|WikiProject Germany||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
Do we have any information actually linking the Uradel to those with leadership positions back in the Migration Period? Any sources? It's a fascinating piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some are linked on wikipedia if you allow male and female lines back. See e.g. Fred Barbarossa.22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- this is complete nonsense. Almost everyone in Europe can trace their ancestry to the migration period "if you allow male and female lines back". This has nothing to do with nobility, let alone with "Uradel". I am easily able to trace my lineage back to Charlemagne, as is anyone else who has a few centuries of genealogical records. You are just making stuff up here. Most "Uradel" families arose out of undocumented local lineages in the 12th or 13th centuries. Yeah, so they presumably have ancestors who lived during the migration period, but so does everyone, and everyone with the same complete absence of documentation. --dab (𒁳) 12:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
it turns out that the term is specific to North German genealogy, recorded in a generic or descriptive sense since the 1820s, and used with a strict definition in the Gotha Almanach since 1907. It doesn't go beyond that application, even in Southern Germany, the term is avoided in favor of "alter Adel".
In addition to this, we have unreferenced claims about the situation in Scandinavia, where the term apparently ended up as a loanword. All we have is unreferenced stuff on other Wikipedias. The Norwegian article claims that Betegnelsen uradel ble lansert på 1800-tallet under påvirkning av tyske slektsforskere. This is not implausible, as the German term pops up in the 1820s. But it does not appear to be used in any strict sense prior to 1900, so it would be rather instructive to be shown some example of 19th-century usage in Scandinavia.
The best we seem to get is a gesture towards a possible source for any of the Scandinavian stuff is "Bernhard Linder, Adel og godseje : adelsleksikon, Aschehoug, 2004" (tagged at the bottom of "Dansk uradel", but no specifics whatsoever. You would assume that genealogy geeks are people who care about documentation, but apparently not. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is correct that the construction ‘uradel’ is borrowed from German ‘Uradel’. The separate words ‘ur-’ and ‘adel’, however, are regarded as Norwegian (Danish etc.) words, the latter being introduced in the times when the North German Oldenburgers came to the Kingdoms.
- I do not know when this term earliest is documented in Norway. Its usage has never been widespread, though except in popular genealogy/history.
- I have never liked this term used as a scientific term, as I suspect it to be a product of the romantic nationalism. It was coined in the 1820, i.e. during the Spätromantik. Do you know whether there is a relation? — Breadbasket 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The 1926 edition of Nordisk familjebok asserts that
Uradel kallas vanligen en före år 1350 som adlig nämnd släkt, hvilken dessutom bör kunna påvisa en alldeles klar genealogi för minst 200 år och bevisadt samband med medlemmar, som lefvat vid midten af 1300-talet. Att just denna tidpunkt valts, beror därpå, att det äldsta kända adelsbrevet är från 1360 och därmed brefadeln framträder.
- (which roughly translates as:)
"Uradel" is the term for a noble family attested before the year 1350, which also should be able to show a perfectly clear geneology for at least 200 years and a proven connection with members living in the middle of the 14th centry. That this specific point in time was chosen is due to the oldest known letter of nobility dating to 1360 and that the patent nobility then arose.
- The encyclopedia is, sadly, not more specific than that. Gabbe (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
it's just a technical term in genealogy. You don't need to bother about its "Romanticist" connotations, I do not think that German ur- has the same grandiose implications as English "ancient" or "primeval"; in this context it just means "original", meaning, the nobility which was there before it became fashionable to issue letters patent.
The bit about "migration period" roots which I removed was just pulled from thin air. Yes, it appears to mean "before 1350". This is not an arbitrary date, but based on the fact that letters patent began to be issued in Germany right about then.
Apparently the technical meaning is exactly the same in Scandinavia. This doesn't confirm that the term was introduced before 1900, but at least we have your 1926 reference now, so let's quote that. If you want to go into how the term is "avoided" in "scientific literature" today, you'll have to show sources for that too. Genealogy isn't necessarily a topic of "science", it is a field of its own, with its own jargon. It's not "scientific" jargon, its genealogists' jargon. I have no idea whether the term is still current among Scandinavian genealogists, you tell me. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Du lustiger Kerl. SNL is written by Norway's leading experts on their respective fields. — Breadbasket 20:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Breadbasket, I am now beginning to lose patience with you. It is clear that you are out of your depth, and I have tried to accommodate your contributions as much as possible, but this is going too far now.
For your information, I did not refer to "the SNL" (1906), I referred specifically to snl.no. May I quote Om Store norske leksikon at you, since you are clearly not able to do your own research?
- Likevel blir mange av de viktigste endringene i leksikonet gjort av vanlige lesere. Alle som bruker Store norske leksikon har mulighet til å prøve seg som leksikonforfattere, men ikke alle kan godkjenne artikler.
Also, how exactly did you manage to include File:Coatofarms-Skeel.jpg with a note of "Drawer: unknown", when the image page is perfectly clear that the image is a scan from a work by "Danish heraldist Anders Thiset (1850–1917)"? I don't know which is more perplexing, that you include an image of which you seem to be completely unaware whether it is pertinent, or that you go out of your way to tag the very image you just included as uneference when it is perfectly referenced.
Look, you are welcome to contribute even if your research skills are, ahem, limited. But you need to adapt your tone to the quality of your contributions. Either you know what you are talking about and have all the relevant references right there for the asking. Then you can afford to be a little curt. Or you just have a hazy notion of what you want to write about, and force other editors to do your research for you, but then it would be polite to sit back and not impede the work of the editors who do your job. If you find this is impossible for you, please limit yourself to editing articles on topics where you actually know what you are doing. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Snl.no was until recently the website of the Store Norske Leksikon, Norway's preeminent encyclopedia published by its two leading publishing houses. The vast majority of the articles are the articles from the printed version written by experts. They only recently lost the competition against Wikipedia and stopped maintaining it in the traditional way, opening up for other contributors. The articles that also appear in the printed encyclopedia published from 1978 to 2010 are normal encyclopedic sources on par with the Encyclopedia Britannica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontorist99 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This article includes too much information about the term Uradel in Scandinavia, although in English it is primarily used to refer to German nobility. I tried to accommodate Breadbasket's attempt to put more non-German than German info by referring to the term's "Northern European" usage, but that keeps getting reverted by Breadbasket, whose efforts to skew the article are noted in the section above, as well as other editors' objections thereto. As clearly indicated in the section above, this term's usage for Scandinavian nobility is minimally documented, and its usage for Scandinavian nobility in the English language is completed undocumented. The result is that the article violates Wikipedia's undue emphasis standard by implying that the term is as associated with the nobility of Norway as with Germany's nobility, and relying upon Scandinavian standards rather than German standards to define the term. Therefore, I am editing the article both for balance and for the quality of English. FactStraight (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The term is well established in Denmark (Den Store Danske Encyklopædi section on history of Denmark 1536-1849 , official dictionary ) and Sweden (Nationalencyklopedin , Nordisk familjebok )), while sometimes also used in Norwegian contexts (Store Norske Leksikon ). On the other hand, just as you can refer to the nobility of the once 300 German-speaking states as "German nobility", you can refer to the nobility of the Scandinavian countries, for example, collectively as the Scandinavian nobility. Northern European would include the Baltic countries as well, the nobility of which largely forms part of the "German nobility", i.e. the nobility with German culture/language. Listing all the 300 German-speaking states individually in the introduction would be silly, so there is no need to list each Scandinavian country specifically, "Scandinavian nobility" would suffice.
Obviously the article should neither be German-centric nor Scandinavian-centric. This is a term adopted in Germany and based on the German model in Scandinavia in the 19th century, and a well known term in genealogy in the two Scandinavian countries with a substantial nobility.
- The term should be defined to portray prevalent usage rather than obscure usage. "Northern Europe" is a general term and does not suggest any specific nation. Your interpretations of the term's prevalence in Norway or Scandinavia have been disputed in the section above, clearly indicating there is a lack of consensus for this article's emphasis on it. The objection isn't that the term was not used in Scandinavia nor that the article shouldn't mention Scandinavia, but that Uradel is primarily used to refer to the German nobility -- and that reality is obfuscated when as much of the articlel refers to Scandinavian as to German usage. FactStraight (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- It has not been established that the term is now used more prevalently in Germany than in Scandinavia. The term was introduced in the final years of the HRE, i.e. before there even was any country called "Germany". It was primarily used in Prussia in the 19th century. The cultural connections between Prussia and Sweden were rather stronger than, say, between Prussia and Austria or Bavaria, hence the category "Germany" if used in the post-1990 territorial sense makes very limited sense here. Perhaps you can use "German" in the 19th-century sense of "German Confederation", but if you want to define "German nobility" in an ethnic sense, you have your work cut out for you, as you will find loosely "German"-derived nobility sprawled over much of Europe, anywhere between Sevilla and Moscow, pretty much for the last 500 years or so. --dab (𒁳) 13:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nor has it been established that the term is now used in English as prevalently to refer to Scandinavia's nobility as to Germany's. Since the association of Uradel with Scandinavia as comparable to Germany was disputed when last discussed on this page (I continue to agree with the challenge and to dispute the usage) and no consensus reached, it remains undue weight for the article to reflect that POV. Nor do I concur that in the 19th century "The cultural connections between Prussia and Sweden were rather stronger than, say, between Prussia and Austria or Bavaria", except in the area of religious faith. FactStraight (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)