Talk:Prince-Bishopric of Utrecht

[Untitled]
I just cleaned the article a bit and added some whitespace, so the article is no longer just one big pile of text. The article might need a new introduction though. Goingin 16:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

distinguish bishop from archdiocese
The article as it stands is a bit confusing being both concerned with both the persons of the (Arch)bishop and the (insitution) of the Diocese. I am going to rewrite a bit and will split this article in 2, maybe three articles. (considering the fact that the OC and RC Dioceses of Utrecht are quite different institutions.

--Isolani 14:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, at least for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese. Don't know what folks want to do with the Old Catholics. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is a conflation of several concepts
The article is a conflation of the actual Bishopric of Utrecht, which was disestablished in 1528, and its successor, the Lordship of Utrecht, which was established in 1528.

Both the Dutch Wikipedia article |"Sticht Utrecht" and the French Wikipedia article | "Principauté d'Utrecht" show that it ended in 1528.

George Edmundson wrote, in History of Holland, that Henry of the Palatinate, "who in opposition to his wishes had been elected Bishop of Utrecht, was compelled (1528) to cede to" Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, "the temporalities of the see, retaining the spiritual office only." Joseph Lins wrote, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, that Henry of the Palatinate who was also Bishop of Freising and Worms, resigned the see in 1528 with the consent of the chapter, and transferred his secular authority to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, who was also Duke of Brabant and Count of Holland. Thus Utrecht came under the sovereignty of the Hapsburgs; the Chapters voluntarily transferred their right of electing the bishop to Charles V, and Pope Clement VII gave his consent to the proceeding. The article also confuses two types of administrative areas, the "Diocese of Utrecht", an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, with the "Bishopric of Utrecht", a civil jurisdiction. The diocese existed before, during, and after the bishopric.

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

added content about 18th century events in an article about something that ended in 1528. This was clearly a misunderstanding about what the article was about. added content which corrected the list of officials and added historical context but that correction was edited to:

Similarly, and the. A few months later, along with the (which was incorrectly located in a header).

I think that, in which Arnoutf changed part of the lead from: "[...] is a former Archbishopric [...] until the collapse of the Empire in the French Revolutionary Wars in 1806, being a territory of the Habsburgs from 1528 onwards." to: "[...] is the Archbishopric [...] until the reformation in the Netherlands ended the official Catholic church hierarchy in 1580. The archbishopric was reinstated in 1853." because the contributor thought he needed to "remove anti reformation/pro catholic POV lines" but unfortunately distorted the basic facts about the subject. Again, in my opinion, just because the article is a conflation.

These facts need reliable sources and to be reintegrated into the article.

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, Watisfictie to the Archdiocese of Utrecht (695–1580) article. I, BoBoMisiu, Watisfictie's edit and removed the Infobox.

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

BoBoMisiu, I thought it was wel known that in the early middle ages kings transferred worldly powers to bishops, since bishops - in contrary to counts and dukes - ought not to leave legitimate heirs. More on this in the following references, supporting that Archdiocese Utrecht had civil jurisdiction, before the Bishopric of Utrecht was erected: --Watisfictie (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) http://books.google.nl/books?id=Y50fi5AvrY8C&lpg=PA90&dq=bishop%20utrecht%20secular%20power&hl=nl&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q=utrecht%20secular%20power&f=false
 * 2) http://books.google.nl/books?id=bnZocwvkcykC&lpg=PA158&dq=bishop%20utrecht%20secular%20power&hl=nl&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q=bishop%20utrecht%20secular%20power&f=false
 * 3) http://books.google.nl/books?id=ShOnykzju1QC&lpg=PA274&dq=bishop%20utrecht%20medieval%20authority&hl=nl&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q=bishop%20utrecht%20medieval%20authority&f=false


 * Watisfictie, thanks for the links. I do see what you are reading but I disagree with you.


 * Marco Mosert makes it clear that around 900 the Carolingians "did not manage to keep the peace" so the local aristocracy increased their power. He also wrote that the king "retained the right to invest them with their secular offices" which implies that the king could divest them of those same "secular offices" . I do not see that the king had a the right to invest or divest any ecclesiastic office. Door Randall Lesaffer makes it clear that earlier Carolingian feudal contract "was a real contract" . The Numismatischer Verlag Fritz-Rudolf Künker makes it clear that Utrecht was "part of the Ottonian system" "to counterbalance the political weight of local secular lords" . Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, flourished c. 936 which leaves more than two centuries earlier not discussed in these sources.


 * Appointments of bishops, as individuals, to administer royal properties or estates in the region was not the same over the period of many centuries. The royal territories changed but were not the same as the diocesan feudal estates. Even after the bishops were appointed as princes, the diocese still retained some separate estates from the royal territories. That did not make the diocese an equivalent of the local secular rulers and aristocracy. The diocese was not same type of thing as the royal estates that, at times, some bishops managed. Just as today, a farmer can also be the leader of a local government at the same time and in that capacity manage properties owned by that government. That farmer is concurrently a farmer managing a farm and a leader managing all that he was appointed to do. The farmer might also evangelize for a religion. Nevertheless, that farm is still a farm and not government property.


 * —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Lists of bishops
I think that this article, as well as the related articles found in the relevant discussion box above, can be improved by: Please comment in Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht to centralize the discussion.
 * moving all the lists of bishops during the period before the suppression of the original archdiocese into either Archdiocese of Utrecht (695–1580) article or List of bishops and archbishops of Utrecht (695–1580) or List of bishops and archbishops of Utrecht, as is done in the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia
 * moving all the lists of bishops and administrators during the period of the missions into either Dutch Mission or List of apostolic vicars and officials of the Dutch Mission, as is done in the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia
 * moving all the lists of Old Catholic archbishops into either Old Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht or a separate List of Old Catholic archbishops of Utrecht, as is done in the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia
 * The Bishopric of Utrecht existed from 1024 to 1528. The only those bishops who were in the ecclesial office between 1024 and 1528 were also in the contemporaneous secular office of prince ruling over secular feudal estates. This should either be noted in a list of bishops or be contained in a separate List of prince-bishops and prince-archbishops of Utrecht.

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have made bold to remove from here the names of bishops of Utrecht who were not prince-bishops: they don't belong here. Whether it is enough to direct the reader who wants to know the name of the prince-bishops to the list of the bishops of the same period is another matter. I am neutral on that question. Esoglou (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Successor states
I changed the successor states from to Lordship of Utrecht, Lordship of Overijssel, and County of Drenthe with. Watisfictie. The Burgundian Netherlands article shows that time frame is 1384–1482 while the Habsburg Netherlands article shows that time frame is 1482–1581. The Bishopric of Utrecht was disestablished in 1528 and could not be succeeded by Burgundian Netherlands which was disestablished in 1482 – that is 46 year earlier. The Lordship of Utrecht, Lordship of Overijssel, and County of Drenthe are the specific states within the Holy Roman Empire that succeeded the Bishopric of Utrecht. This is also shown on the Sticht Utrecht page which is the Dutch version of the Bishopric of Utrecht page. Habsburg Netherlands "is the collective name of Holy Roman Empire fiefs in the Low Countries held by the House of Habsburg". I to the more specific state names. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In 1528, Utrecht, Overijssel and Drenthe consolidated with the other fiefs in the Low Countries when they came under one (Habsburg) ruler: Charles V. His Burgundian predecessors tried to do the same in Utrecht before and the other fiefs. Charles V was count of Holland, Duke of Brabant etc etc, so he restyled his title "Lord of the Netherlands". Being count of Holland or Lord of Utrecht lost by that time its meaning--Watisfictie (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The states of Utrecht, Overijssel and Drenthe had separate governance. I think that saying "Charles V was count of Holland, Duke of Brabant etc" shows there were separate states which were ruled by a common individual, Charles V. He appointed separate stadtholders for the Lordship of Utrecht and Lordship of Overijssel. The states had separate names and were not merged into a monolith but were ruled by separate stadtholders representing Charles V. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Bishopric of Utrecht was under the influence of Burgundians, see Flemish revolts against Maximilian of Austria. That article includes a map which shows Utrecht was not actually part of the Burgundian holdings. The Bishopric of Utrecht is not listed in the article about the short lived decentralization of the Great Privilege. I do not find any evidence that 1482 is a disestablishment date in the history of the Bishopric of Utrecht. George Edmundson History of Holland, a source that Watisfictie also used (see here), states that
 * Timeline of Burgundian and Habsburg acquisitions in the Low Countries article also shows the year 1528 and not 1482. The Burgundian Netherlands article states that the Burgundian Netherlands "were a number of Imperial and French fiefs ruled in personal union by the House of Valois-Burgundy and their Habsburg heirs in the period from 1384 to 1482." The personal union article states that "A personal union is the combination of two or more different states who have the same monarch while their boundaries, laws, and interests remain distinct. It differs from a federation in that each constituent state has an independent government, whereas a federal state is united by a central government." Boleslaw Boczek states in, International law, that such "personal union does not acquire its own international legal personality." Bengt Broms explained, in International law, that "a personal union does not signify the rise of a new unitary State" and each state "remains independent" so they may have similar foreign policies but "have different organs for internal legislation and administration."Broms points out that this was the case with Charles V.


 * —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) modified 16:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That would also imply that the predecessor state of the Bishopric of Utrecht is the diocese of Utrecht, since the bishop of the diocese of Utrecht was the placeholder (or: stadtholder) of the king. Something you yourself reject in another discussion on this page. I quote: 'Just as today, a farmer can also be the leader of a local government at the same time and in that capacity manage properties owned by that government. That farmer is concurrently a farmer managing a farm and a leader managing all that he was appointed to do.'--Watisfictie (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe the predecessor state of the Bishopric of Utrecht was the Duchy of Lower Lorraine. I am still reading about this period and that understanding may change. The bishop prior to the establishment of the Bishopric of Utrecht was a vassal but I am not sure if he was a stadtholder. Adalbold II of Utrecht is credited with being the first prince-bishop which implies he was the first to hold a concurrent ecclesiastical role and a secular role in the Holy Roman Empire. The Dutch article lists various land donations but it does not list sources and is not include enough details. This is something that needs to be researched and developed in the article. I'll read through those references you for more information. But, I feel confident that the diocese was not the state prior to the establishment of the Bishopric of Utrecht. Part of the problem in understanding both types of thing is the English language use of the word bishopric for this organizational unit which lacks the specificity that the Dutch, French, and German words have. My quote was describing how a person can have more than one role in separate organizations concurrently; I never meant to say that the organizations merged. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Lower Lorraine or the diocese of Utrecht could both be interpreted as the "predecessor state", depending on the point of view. The same counts for the Burgundian Netherlands or Lordship of Utrecht as "successor state". This has to do with the definition of a state. What we today see as a (national) 'state' did not exist in the Middle Ages. Also, in the 9th century Viking raids took place, of which the Franks had no defence. This perhaps explains also why the Frankish king handed over land and property to bishops - the Franks didn't have much control anyhow.


 * "The Dutch article lists various land donations but it does not list sources and is not include enough details." - I added some references in this list.--Watisfictie (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither the diocese nor the Burgundian Netherlands were states while Lower Lorraine and the Lordship of Utrecht were states – it is not a "point of view". My opinion is that the geography of the Rhine delta restricted real centralized control of the area. A garrison in the castle or town of Utrecht, in my opinion, could not control a large area through military acts alone. The local Frisian landowners, who were not states, must have been integrated into the power structure of the state (what ever that was) and maintained feudal stability for the state prior to the establishment of the Bishopric of Utrecht. Again, this is only my speculation while I do more research. The best case is that I find a source that describes the fragmentation of Lower Lorraine with dates from the period prior to the establishment of the Bishopric of Utrecht that names the state in the area.


 * I added my translation of Sticht_Utrecht to Talk:Bishopric of Utrecht/Cartulary section draft. I don't have the vocabulary to read through Dutch references though. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC) modified 23:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Cartulary section draft
I created a talkspace draft for collaborate on a cartulary section for the article. I believe this will help develop content about the history prior to the 1024 establishment of the Bishopric of Utrecht.

View the draft page at Talk:Bishopric of Utrecht/Cartulary section draft.

View the the draft's talk page at Talk:Bishopric of Utrecht/Cartulary section draft-talk. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Episcopal principality of Utrecht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070805192352/http://www.kdc.kun.nl/geschiedenis/vicarissen.html to http://www.kdc.kun.nl/geschiedenis/vicarissen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Article title
I've restored the article to the original title of Bishopric of Utrecht over the redirect that was created by a move in 2015. The term used in describing episcopal principalities within the Holy Roman Empire is "Bishopric of X", compare 38 hits for "episcopal principality of Utrecht" to 15,500 hits for "bishopric of Utrecht". The term used in article titles across enwiki for spiritual territories is, similarly "Bishopric of X" and, while the Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't cover this in separate articles, it refers to "bishopric of … Utrecht" and "Sticht of Utrecht" in their article History of the Low Countries (my emphasis): and  —   OwenBlacker (talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 11:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)