Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Prince-bishop: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Skipper Michael (talk | contribs)
Line 36: Line 36:
:::Yes, I answered to [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]]. --Yopie 11:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, I answered to [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]]. --Yopie 11:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I think Deacon is saying the same thing, as well - that it is anachronistic to suggest that these prince-bishoprics were, at the time, in different countries. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] ([[User talk:John Kenney|talk]]) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I think Deacon is saying the same thing, as well - that it is anachronistic to suggest that these prince-bishoprics were, at the time, in different countries. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] ([[User talk:John Kenney|talk]]) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::HRE covered definitiv the todays Kingdoms of Belgium and the Netherlands for a long time, I think untill 30-years-war (sorry, I should read first, but the book is not here this moment), aswell big parts of eastern French Kingdom (until Marseill and Lyon) in that time was no difference between PBs there and other parts of the HRE. If the PB afterwards only behold the title or if they really could stay in a status a ruling duke sorry, I don't know. Nevertheless I don't think that they had in fact a PBs power, for it doesn't agree to Netherlands or Belgiums staate-philosophy, nor to the french absolutism, to give a dukes power to a Bishops or Archbishops See. --[[User:Skipper Michael|Skipper Michael]] ([[User talk:Skipper Michael|talk]]) 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:27, 7 April 2010

WikiProject iconCatholicism Stub‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconPrince-bishop is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPolitics Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bishopric?

I stumbled onto this topic, and have heard of prince-bishops numerous times, but "bishopric"? I'd flag this as possible vandalism but I just don't know enough about the topic - would a clarifying statement for the word-usage not be a useful inclusion? Tom Meakin (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bishopric is valid, use Google, Merriam-Webster etc.--Yopie 23:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


this is not a dictionary, but since there was a dismally inept attempt to include this, the definition has now been turned into English. JHK

Well, this page could usefully be improved by giving a list of Prince-Bishops. olivier 06:28 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we could be told how Prince-Bishops came to attain their positions, by appointment, by succession? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Section "In Switzerland" is misleading

Having this as a separate section is misleading. The prince-bishopric of Basel was never part of Switzerland. The city of Basel and the bishopric were two separate political entities. The city joined Switzerland but the bishopric remained part of the Holy Roman Empire, until it ceased to exist when it was annexed by Napolean and became part of France. Only in 1815 did (most) of the territory of the former bishopric become part of Switzerland. I have moved the entry. TiffaF 06:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it again, because the titel says "in what is now Switzerland" - almost all the territory ruled by the prince-bishops are situated in nowadays Switzerland. Furthermore also the bishops where allies of the confederacy between 16th and 18th century. Apart from this - the Swiss Confederacy was part of the Roman Empire as well until 1648. The prince-abbot of St. Gall and the prince-bishop of Chur remained princes of the empire even after that time until 1806, their territory being part of the Confedercy simultaneously. Sidonius (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Division of the Holy Roman Empire is a mess

The division of the Holy Roman Empire by what modern countries the bishoprics were in is not a very good way to do it, especially as it's not consistent. I think it should all be listed together. john k 18:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, were Seckau, Gurk, and Lavant, actually prince-bishoprics? If they were, they were not in the same category as the others, since they were presumably not immediate principalities, but rather owed allegiance to the emperor as Duke of Carinthia, or Duke of Styria, or whatever - they never had seats in the diet, certainly. john k 18:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National history

This article splits its coverage by political units which did not exist. It also created the impression that, for instance Austria, wasn't in Germany at the time when it was. A similar concern was left above. If the problem is not resolved I will restore the edit I made which was reverted without discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over your solution (which is certainly better than the previous status quo), I'd prefer listing all the entities that were within the Holy Roman Empire together, since they form a natural group - the modern countries can be talked about in notes on each individual case. john k (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your solution is without knowledge of this matter. Status of Prince-Bishop in HRE was different from Prince-Bishop in France, but all "P-B" in HRE have similar status, and this isnt depending on locality in modern Belgium, northern Italy, Germany or Austria. So, please, understand, that edit is unwelcomed. --Yopie 19:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we are saying the same thing. john k (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I answered to Deacon of Pndapetzim. --Yopie 11:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Deacon is saying the same thing, as well - that it is anachronistic to suggest that these prince-bishoprics were, at the time, in different countries. john k (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HRE covered definitiv the todays Kingdoms of Belgium and the Netherlands for a long time, I think untill 30-years-war (sorry, I should read first, but the book is not here this moment), aswell big parts of eastern French Kingdom (until Marseill and Lyon) in that time was no difference between PBs there and other parts of the HRE. If the PB afterwards only behold the title or if they really could stay in a status a ruling duke sorry, I don't know. Nevertheless I don't think that they had in fact a PBs power, for it doesn't agree to Netherlands or Belgiums staate-philosophy, nor to the french absolutism, to give a dukes power to a Bishops or Archbishops See. --Skipper Michael (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]