Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 13     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #76 
How is that proof? It's a repetition of what you are supposed to be proving, although you actually have dropped explicit mention of noble status from just having the surname in this post. I asked you for proof of the specific claims and details within it. Please show proof that having the surname, from legitimate familial inheritance, gives you noble status. Please post proof, or at least explain, who can inherit these surnames. Just like a normal surname? Please post proof of this stuff about noblewomen and who counts as one.

I am leaning towards sharing the view you are now just trolling. You seem deliberately not responding properly.

Edit: I see Azadi has again deleted one of his posts, that to which I responded.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #77 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Yes, I was able to read your first several repetitions of this claim. I thought you were going to stop the mantras? Kindly prove your claim. Who is entitled? Anyone whose father or, apparently, mother had that surname? And then their children in turn? So, in essence, just like a normal surname. Then that is a great inflation of the amount of people who can bear the surname, in comparison to who would have had the original title. Kindly prove that the mere possession of this surname is the same as possessing the status of a nobleman. And just repeating the claim for the thousandth time is not proof.

Heck, the two passages in that post even seem contradictory: you are claiming precisely there is no difference between being a nobleman and having a title in one's surname.


German titles of nobility could be inherited by all children of a nobleman before 1919, but titles of nobility couldn't be inherited by children of a noblewoman, unlike today. Titles of nobility are legally parts of the surname in Germany, but they are hardly normal surnames, because a person, who uses a title of nobility as part of his legal surname, use a normal surname in addition to his title. Using a title of nobility as part of your legal name isn't comparable to merely using the normal surname of a noble family.
It's understandable that you fear recognizing the son of a noblewoman and a commoner as a noblewoman will allow everyone to claim to be a noblewoman, but this fear is unfounded concerning the German nobility. A person using the surname of a noble family, to which he is unrelated, is illegal in Germany, and using the surname of your distant ancestor is also illegal in Germany. A German usually have to use the surname of one of his or her parents or the surname of his or her spouse.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #78 
In that post there seems to be literally one sentence that expands on or argues for what you have previously said: that a title of nobility is today added to a normal surname, so it isn't just a normal surbame. But that hardly proves that the having of that the title in your surname makes you noble, even if you have it legitimately. It just proves that these surnames have a special derivation. Proof your claim or stop repeating them.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #79 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
In that post there seems to be literally one sentence that expands on or argues for what you have previously said: that a title of nobility is today added to a normal surname, so it isn't just a normal surbame. But that hardly proves that the having of that the title in your surname makes you noble, even if you have it legitimately. It just proves that these surnames have a special derivation. Proof your claim or stop repeating them.

A person, who uses a title of nobility as part of his legal surname, is considered a nobleman by most Germans today, even if this person isn't a nobleman according to the traditional rules. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #80 
So you are essentially admitting you aren't a nobleman now. Being considered a nobleman by most Germans isn't a technical status. It is also another unproven claim on your part.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #81 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
So you are essentially admitting you aren't a nobleman now. Being considered a nobleman by most Germans isn't a technical status. It is also another unproven claim on your part.

The traditional rules are still upheld by the Vereinigung der Deutschen Adelsverbände (the association of the traditional nobility of Germany), but they aren't recognized by the Federal Republic of Germany, and most Germans don't care about them today. The Federal Republic of Germany doesn't recognize the status of nobility, but it recognizes titles of nobility as parts of the surname. The German titles of nobility are still considered real titles of nobility by most Germans, despite legally being parts of the surname.
bator

Registered:
Posts: 298
Reply with quote  #82 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Religious coronations are inappropriate in secular states.


but the late shah of iran who we both support was crowned. so if he could, what is the problem then?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #83 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

The traditional rules are still upheld by the Vereinigung der Deutschen Adelsverbände (the association of the traditional nobility of Germany), but they aren't recognized by the Federal Republic of Germany, and most Germans don't care about them today. The Federal Republic of Germany doesn't recognize the status of nobility, but it recognizes titles of nobility as parts of the surname. The German titles of nobility are still considered real titles of nobility by most Germans, despite legally being parts of the surname.


What do you mean by recognising titles as parts of surnames? That's ambiguous. The truth seems to be it allows you to use them as part of your surname, but doesn't recognise them as actual titles, whereas you are implying it recognises all such surnames as actual titles (this would seem necessary for you to have noble status). That would, of course, contradict your claim it doesn't recognise titles. Also, you continue to dodge the point about too inflation of people with titles: if it is enough to have a family surname with a title in in it to be noble, then that would mean a lot more people are noble today than traditionally. It's obvious why you are dodging, just as it is obvious that you are playing on the ambiguity mentioned above. This all looks very dishonest.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #84 
By the way, I think the subject of this thread is why I thought Azadi could well have been a sock puppet. It is the pattern of posting and contents I had seen before here and which may reflect the AS. The poster I had in mind may well be on the AS as well.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman


What do you mean by recognising titles as parts of surnames? That's ambiguous. The truth seems to be it allows you to use them as part of your surname, but doesn't recognise them as actual titles, whereas you are implying it recognises all such surnames as actual titles (this would seem necessary for you to have noble status). That would, of course, contradict your claim it doesn't recognise titles. Also, you continue to dodge the point about too inflation of people with titles: if it is enough to have a family surname with a title in in it to be noble, then that would mean a lot more people are noble today than traditionally. It's obvious why you are dodging, just as it is obvious that you are playing on the ambiguity mentioned above. This all looks very dishonest.

I admit that claiming that the Federal Republic of Germany recognizes titles of nobility as part of the surname is confusing to foreigners. The Federal Republic of Germany doesn't recognize the status of nobility. The Federal Republic of Germany doesn't recognize any social classes. All Germans are legally citizens rather than noblemen or commoners. But the Federal Republic of Germany allows using titles of nobility as parts of the legal name. Claiming that a person, who is entitled to use a title of nobility, such as Graf or Freiherr, as a part of his legal name, isn't a nobleman doesn't make sense to me. The Federal Republic of Germany technically doesn't recognize his title as a title of nobility, but his title of nobility was an actual title of nobility before 1919.
German titles of nobility aren't parts of the surname proper. They are nichtselbständige Namensbestandteile (dependent parts of the name). They are ignored in alphabetical sorting of names. The books of Christian Graf von Krockow (a famous German writer) are sorted as K rather than as G in German libraries.
Inflation of titles isn't a problem in Germany, because German titles of nobility never have been inherited according to primogeniture, unlike British and Spanish titles of nobility. All children of a nobleman were entitled to use the title of nobility of their father before 1919. More people are indeed entitled to use a title of nobility today than before 1919, because using the title of nobility of your mother is allowed in Germany today, unlike before 1919, but the vast majority of the Germans aren't allowed to use a title of nobility today. The German name law is very strict. Using a title of nobility of a family, to which you aren't related, is illegal in Germany, and using the title of nobility of your distant ancestor is also illegal in Germany.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #86 
That's as good as admitting the point, although you then say it doesn't make sense to you. You seem to admit the title and the surname are not the same: the latter does necessarily equate to the later.

The point is not about primogeniture. German titles weren't inherited by all children of a title holder. The point is that all children, or at least until marriage for daughters, will have the title if you are right, and then the children of the sons (and any that take their mother's surname if she had a noble surname and passes it on to her children) will have it, and so on. It's as if an English earl's children all inherited his title, and their children did, and so on. Soon you will have dozens or scores with the title when it started off with one. This rather underscores the surname is not a title or noble status, although it does show you are descended from a noble house.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #87 
The substantive title is inherited by primogeniture. Agnates of a titleholder all bear the title in question, but only the most senior among them by primogeniture actually holds it. The title holder would be so-and-so, count of somewhere. Other agnates would be count(ess) so-and-so of somewhere. Note my repeated use of the word agnate. Except under special circumstances, cognatic kin could neither inherit nor use the title.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #88 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
By the way, I think the subject of this thread is why I thought Azadi could well have been a sock puppet. It is the pattern of posting and contents I had seen before here and which may reflect the AS. The poster I had in mind may well be on the AS as well.

If you're thinking of KYM, no way. He could be highly irritating but didn't set out to be, unlike this troll. And he had genuine knowledge and made worthwhile contributions, again unlike this troll. The whole 'feel' of the two is quite different. I would certainly have him back in an eyeblink if a trade could be arranged for the current specimen.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #89 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
That's as good as admitting the point, although you then say it doesn't make sense to you. You seem to admit the title and the surname are not the same: the latter does necessarily equate to the later.

The point is not about primogeniture. German titles weren't inherited by all children of a title holder. The point is that all children, or at least until marriage for daughters, will have the title if you are right, and then the children of the sons (and any that take their mother's surname if she had a noble surname and passes it on to her children) will have it, and so on. It's as if an English earl's children all inherited his title, and their children did, and so on. Soon you will have dozens or scores with the title when it started off with one. This rather underscores the surname is not a title or noble status, although it does show you are descended from a noble house.

I have never claimed that the Federal Republic recognizes the status of nobility. The Federal Republic of Germany has abolished the nobility as a social class. A person, who is entitled to use a title of nobility as a part of his legal name, isn't recognized as a nobleman by the Federal Republic of Germany, but a person, who is a nobleman according to Salic law, isn't recognized as a nobleman by the Federal Republic of Germany either.
The rules, which were abolished in 1919, don't matter in Germany today. Most Germans consider a person, who uses a title of nobility as part of his name with the permission of the German government, a nobleman, even if he isn't a nobleman according to Salic law.
Members of this forum claiming that I'm an impostor makes me very angry, because my surname and my coat of arms are important parts of my identity. Claiming that I'm not entitled to use the surname of my noble family and the coat of arms of my noble family are assaults on my identity. I'm not a nobleman according to Salic law, but I'm entitled to use the surname of my noble family according to the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany and my maternal uncle, who is a nobleman according to Salic law, has granted me the right to use the coat of arms of my noble family.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #90 
For the umpteenth time, lying troll, no one is claiming you're not entitled to use the surname of your maternal family. They are claiming that being entitled to use the surname of your maternal family does not make you noble even if they are, surnames and nobility being distinct things transmitted by different methods. As for the grant of arms, it has barely been mentioned by anyone but you. But normally an armigerous person would not thereby be enabled to grant his arms to other people, even family. He may transmit those arms through descent from him, but that is another matter.

However, heraldry not being really my thing, and (as with nobility) different rules prevailing in different jurisdictions, I would not be prepared to categorically state that you have no right to the arms. I do categorically state that you are not a nobleman, on account of you aren't, and I'm afraid you'll just have to put up with it. Moanings and whinings about your precious 'identity' won't alter the facts of the case.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.