This redirect contains a translation of Nobleza from es.wikipedia. |
Uradel could become a section of Immemorial nobility, as it is a particular case. ( Qqtacpn ( talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC))
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:
The Spanish-language article Nobleza also mentions the following:
All this needs to be researched further. TriniMuñoz ( talk) 07:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi TriniMuñoz. I've got two references to help you:
I hope this helps ( Irmandino ( talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).
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)).
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)
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)
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:
-- Closeapple ( talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This redirect contains a translation of Nobleza from es.wikipedia. |
Uradel could become a section of Immemorial nobility, as it is a particular case. ( Qqtacpn ( talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC))
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:
The Spanish-language article Nobleza also mentions the following:
All this needs to be researched further. TriniMuñoz ( talk) 07:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi TriniMuñoz. I've got two references to help you:
I hope this helps ( Irmandino ( talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).
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)).
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)
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)
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:
-- Closeapple ( talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)