What does it mean, as in the usage, a "count palatine"?
I’ve always thought of the term as confering semi-sovereignty on said count. By that I mean he/she could make trade agreements, establish knightly orders, and maybe even an heraldic authority.
Is this a proper interpretation of "palatine", or do I have it wrong?
In Roman times it meant high officials related to the palatine hill (where the emperors lived). In other times and contexts it has been a title (sometimes of honor) given to high ranking officials in service of their sovereign often being seen as second to the monarch. In England it was given to nobles who were empowered to make decisions normally reserved to the crown. So, it depends on how its being used.
Second Fr Guy’s comments. Also, IIRC in the German states (Holy Roman Empire) these officials could grant arms—also IIRC with or without a concurrent grant of nobility?
—but my recollection is a bit fuzzy at this hour…
StarScepter;95986 wrote:
What does it mean, as in the usage, a "count palatine"?
I’ve always thought of the term as confering semi-sovereignty on said count. By that I mean he/she could make trade agreements, establish knightly orders, and maybe even an heraldic authority.
Is this a proper interpretation of "palatine", or do I have it wrong?
Like most words used in government, what it means depends greatly based on which country you’re talking about, and the period. In England Earls Palatine were frequently on the frontier, and the title was used for high-ranking Marcher lords, as well as nobleman on the other frontiers. Their major privilege was a tax exemption, but they also enjoyed the right to call their own Parliaments, name their own Barons, etc. AFAIK none of them ever tried to make a Knightly Order or establish a Heraldic Authority.
There’s an American connection. The Barons Baltimore who owned Maryland were not granted the title Earl Palatine, but they were granted the rights of an Earl Palatine in Maryland. He could have named someone Baron of Annapolis, and his provincial legislature did regulate heraldry, but he never appointed a King of Arms or created a Knightly Order.
The Count Palatine, from the Palatinate in the Holy Roman Empire, actually had those powers; but I’m not sure whether they were derived from his title of Count Palatine or from his status as an Elector-Prince of the Empire. It could a complicated question because he was only an Elector because he was Count Palatine; which creates an interesting chicken/egg problem.
Nick
Nick B II;96041 wrote:
There’s an American connection. The Barons Baltimore who owned Maryland were not granted the title Earl Palatine, but they were granted the rights of an Earl Palatine in Maryland. He could have named someone Baron of Annapolis, and his provincial legislature did regulate heraldry.
Slight correction: the Maryland legislative acts concerning heraldry (all having to do with changes of name and arms) all postdate independence. So it wasn’t the legislature of the Province of Maryland but that of the State that passed these acts.
One other heraldic connection to this in Maryland: it seems to have been on the basis of his powers as equivalent to those of the bishops of the County Palatine of Durham that Baron Baltimore arrogated to himself an earl’s coronet, a silver version of the gold sovereign’s helmet, and different set of supporters on his arms as used on his seal for Maryland.