Final Report Summary - RANK (The Formation and Visualisation of the Social and Political Order of Princes in late Medieval Europe. A Comparative Study between the Empire and England)
RANK brought together historians and art/architectural historians to work on a common historical phenomenon: the formation and visualization of princely rank in late medieval Europe. The research group focused their work on England, the Empire and, to some extent, on France in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, a crucial period in the formation of aristocratic ranks. Comparisons between these realms, in particular between the Empire and England, were a major aim of the project.
Taking into account work by social anthropologists/ethnologists the group conceptualized rank as a tool to analyse processes of social differentiation and configurations of socio-political orders in hierarchically structured societies. Broadly speaking rank is defined on a collective level, i.e. the membership of a certain group and thus a relationship of equality. Rank can also be defined as a hierarchical relationship (on the collective or the individual level) and consequently in terms of difference and inequality. The factors constituting rank can shift over time and can be different from one socio-political order to the other.
The research confirmed that the Empire, England and France constituted entities of rank, each having their own ranking system centered on the respective ruler. It is only in the fifteenth century that due to the councils of Constance and Basle a ranking on a European scale needed to be developed. RANK also shows that, while England and the Empire shared most of the factors constituting rank (e. g. power, i.e. lands and people, antiquity, i.e. age of person or lordship, or dignity [titles, offices etc.]), the factors differed in their relative importance. Military service or blood relationship to the king was significantly more important in England than in the Empire. Money as such was no factor, but when it came to express ambitions through large scale building programmes, large retinues or splendid display and largesse, it could make a difference.
Both, England and the Empire, witnessed processes of social differentiation of their respective aristocracies. In England, the differences between the individual grades seem to have been less marked than in the Empire. The different inheritance patterns favouring primogeniture in England and partition among brothers in princely families in the Empire (in regards to the families of the electors at least until the issue of the Golden Bull in 1356/7) were at least in part responsible for this. Looking at ranking within a certain layer of rank (i.e. imperial princes or earls) it is possible to identify top, middling and bottom groups in both realms, but it is much harder to speak of fixed individual ranking (with the exception of the electors from 1356/6 onwards).
England and the Empire developed different ideas on who represented the realm. Emperor and imperial princes (re)presented the Empire in the thirteenth century. With the emergence of the electors this began to change towards the end of the thirteenth century. They, instead of all imperial princes, became to (re)present the Empire together with the Emperor. In the long run the political estates developed alongside the grades of aristocratic ranking that emerged in the fourteenth century. In England, the emergence of parliament encompassing not only members of the upper aristocracy but also representatives of the gentry and the commons played a crucial role in shaping the socio-political order. The notion ‘peer’ for members of the later so-called House of Lords regardless of their different grades of rank was influenced by the formation of the later so-called House of Commons. As a result, the political estates developed along the houses of parliament, not along the different ranks of the upper aristocracy.
Taking into account work by social anthropologists/ethnologists the group conceptualized rank as a tool to analyse processes of social differentiation and configurations of socio-political orders in hierarchically structured societies. Broadly speaking rank is defined on a collective level, i.e. the membership of a certain group and thus a relationship of equality. Rank can also be defined as a hierarchical relationship (on the collective or the individual level) and consequently in terms of difference and inequality. The factors constituting rank can shift over time and can be different from one socio-political order to the other.
The research confirmed that the Empire, England and France constituted entities of rank, each having their own ranking system centered on the respective ruler. It is only in the fifteenth century that due to the councils of Constance and Basle a ranking on a European scale needed to be developed. RANK also shows that, while England and the Empire shared most of the factors constituting rank (e. g. power, i.e. lands and people, antiquity, i.e. age of person or lordship, or dignity [titles, offices etc.]), the factors differed in their relative importance. Military service or blood relationship to the king was significantly more important in England than in the Empire. Money as such was no factor, but when it came to express ambitions through large scale building programmes, large retinues or splendid display and largesse, it could make a difference.
Both, England and the Empire, witnessed processes of social differentiation of their respective aristocracies. In England, the differences between the individual grades seem to have been less marked than in the Empire. The different inheritance patterns favouring primogeniture in England and partition among brothers in princely families in the Empire (in regards to the families of the electors at least until the issue of the Golden Bull in 1356/7) were at least in part responsible for this. Looking at ranking within a certain layer of rank (i.e. imperial princes or earls) it is possible to identify top, middling and bottom groups in both realms, but it is much harder to speak of fixed individual ranking (with the exception of the electors from 1356/6 onwards).
England and the Empire developed different ideas on who represented the realm. Emperor and imperial princes (re)presented the Empire in the thirteenth century. With the emergence of the electors this began to change towards the end of the thirteenth century. They, instead of all imperial princes, became to (re)present the Empire together with the Emperor. In the long run the political estates developed alongside the grades of aristocratic ranking that emerged in the fourteenth century. In England, the emergence of parliament encompassing not only members of the upper aristocracy but also representatives of the gentry and the commons played a crucial role in shaping the socio-political order. The notion ‘peer’ for members of the later so-called House of Lords regardless of their different grades of rank was influenced by the formation of the later so-called House of Commons. As a result, the political estates developed along the houses of parliament, not along the different ranks of the upper aristocracy.