Hi! Can I ask you some silly questions? (it's very long so I'm sorry in advance🥲):
I just started reading about the Napoleonic era, and one thing bothers me is how did the marshals, or generals, or whoever under Napoleon's court, got their titles. Every books I read they just said "...and he was made the Duke of [insert land]" and move on. I'm aware that they earned it through military achievements, but is there any specific requirements to be met here? Why some got even Prince titles and did they have any distinctions from Dukes? Also, did they have to do anything with the land they got their titles from?
Thank you for the question! I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge but I cannot stress enough that this knowledge will not go far. I’m not a historian, and when it comes to the details of politics and administration, it does not take long for me to be out of my depths. But maybe somebody else can add more information. Because I think the question is rather interesting, with Napoleon installing a new aristocracy so soon after the Revolution had taken care to abolish the old.
In general, the new nobility received their titles the same way the old nobility had: it was granted by the monarch, in Napoleon’s case through an imperial decree. So, the main requirement if you wanted a nobility title was to be in Napoleon’s good graces, or to be friends with somebody who was and could put in a good word for you. The marshals, generals, politicians, surgeons, bankers and whoever else was added to the bunch all received their »lettres patentes«, basically their certificate that stated they now were a duke, count or baron, and that was that.
The ranking, from highest to lowest, was: prince – duke – count – baron – chevalier.
I understand that at least some of the higher titles did come with some requirements. The family had to have a »majorat«, a set of properties, usually a castle, real estate and a certain amount of values, that had to be passed on in its entirety to the next title holder. As the marshals usually did not have the required amount of wealth, many castles and much money actually came from Napoleon.
In general, the titles »Duc de Frioul«, »Duc de Montebello« etc. were honorary titles, i.e., really only names. They did not give their owners any special rights in the city or region they were named after – except in some cases for the princes.
Berthier, prince de Neuchâtel (also prince de Wagram)
Bernadotte, prince de Ponte Corvo
Talleyrand, prince de Benevent
Unlike in the domains of the former HRE, in France the term »prince« could designate the sovereign head of a country (in the HRE, »Herzog«, = duke was the lowest title for a sovereign, with prince merely designating somebody who belonged to a ruling house, afaik). So, the princes above actually owned a (usually rather small but technically to some degree independent) principality in the places they were named after, that they could administer, give laws in etc.
I’m not sure if it was the same for the later princely titles:
Davout, prince d’Eckmühl
Masséna, prince d’Essling
Ney, prince de la Moskowa
As the places they are named after did not belong to Napoleon’s empire, I presume their principalities were formed elsewhere. In a similar way Napoleon in early 1810 briefly planned to scrap together a »principality of Raab« for his stepson Eugène that surely would not have been in Hungary.
And then there’s Lannes, who is always special 😊. I understand he actually was gifted with a principality in Poland, but somehow never bothered to go through the stupid paperwork to also receive the title of »prince de Sievers«.
In addition, there are also the imperial princes (members of the imperial family) and the grand dignitaries of the empire who also held a – non-hereditary! – title of prince while they were in office. But I’ll leave those aside. I find this all complicated enough.
Back to the marshals: Originally, only two of them were princes, Berthier and Bernadotte. As to the duke titles, they fall in two categories: some are named after a specific military feat of the title holder, and some are just generic.
Davout: Duc d’Auerstädt (needs no explanation, I guess)
Kellermann: Duc de Valmy (battle of Valmy 1792)
Lannes: Duc de Montebello (battle of Montebello 1800)
Lefebvre: Duc de Dantzig (siege of Danzig in 1807)
Masséna: Duc de Rivoli (battle of Rivoli 1796)
Ney: Duc d’Elchingen (battle of Elchingen 1805)
You could add to that number Marmont’s title of Duc de Raguse, because while Marmont did not win any specific battle, he resided in that city and governed the region, so it did have something to do with him.
Whereas, to my knowledge, most other marshals had no particular relation to the place they were named after. I’m not sure how the names were assigned to the newly declared dukes, maybe Napoleon just opened an Atlas or dropped a pencil onto a map. In the case of Soult (Duc de Dalmatie), that duke never as much as set a foot into Dalmatia. And he was highly disappointed not to have been named »Duc d’Austerlitz« or at least »Duc de Pratzen«, after his corps had contributed so much to the victory there.
Speaking of disappointments: Masséna in turn wanted to be named »Duc de Zurich«, as he rightfully saw that battle as his greatest military feat. But it seems Napoleon only handed out titles for battles that had some relation to him. When Masséna won Zurich, Napoleon unfortunately had been in Egypt, so … sorry, André.
That’s all I can come up with as of now – if you have more questions, please ask away! If I cannot answer, I’m pretty sure the marshalate fandom can. 😊
Thanks once more!
18 notes
·
View notes
18th century French lord x ornamental garden hermit living on his property, m/m, original male character, French nobility, slow burn, unhealthy power dynamics, enemies to friends to lovers, clasism, daddy issues, younger man x older man, French politics, French kissing, forbidden romance, 253k words, 37/37 chapters.
0 notes
PROPERTY OF A ROYAL FAMILY - 19TH CENTURY SAPPHIRE AND DIAMOND PARURE
IMPORTANT 19TH CENTURY SAPPHIRE AND DIAMOND CROWN
Octagonal step-cut and oval-shaped sapphires, varied old-cut diamonds, gold, 1840s, 45.3 cm, brown fitted case
EARLY 19TH CENTURY IMPORTANT SAPPHIRE AND DIAMOND TIARA
Octagonal step-cut and oval-shaped sapphires, rose and old-cut diamonds, gold, circa 1800, 49.0 cm, black fitted case
TWO EARLY 19TH CENTURY SAPPHIRE AND DIAMOND PENDANTS
Oval-shaped sapphire, old-cut diamonds, gold, circa 1800, 3.6 cm
Octagonal step-cut sapphire, old-cut diamonds, gold, circa 1800, 3.2 cm
TWO EARLY 19TH CENTURY SAPPHIRE AND DIAMOND BROOCHES
Oval-shaped sapphire, old-cut diamonds, gold, circa 1800, 3.7 cm
Octagonal step-cut sapphire, rose and old-cut diamonds, gold, circa 1800, 3.6 cm
EARLY 19TH CENTURY SAPPHIRE AND DIAMOND EARRINGS
Pear and cushion-shaped sapphires, old-cut diamonds, gold, circa 1800, 4.4 cm
EARLY 19TH CENTURY SAPPHIRE AND DIAMOND BRACELET
Octagonal step-cut sapphires, old-cut diamonds, gold, circa 1800, 17.5 cm
EARLY 19TH CENTURY SAPPHIRE AND DIAMOND RING
Octagonal step-cut sapphire, single and old-cut diamonds, gold, circa 1800, ring size 6 ½
EARLY 19TH CENTURY SAPPHIRE AND DIAMOND NECKLACE
Octagonal step-cut sapphires, rose and old-cut diamond, gold, circa 1800, 40.5 cm, black fitted case
Christie's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
52 notes
·
View notes
I feel so, so dumb, but until very recently, I didn't understand that when revolutionaries (particularly during the Convention) talked about aristocrats, they didn't mean on nobility. They meant on each other. It was a slur/accusation against each other and members of the bourgeoise.
For former members of nobility, they used "ci-devant noble" moniker. And they didn't talk that much about them - the old nobles were stripped from their privileges and didn't exist as a group anymore. They were a potential threat in terms of counter-revolution, yes, but the talk about aristocrats was so often about the (rich) bourgeoise trying to use the revolution to get on the top. Such members of the bourgeoise, including deputies, were called aristocrats as a slur. This is why denunciation speeches and the like are full of references to aristocracy. This is why SJ called Danton an aristocrat, and was called an aristocrat in return.
How... how could I miss this for so long? 0_0
50 notes
·
View notes