Talk:Constantine I, Prince of Mukhrani

Dynastic Princes of Mukhrani
References on English Wikipedia to the House of Mukhrani, the senior branch of Georgia's former Bagrationi dynasty, as dynastic princes are being minimised by Jaqeli despite the fact that he asked and was told here that the standard English translation of Mukhranbatoni is "Prince of Mukhrani". Jaqeli and I disagree about the dynasticity of the Mukhrani in Georgia, which is why instead of substituting "dynast" for "nobleman" as I think it should be, I've compromised, restoring NPOV by simply omitting "nobleman" and leaving "Georgian" -- a term on which we both agree. FactStraight (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem with noblemen? They were noblemen or non-ruling members of the elite at least during this period since they haven't ruled since 1505. This part doesn't undermine the current families claims at all. Kober, a person that can be trusted when it comes to Georgian history, started out the article with nobleman. Leaving it at Georgian seems silly. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Omitting "nobleman" is my suggested compromise: Jaqeli refers to the Mukhraneli in every article he can as "noble" (to propound the notion that they were mere nobility rather than Georgian dynasts). If I describe Louis Henri, Prince of Condé as "a French nobleman" and you prefer "a French dynast", a reasonable compromise would be: "He was a Frenchman" and then just give specific ancestry and titles, avoiding that conflict in terminology. I'm willing to accept that, so instead of substituting "dynast" for "nobleman", I've left out both terms. FactStraight (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobility can be dynastic or non-dynastic. So, I don't quite understand what this dispute is about. I think the reason behind this confusion is somewhat problematic literary translation of Georgian titles in Western languages. The system of Georgian feudal aristocracy was quite specific and in many respects different from that in Western Europe. The issue here is not the standing of the Mukhranians as branch of the royal dynasty, but their legal status within the Georgian feudal hierarchy. FactStraight, you are exactly right in asserting that the title Mukhranbatoni is translated as a Prince (or, more literally, Lord) of Mukhrani in English. You are also correct that they were a dynasty, a princely dynasty, which is the translation of the Georgian tavadi, that is, the high nobility, “princes of the first class” if you want. But their status within the Georgian kingdom (of Kartli) was that of noble, tavadi. They were one of the five “undivided princely houses” of Georgia, held in high esteem on account of their descent from the royal dynasty, but legally not different from the other four, e.g., Dukes of Aragvi. As ruling princes of Mukhrani, they would remain so even after a line of that family acceded to the throne in 1658; those members of the family which continued to rule Mukhrani, remained tavadi within the Georgian hierarchy. The fact that they, as Princes of Mukhrani, were part of nobility cannot be disputed.
 * Please note that I take no sides in this “seniority” dispute and I’m not commenting on which branch is senior, junior, or eligible to claim headship of the Royal House of Georgia in the 21st century. Honestly, I consider this ongoing discussion in Georgia way too much anachronistic and even ridiculious. The current claim of the Mukhranians, rightful or not, is based on their supposed genealogical seniority and the fact that the Mukhrani line, which once held the crown, is now extinct. But that does not change the legal status and titles their ancestors enjoyed in the 17th and 18th centuries.
 * In summary, I concur with FactStraight in that their title should be translated as “Prince” and that they were a princely dynasty. At the same time, I fully support Jaqeli in that the Mukhranians’ status in Kartli was tavadi, that is, nobility equal to the Western European “dynastic princes”, “princes of the first rank”, or whatever they would call it in English. Again, the issue of genealogical superiority and the legality of claim to being a Royal House of Georgia have nothing to do with that. --KoberTalk 14:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)