacy and the Status of the
Imperial Estate. All sovereign houses, which ruled in various German lands in
the 19th and 20th centuries, descended from the High Nobility of the Holy Roman
Empire
The Institutions of the Holy Roman
Empire
"Like the constitutions of virtually all states large or
small before the end of the eighteenth century, that of the Holy Roman Empire
did not consist of a single document, however long, drafted in a few weeks,
months, or even years by men of a single generation. It was the cumulative
product of a centuries-long history, in which the slow and unspectacular growth
of unwritten practices into habits, and of these into "traditions,” took
their place alongside formally enacted and celebrated statutes, peace treaties,
written and unwritten promises, assurances, and oaths to form a vast and
complicated body of public law. Never subjected to formal collation or
codification except in the privately initiated works of scholars and teachers of
public law, the imperial constitution, so defined, was vague and even
contradictory in many particulars." [1: p.16].
The Holy Roman Empire (das Heilige Römische Reich /
Sacrum Romanum Imperium) was officially an elective monarchy headed by
the Roman Emperor-King in Germany (Römischer Kaiser, zu allen Zeiten
Mehrer des Reichs, König in Germanien / Romanorum Imperator semper
Augustus, ac Rex Germanie). By its end in 1806, the Empire had become a
loose confederation of over 1800 autonomous territories. Since the 13th century
the central Imperial government grew weak, and local authorities gradually
established real political control over their territories known as
Territorial Supremacy / Overlordship (Landeshoheit).
Territorial Supremacy could belong to a duke, a bishop, a count, a city council,
an abbess, a knight, or any other local authority that possessed the Imperial
immediacy (Reichsunmmittelbarkeit), the direct jurisdiction of
the Empire. The only feudal overlord of an Imperial immediate territory was the
Roman Emperor. The right of Territorial Supremacy carried many attributes of
sovereignty; however, governments of immediate territories legally recognized
the Imperial suzerainty (N.1).
In the course of the Imperial Reform, which began in 1495, the
Matricul System was introduced as method for assessing the fiscal obligations of
Imperial immediate territories. The Imperial Matricul
(Reichsmatrikel) listed all immediate territories and their tax
obligations to support common needs including Imperial military contingents.
This financial contribution gave a very important privilege to each local
authority mentioned in the Matricul, the status of the Imperial Estate
(Reichsstandschaft). This status was associated with the right to
sit and vote in the Imperial Assembly / Diet (Reichstag).
Most nobles in the Empire belonged to the Territorial Nobility
(Landsadel, landsässigen Adel), a group that had neither
Imperial immediacy nor the status of the Imperial Estate. The Imperial
Knighthood (Reichsritterschaft) was a noble group that enjoyed
Imperial immediacy and the right of Territorial Supremacy in their possession.
However, the Imperial Knights did not have the status of the Imperial Estate
because they paid no Imperial taxes (N.2). The Imperial immediate families,
which had the status of the Imperial Estate, constituted the High Nobility
(Hochadel) of the Holy Roman Empire (N.3).
By the end of the 16th century, many immediate territories had
disappeared from in the Imperial Matricul: the Swiss lands lost their
connections with the Empire (N.4a), France annexed some Imperial lands (N.4b);
secular rulers annexed ecclesiastical possessions during the Church Reformation
(N.4c); some immediate territories were annexed to other territories, when their
ruling families became extinct (N.4d). In the 17th-18th centuries, new Imperial
immediate territories were added, mostly, when a territorial ruler ceded some of
his possessions with the right of Territorial Supremacy to another person (N.5).
In several cases, the Emperors converted an immediate possession of an Imperial
Knight to a territory with the fiscal obligations to the Empire
(N.6).
Notes:
1. "The agreements reached in the Westphalian
cities of Osnabrück and Münster in 1648 formally opened the second
epoch. Perhaps the most striking immediate result of these treaties was their
confirmation and clarification of the rights of territorial supremacy for the
estates of the Empire. Territorial supremacy, originally a collection of
individual rights bestowed by the Emperor on particular estates, now became a
unified, comprehensive, and independent authority, no longer exercised as a
delegated power but accepted as an inalienable attribute of sovereignty. It is
important to note, however, that his supremacy was still a limited superior
authority in law: for the Westphalian Settlement left certain Imperial
institutions, including the Reichstag, intact." [4: p.12].
2. The Imperial Knights grouped themselves into
three Knightly Circles (Ritterkreise): of Swabia,
Franconia, and the Rhine. These Knightly Circles consisted of 14
Cantons.
3. By the end of the 18th century, some High
nobles had lost Territorial Supremacy in their territories. E.g. in 1740, all of
the lands of the House of Schönburg came under the Territorial Supremacy
of Electoral Saxony. Howerever, the Counts and Prince of Schönburg
continued to vote in the College of the Wetterau Counts in the Imperial
Assembly.
4. The immediate territories that disappeared
from in the Imperial Matricul:
a. E.g., Geneva, Lausanne, Wallis, Schaffhausen,
St.Gallen, Kreuzlingen, Einsiedeln, Dissentis, etc.
b. Metz, Toul, Verdun, etc.
c. E.g., Saalfeld, Maulbronn, Königsbronn,
etc.
d. E.g., Hoorn, Wunstorf, Plesse, Gera,
Beuchlingen, Bitsch, Ruppin, Schaumberg (in Austria), Bergen, Haag, Leissnigk,
Landsberg, Losenstein, etc.
5. E.g., the King of Denmark ceded the right of
Territorial Supremacy in Barmstedt to the Counts of Rantzau.
6. E.g., in 1791, the Imperial Knight of
Sickingen was admitted to the College of Swabian Counts in the Imperial
Assembly.
The Imperial Circles
In 1500, the immediate territories, which paid Imperial taxes,
were grouped on a regional basis into six Imperial Circles
(Reichskreise) to oversee the selection of judges into the
Imperial Chamber Court. In 1512, four new Imperial Circles were added, and ten
Imperial Circles remained with largely unchanged borders to the end of the 18th
century (N.1). The Imperial Circles were charged with many important functions
including the allocation of quotas under the Matricular system.
"In 1681, the Reichstag agreed to entrust the Circles with
the responsibility for organizing and maintaining the Imperial Army." [4:
p.15].
The local authority that possessed a territory included in an
Imperial Circle as a rule had the Status of the Imperial Circle Estate
(Reichskreisstandschaft) with the right to sit and vote in the
Circle Assembly / Diet (Kreistag) (N.2).
Notes:
1. a. When the system of Imperial Circles was
established, the position of the King of Bohemia as Imperial Elector had been
suspended since the Hussite wars 1420-1433. Thus, the Bohemian Crown Lands:
Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Lusatia, Glatz, etc. were included in no Imperial
Circle.
b. There were several Imperial immediate
territories that were included neither in any Imperial Circle nor in any
Knightly Circle (Dyck, Fagnolle, Homburg, Jever, Kniphausen, Montbéliard
/ Mömpelgard, Rheda, Saffenburg, Schaumburg [im Rhein-Lahn-Kreis],
etc.).
2. There were "personalists" in the Circle
Assembles:
a. The Princes of Thurn-Taxis had a vote in the
Circle Assembly of the Electoral Rhine. They contributed money to the Circle as
persons because they possessed no immediate territory in the Circle.
b. At the beginning of the 18th century, the
Counts of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Virneburg and of
Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rochefort shared a vote in the Bench of Counts &
Lords of the Circle Assembly of Franconia. When the Count of
Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rochefort received the title of Imperial Prince, he
received an additional vote in the Bench of the Secular Princes of the Circle
Assembly as personalist.
The Imperial Assembly
The High Nobles of the Holy Roman Empire were represented in
the Imperial Assembly. The Assembly was the advisory and legislative body of the
Empire. Originally, the Emperors convoked Imperial Assemblies at irregular
intervals. In 1663, the delegates of the Assembly in Regensburg refused to
disband after disposing current business, and the Imperial Assembly remained in
the permanent session until the end of the Empire. The Imperial Assembly
consisted of three Councils / Colleges of Electors, of Princes and of the
Imperial Cities (Reichsstädte).
Initially, many princes claimed the right to elect a head of
the Empire. However, the Golden Bull of 1356 restricted this right to
seven ecclesiastical and secular princes, which were called
Princes-Electors (Kurfürsten). According to the Golden
Bull, the Council of Electors consisted of three ecclesiastical and four
secular members. At the end of the 18th century, there were eight
Princes-Electors (N.1). They enjoyed precedence over the other Imperial Estates
and additional judicial powers within their territories. It was legally
prohibited to have more than one Electoral vote for a person; and an Electoral
vote could not be shared by several persons.
The Council of Princes (Fürstenrat)
consisted of two benches / banks. The Grand Masters of the Teutonic Order and
the Order of St. John, archbishops, bishops, abbots, etc. sit and voted in the
Ecclesiastical (Geistlichebank) bench. Hereditary rulers sit and
voted in the Secular / Lay (Weltlichebank) bench (N.2). In the
Council of Princes, greater ecclesiastical and secular Imperial Estates had
individual voices (Virilstimmen). Lesser estates
were grouped in six colleges, and each college had a collective, so-called
curial voice (Kuriatstimme) in the Council. Lesser secular
estates voted in the Colleges of Imperial Counts
(Reichsgrafenkollegium) of Wetterau, Swabia, Westphalia and Franconia,
lesser ecclesiastical estates voted in the Colleges of the Prelates of Swabia
and the Rhine.
Originally, a hereditary ruler had only one voice in the
Council of Princes, and when he divided his possessions, each of his heirs voted
separately. This started to change after 1582. The votes in the Council of
Princes became associated with territories rather than individual rulers. When
multiple heirs divided a territory, they shared its vote. When a person acquired
a secular territory whose previous ruler had a voice in the Council of Princes,
he could claim the corresponding voice (N.3). There was no restriction to own
more that one vote in the Council of Princes, and some rulers accumulated
several voices (N.4).
Secular rulers who had acquired individual voices in the
Council of Princes by the beginning of the Thirty Years War (1618–1648),
belonged to the most prestigious noble group called the Ancient Princely
Houses (Altfürstliche Häuser). As a rule, the
Ancient Princely Houses possessed big secular territories in the Empire, and had
their Princely rank recognized by the end of the 15th century (N.5). The Houses,
which received individual voices in the Council since 1653 were called
the New Princely Houses (Neufürstliche Häuser)
(see Appendix 1).
In 1641, Emperor Ferdinand III attempted to give three new
individual voices to the Prince of Hohenzollern, the Prince of Eggenberg, and
the Prince of Lobkowitz. This met opposition of the Imperial Assembly because
the Eggenbergs and the Lobkowitzs were representatives of the Austrian
Territorial nobility who had no right of Territorial Supremacy in their
possessions. The Imperial Assembly introduced a strict requirement to for new
members of the Council of Princes: they were obliged to acquire immediate
territories in the Imperial Circles (N.6).
An acquisition of a Immediate territory represented in an
Imperial Circle, in most cases gave the right to vote in the Assembly of the
corresponding Circle. A person, who acquired the territory, had the right to be
accepted as a member of the Council of Princes or a College of Counts (N.7). in
17th-18th centuries, several Territorial Noble families acquired Imperial
imperial territories represented in Imperial Circles, and in this way they
received the status of the Imperial Estate (N.8).
Despite the requirement, several persons, who possessed no
such territories, were admitted to the Council of Princes. They were called
Personalists, because they were immediate as persons, not as owners of
immediate territories in Imperial Circles (N.9).
Notes:
1. Original members of the Council of Electors:
the Archbishops of Mainz, of Trier, of Cologne; the King of Bohemia; the Duke of
Saxony-Wittenberg, the Margrave of Brandenburg and the Count Palatine of the
Rhine. During the Thirty Years war (1618-1648) Friedrich V, Count Palatine of
the Rhine, was deprived his status of Elector, and it went to the Dukes of
Bavaria. After the war the eighth Electorate was created and given to Friedrich
V's son (1648). In 1692, the Duke of Brunswick-Hanover became the ninth member
of the Council. In 1777, the Bavaria ruling House became extinct, and
Karl-Theodor, Count Palatine of the Rhine, inherited Bavaria, and electoral
votes of Bavaria and the Palatinate were merged.
2. a. The Archduke of Austria and Duke of
Burgundy voted in the Ecclesiastical bench.
b. The Abbots of St.Blasien voted in the Counts
of Swabia for Bondorf.
c. In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia secularized
several archbishoprics and bishoprics and assigned them to secular rulers:
Magdeburg, Halberstadt, Minden and Kammin to Brandenburg; Schwerin and
Ratzenburg to Mecklenburg; Hersfeld to Hesse-Kassel; Bremen and Verden to the
King of Sweden. The corresponding voices were transferred to the Secular bench
of the Council of Princes.
3. "The Diet though neither the reason nor
exact circumstances which occasioned it appear, seems, in 1582, to have laid
down an entire new rule for the future. Instead of the number of the secular
votes being, as formerly, uncertain, and sometimes more or less, according to
the number of reigning Princes in a family, as only the persons present were
reckoned, more regard was afterwards paid to the territories than to the persons
themselves; and the number of votes afterwards always continued, as it happened
accidentally to be at the Diet in 1582. If at that time there were several
lines, the same number of votes were to be given in future, though they became
altogether extinct, as in the case of the House of Brunswick-Luneburg, which was
then divided into the lines of Calenberg, Zelle, Wolfenbuttel, and Grubenhagen.
Two of the these lines were soon afterwards extinct, yet the votes have been
still continued in the College of the Princes. If, on the other hand, a
territory, in 1582, had only one Sovereign, and he left several sons, who
divided again, still there remained but a single vote. This was the case with
the House of Anhalt; as Prince Joachim Ernest, in 1582, was in possession of all
Anhalt. In 1586, in his four sons founded the reigning branches of Dessau,
Bernburg, Cothen, and Zerbst; yet, notwithstanding this, they reserved but a
single vote. If the owners of a territory likewise were all extinct, after the
year 1582, and it came to another Prince, the former vote was still continued;
as was the case directly afterwards with the Princely Counts of Henneberg in
1583, who at that time became extinct, and since that, with Pomerania,
Leuchtenberg, and several other countries. Instead of which, the votes of all
countries, the owners of which died before the year 1582, no longer exist; as in
the instances of Carinthia, Stiria, Carniola, Teck, and innumerable other
counties." [2: volume II; p.15-16].
4 a. E.g., at the end of the 18th century, George
III, King of Great Britain and Elector of Hanover, had one voice in the Council
of Electors, six individual voices in the Council of Prince, and three shares of
the curial voice of the Counts of Westphalia;
b. Christian-Albrecht (+1695) had one individual
voice in the Ecclesiastical bench of the Council of Prince as Bishop of
Lübeck (evangelical); he also had another individual voice in the Secular
bench as Duke of Holstein-Gottorp.
5. a. The Ancient Princely Houses were
Wittelsbach (Bavaria and the Palatinate), Welf (Brunswick), Lorraine, Ascania
(Saxony-Lauenburg and Anhalt), Habsburg (Austria and Burgundy), the Franconian
Hohenzollern (Brandenburg, Ansbach and Bayreuth), Pomerania, Brabant (Hesse),
Zähringen (Baden), Savoy, Mecklenburg, Wettin (Saxony-Wittenberg),
Leuchtenberg, Oldenburg (Holstein), Württemberg and Arenberg.
b. The House of Arenberg possessed a relatively
small immediate territory and was elevated to the rank of Imperial Prince only
in 1576. The Prince of Arenberg received an individual voice in the Council of
Princes in 1580.
6. "With respect of the new votes which to
have been introduced, Ferdinand III had already declared at the Diet in 1641,
that he had admitted the three new Princes, of Hohenzollern, Eggenberg, and
Lobkowitz, to a seat and voice in the College of the Princes; but he was not
able at that time to accomplish his design, because it was objected against the
two last, by the Electors and Princes, that they were merely subjects of
Austria, and were in possession of no lands immediately held of the Empire; and
neither contributed to the common necessities of the Empire, as members of a
Circle, nor to any Circle itself; without which conditions, no vote could be
admitted in the College of Princes. It was now urged, that these conditions were
complied with; upon which the three new Princes above mentioned were admitted
into the College, June 30, 1653" [2: volume II; p.266].
"All this was repeated likewise in the Recess
of the Empire (1654); but with this additional reservation, << that
those persons who were now admitted into the College of Princes, without having
previously fulfilled what was absolutely requisite, particularly by procuring
territories immediately held of the Empire, were admitted for this time only, on
account of their personal merit; and that their admission should by any means
tend to the prejudice of any one, or be established as precedent; and that the
seat and voice should not descend to their heirs or successors, notwithstanding
they might in future be provided with such estates which were held immediately
of the Empire, and were suitable to the rank of Princes" [2: volume II;
p.267].
7. a. Greater rulers, who had individual voices
in the Council, were not always interested in curial votes: e.g., Electoral
Saxony did not exercised his rifgt to vote for Barby, Hesse-Farmstadt for
Hanau-Lichtenberg, Hesse-Kassel for Hanau-Münzenberg, Württemberg for
Justingen, etc.
b. There was not always a direct correspondence
between votes in Imperial Circle Assemblies and the Imperial Assemblies: e.g.,
- the Hohenlohe family had only two voices in the
Assembly of the Franconian Circle but six voices in the Franconian College of
Imperial Counts;
- the County of Schaumburg was represented with
two voices in the Circle of Lower Rhine-Westphalia, but only with one voice in
the Westphalian College;
- the County of Sayn was represented with one
voices in the Circle of Lower Rhine-Westphalia, and with two voices in the
Westphalian College.
c. In 1722, the Counts of Hillesheim acquired the
Imperial immediate territory of Reipoltskirchen. The Counts voted in the Circle
Assembly of the Imperial Circle of the Upper Rhine, nevertheless they had no
representation in the Imperial Assembly.
8. a. In some cases, territorial nobles married
representatives of the High Nobility and inherited their possessions:
- Rietberg by the Princes of Kaunitz;
- Sayn by the Burgraves of
Kirchberg-Farnroda;
- Mylendonk by the Counts of Ostein;
- Limpurg by the Counts of Pückler;
- Wiesentheid by the Counts of
Schönborn;
- Blankenheim & Gerolstein by the Counts of
Sternberg;
- Gronsfeld by the Counts of
Törring-Jettenbach, etc.
9. a. The Princes of Portia and Piccolomini were
admitted to the Council of Princes with individual voices but never acquired any
immediate territories.
b. In the Colleges of the Counts of Swabia and
Franconia, there were several Personalists who belonged to the Imperial
Knighthood (e.g., Giech, Neipperg, Rechberg, etc.).
c. The Duke of Württemberg ceded the
territory of Welzheim with the right of Territorial Supremacy to Count
Friedrich-Wilhelm of Grävenitz, who was admitted to the Assembly of the
Imperial Circle of Franconia and the College of the Franconian Counts of the
Imperial Assembly. When the new Duke of Württemberg confiscated Welzheim,
the family of Grävenitz retained the status of the Imperial Estate and
voted in the College of the Franconian Counts as Pesonalists.
Inheritance in the Noble
Families
There were two major types of
inheritance laws in the High noble
families of the Empire. The laws of the first type
prescribed that only the male members of a
noble family had the right to inherit lands.
Wemen
inherited familial
lands only, if the last male
representative of their family had
died. According to the
inheritance laws of the first type,
an Imperial immediate territory was
a common property of a noble
family.
Every male member of the family could claim a
share in the common inheritance. Sometimes the family members ruled jointly.
But, mostly, the male members
divided the family's
possessions
(N.1). The Imperial
Constitution only
prohibited the
division of
a land associated with the Electoral
dignity.
In the Western part of the
Empire one can find the second type of
inheritance laws. According to these
laws a noble family's possessions could pass to
female heirs despite the existence of
male representatives of the families
(N.2).
After the 15th century,
ruling houses in the Empire began to introduce Primogeniture, the right
of the firstborn son to inherit the entire possession. The Imperial immediate
territories were not divided among multiple heirs any more.
After the introduction of
Primogeniture, some territorial rulers granted to their younger sons territories
without the rights of Territorial Supremacy known as appanages /
apanages
(N.3).
Notes:
1."Thus, partible inheritance was one way of
expressing the role of the dynasty as a whole in its lands many of Germany's
princes preferred that their sons rule their dynasty's lands jointly. Partition
was recommended only should collective government prove unworkable." [5:
p.21].
"With few exceptions, German princely houses
large and small divided and redivided their resources throughout much of the
early eighteenth century, several dynasties were never able to reassemble their
public lands, let alone private holdings" [5: p.10].
"The drawbacks to partible inheritance seem
many, the advantages few. ... And yet, close examination suggests several
reasons why the custom endured long beyond the Middle Ages. It solved certain
practical problems. If a dynasty's holdings were extensive, partible inheritance
was a way of keeping their administration within the family. ...
Territorial divisions were considered a way of
keeping peace among the male members of a dynasty." [5:
p.14-15].
"... the premise that a territorial
inheritance belongs to a dynasty collectively gives rise syllogistically to the
conclusion that all members of that house are entitled to a part of that
inheritance." [5: p.20].
"Closely tied to the idea of dynastic
possessions as collective familial possessions was that of the equality of all
legitimately born princes in any given house. " [5: p.21].
"... many of Germany's princes preferred that
their sons rule their dynasty's lands jointly. Partition was recommended only
should collective government prove unworkable." [5: p.21].
2. For example,
Lorraine,
Arenberg, the Mark,
Sayn,
Gemen, etc.
3 a. "... partible inheritance had deep and
sturdy roots in German constitutional theory, political usage, and even in the
human heart. " [5: p.24].
"The conduct of public affairs allowed no room
for sentiment or tradition. ... Such views were obviously congenial to the
consolidation of princely power through the introduction of primogeniture. ...
There was a way to substitute equity for equality with appanages. In this
procedure cadet princes were given allowances and territorial livings but no
effective role in government." [5: p.51].
b. Many High Noble Houses had appanage branches:
Weissenfels, Merseburg and Zeitz of the Electoral Saxony; Schwedt of
Brandenburg; Philippsthal of Hesse; Hoym of Anhalt, Biesterfeld and Weissenfels
of Lippe; Sonderburg of Holstein; Köstritz of Reuss, etc.
The Imperial Titles of Territoria
Dominion
In the Holy Roman Empire the titles of territorial
dominion did not provide any additional rights to noble families.
Nevertheless, titles were always prestigious because they were associated with a
greater political standing. Since the 10th century, when the Empire consisted of
several tribal duchies, Duke (Herzog / Dux) was the highest
non-royal title of territorial dominion (N.1). It was followed by the titles of
Margrave (Markgraf / Marchio) (N.2), Landgrave (Landgraf
/ Landgravius) (N.3) and Count Palatine (Pfalzgraf / Comes
Palatinus) (N.4). The bearers of these titles usually had the rank
of Imperial Prince (Reichsfürstenstand). In the
Middle Ages, there was no clear legal definition of the term Prince. It
was used mostly as a rank rather than a title of territorial dominion (N.5).
Medieval chronicles and documents used Princes when they talked about
influential ecclesiastical and secular rulers with big territorial possessions.
In the 16th century, Prince (Fürst / Princeps) was
finally added in the hierarchy of the Imperial titles of territorial
dominion next in rank below the title of Duke. Some lesser Imperial
immediate rulers bore the title of Count (Graf / Comes)
(N.6). In the Middle Ages, the Roman Emperors rarely granted new titles of
territorial dominion, and most nobles were simply called Lords
(Herren / Domini ). All titled nobles in the Empire owned Imperial
immediate lands.
Since the 16th century, the number of grants of Imperial
titles of territorial dominion began to increase manyfold. The Roman Emperors,
like other European monarchs of the same period, bestowed Imperial titles to
noble families of all categories, and this diminished the prestige associated
with the titles. The level of devaluation of an Imperial title was related to
its position in the hierarchy of the Imperial titles.
The title of Imperial Baron (Reichsfreiherr), the
lowest in the hierarchy, was granted to a relatively large number of Territorial
nobles and Imperial knights.
The title of Imperial Count (Reichsgraf), was next in
rank above Imperial Baron. Most High nobles were Counts. However, there were
many grants of this title to distinguished representatives of the Territorial
Nobility.
The title of Imperial Prince (Reichsfürst)
retained its original high standing. It was granted for very important services
to the Empire and the Emperors, to representatives of all noble groups. The
Princely rank associated with the title was one of the prerequisites to receive
an individual voice in the Imperial Assembly.
The Roman Emperors
granted the title of Imperial
Prince either to
all members of a
noble family or only to its head (the
primogeniture grant).
There were only a few Imperial grants of the most prestigious
title of Duke, and their recipients always belonged to the Ancient Princely
Houses.
By the end of the Empire, all members of the High Nobility had
at least the title of Count.
As an additional favor to its owner, the Roman Emperors might
elevate an Imperial immediate territory to the rank of County
(Grafschaft), Princely County (gefürsteten Grafschaft),
Princely Landgraviate (gefürsteten Landgrafschaft), Principality
(Fürstentum) or Duchy (Herzogtum) (see Appendix 2).
Notes:
1. By the end of the 13th century there were
several secular duchies: Bavaria (Bayern), Saxony (Sachsen),
Lorraine (Lothringen), Brabant, Limburg, Brunswick (Braunschweig),
Lüneburg and Pomerania (Pommern). The Duchies of Franconia
(Franken) and Westphalia-Angaria (Westfalen-Engern) belonged to
ecclesiastical rulers. In 14th-15th centuries, the Roman Emperors granted the
Ducal title to several German lands: Gelderland / Geldern (1339),
Mecklenburg (1348), Jülich (1356), Luxembourg (1354), Berg (1380), Cleves
/Kleve (1417), Holstein (1474) and Württemberg
(1495).
2. The immediate Margraviates in the Empire:
Brandenburg, Misnia (Meissen), Lusatia (Lausitz), Baden, Hochberg,
Moravia, Burgau, Antwerp, Istria, Pont-à-Mousson, Nomeny,
etc.
3. The Landgraviates in the Empire: Thuringia
(Thüringen), Hesse (Hessen), Alsace (Elsass), Lusatia
(Lausitz), Sausenberg, Leuchtenberg, Leiningen, the Baar,
Stühlingen, Klettgau, Tübingen, Nellenburg, Breisgau, Ortenau, etc.
4. In the 14th century, there were only three
Counties Palatinate in the Empire: of the Rhine, of Saxony and of Burgundy.
5. For example, the titles of the Princes of
Anhalt, Wenden, and Rügen were used as titles of territorial
dominion.
6. In the 18th century, there were
several High Noble Houses that traced their origin from ancient comital
families: Castell, Fürstenberg, Hohenzollern, Holstein-Oldenburg,
Leiningen, Limburg-Styrum, Mansfeld, the Mark, Montfort, Nassau, Schwarzburg,
Ortenburg, Öttingen, Sayn-Wittgenstein, Solms, Stolberg-Wernigerode,
Waldeck, Württemberg, etc.
etc.
b. Some families received the title of Count
through marriages: e.g., Götterswick (1421 in Bentheim), Runkel (in 1462 in
Wied and in 1475 in Leiningen-Westerburg), Reifferscheidt (in 1416/1455 in the
Lower Salm), Stein (in "the Forest and the Rhine Counties,” and in the
Upper Salm).
7. a. The grants of the title of Count to
Imperial immediate families:
- in the 15th century, Hanau (1429),
Isenburg-Büdingen (1442), Hohenlohe (1450), Manderscheid (1457),
etc.
- in the 16th century, Lippe (1529), Erbach
(1532), Hohenems (1560), Schwarzenberg (1599), etc.;
- in the 17th century, Waldburg (1628),
Königsegg (1629), Reuss (1673), Schönburg (1700),
etc.
b. In the 17th-18th centuries, several noble
families had been granted Imperial titles by the time they entered the ranks of
the High Nobility.
Bibliography.
1. Gagliardo, John G. Reich and nation : the Holy Roman
Empire as idea and reality, 1763-1806 (Bloomington : Indiana University Press,
1980).
2. Pütter, John Stephen. An historical development
of the present political constitution of the Germanic Empire (London : 1790; 3
vols).
3. Wines, Roger Andrew. The Franconian Reichskreis and
the Holy Roman Empire in the War of the Spanish Succession (New York : Columbia
University, 1961; Thesis).
4. Vann, James A., Rowan, Steven W. The Old
Reich: Essays on German Political Institutions, 1495 -1805 (Bruxelles : La
librairie encyclopedique, 1974).
5. Fichtner, Paula Sutter. Protestantism and
Primogeniture in Early Modern Germany (New Haven; London : Yale University
Press, 1989).
Appendix 1. The New Princely
Houses
Admissions in the Council of Princes with an individual voices
since 1653:
1653
Hohenzollern-Hechingen;
Eggenberg (in 1717, the voice became extinct);
Lobkowitz;
1654
Salm (in 1738/1739, the voice passed to
Salm-Hoogstraten);
Dietrichstein;
Piccolomini (in 1656, the voice became extinct);
Nassau-Hadamar & Nassau-Siegen (the voice passed to
Nassau-Diez);
Nassau-Dillenburg & Nassau-Diez;
Auersperg;
1664
Portia / Porcia (in 1665, the voice became extinct);
1667
East Frisia (in 1744, the voice passed to Electoral
Brandenburg);
Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg (in 1716, the voice passed to
Fürstenberg-Mösskirch);
1674
Schwarzenberg;
1686
Waldeck-Eisenberg (in 1692, the voice became
extinct);
1705
Churchill-Marlborough (in 1714, the voice became extinct)
(N.2);
1709
Lamberg (in 1714, the voice became extinct) (N.2);
1713
Liechtenstein;
1754
Thurn-Taxis;
Schwarzburg.
The Imperial immediate territories that the New Princely
Houses acquired in Imperial Circles to meet the admission
requirements:
- Gradisca in the Imperial Circle of Austria by
Eggenberg;
- Sternstein in the Imperial Circle of Bavaria by
Lobkowitz;
- Tarasp in the Imperial Circle of Austria by
Dietrichstein;
- Thengen in the Imperial Circle of Swabia by
Auersperg;
- Leuchtenberg in the Imperial Circle of Swabia by
Lamberg;
- Mindelheim in the Imperial Circle of Swabia by
Churchill-Marlborough;
- Schellenberg-Vaduz in the Imperial Circle of Swabia by
Liechtenstein;
- Eglingen, and then Sheer-Friedberg in the Imperial Circle of
Swabia by Thurn-Taxis.
By the time of their death, the Princes of Piccolomini and
Portia had not acquired any immediate territory and their voices became
extinct.
Notes:
1. After the extinction of the House of East
Frisia, its possessions and voice in the Council passed to the Elector of
Brandenburg;
2. During the War of the Spanish succession
Elector and Duke of Bavaria was banned by the Roman Emperor. His possessions,
the Landgraviate of Leuchtenberg and the Lordship of Mindelheim, were given to
allies of the Emperor. The family of Lamberg received Leuchtenberg (1708). The
Lambergs, which belonged to the Austrian territorial nobility, were made
Imperial Princes in 1707 and were admitted to the Council in 1709 as Langraves
of Leuchtenberg.
John Churchill received Mindelheim and an
individual voice in the Council of Princes. John Churchill was a British
nobleman that had been made Duke of Marlborough. After the War both Leuchtenberg
and Mindelheim went back to Electors-Dukes of Bavaria. Bavaria received back the
voices of Leuchtenberg in the Imperial Assembly and in the Circle of Bavaria,
and the voice of Mindelheim in the Circle of Swabia. The lordship of Mindelheim
lost its voice in the Imperial Assembly. Bavaria restored the individual voice
of Mindelheim in the Council of Princes only in 1803.
Appendix 2. The Elevation of the Imperial
immediate territories
- in 1436, the Counties of Cilli and Ortenburg to
Principality;
- in 1495, the Lordship of Steinfurt to County (for the
Bentheim house);
- in 1532, the Lordship of Erbach to County;
- in 1538, the Lordship of Zimmern to County;
- in 1576, the County of Arenberg to Princely
County;
- in 1623, the County of Hohenzollern to Princely
County;
- in 1624, the Lordship of Neustadt to the Princely County of
Sternstein (for the Lobkowitz house);
- in 1628, the Lordship of Wolfegg to County (for the Waldburg
house);
- in 1628, the Lordship of Zeil to County (for the Waldburg
house);
- in 1628, the Lordship of Segenberg to County (for the
Waldstein/Wallenstein house);
- in 1629, the Lordship of Königsegg to County;
- in 1641, the Lordship of Neustadt to the Princely County of
Sternstein (for the Lobkowitz house);
- in 1643, the Lordship of Esterau to the County of Holzapfel
/ Holzappel;
- in 1644, the Princely County of Arenberg to Duchy;
- in 1650, the Lordship of Barmstedt to the County of Rantzau;
- in 1664, the Lordship of Thengen to Princely County (for the
Auersperg house);
- in 1664, the County of Arenberg to Duchy;
- in 1664, the County of Fürstenberg to Princely County;
- in 1665, the Lordship of Thannhausen to County (for the
Sinzendorf house);
- in 1671, the County of Schwarzenberg to Princely
Landgraviate;
- in 1679, the Lordships of Winneburg and Beilstein to County
(for the Metternich house);
- in 1685, the Lordships of the family of Geyer-Giebelstatt to
County;
- in 1689, the County of Klettgau to Princely Landgraviate
(for the Schwarzenberg house);
- in 1710, the County of Schwarzburg to
Principality;
- in 1719, the Lordship of Schellenberg and County of Vaduz
to the Principality of Liechtenstein;
- in 1757, the County of Hohenlohe-Waldenburg to
Principality;
- in 1770, the Lordship of Fagnolles to County (for the Ligne
house);
- in 1772, the County of Hohenlohe-Neuenstein to
Principality;
- in 1774/1777, the Counties of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst to
the Duchy of Oldenburg (for the Holstein-Gottorp house)
- in 1785, the Lordships of Scheer and County of Friedberg to
the Princely County of Friedberg-Scheer (for the Thurn-Taxis house);
- in 1803, the Lordships of Babenhausen, Boos and Ketterhausen
to the Principality of Babenhausen (for the Fugger house);
- in 1803, the Lordship of Ochsenhausen to Principality (for
the Metternich house);
- in 1804, the Lordship of Egloff to Principality of
Windisch-Graetz;
- in 1804, the Lordship of Edelstetten to Princely County (for
the Esterházy of Galántha house);
- in 1804, the Lordships of Krautheim and Gerlachsheim to
Principality (for the Salm-Reifferscheidt house);
- in 1805, the Lordship of Umpfenbach to Princely County (for
the Trauttmansdorf house);
- in April 1806, the Principality of Anhalt-Bernburg to
Duchy.