Heirs

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hereditary men were the city nobility, the patriciate in the city and bishopric of Münster . According to the historian Wilfried Ehbrecht, the term was not derived from the word "inherit", as it appears, but rather from "honorable". It is also argued that the ownership of inheritance within the city or the inherited exclusive passive council suffrage led to the formation of the term. In any case, the heirs had both. In the hereditary man's dispute , which is called "unique" because of its enormous duration and its historical significance, the hereditary families, many of whom were knightly , successfully defended their legal equality with the landed gentry.

Meaning of the hereditary families

The class of hereditary men had already formed in the 12th century - partly in the wake of the bishops of Munster - and for centuries they had made a name for themselves as "first class citizens" in the city's defense and as councilors. Since the 15th century at the latest, they were generally considered noble . The so-called hereditary men from the vernacular originally provided only the members of the aldermen's college , the later city council, the mayors and the city judge. The hereditary men were the most exclusive patriciate in the empire. There is no documented case in which a family from the citizens of Münster was subsequently admitted to the circle of heirs. The only "newcomer" in the 14th century was the family v. Drolshagen , which until then belonged to the Hessian knighthood. Important hereditary families are the still flourishing Bischopinck , Droste zu Hülshoff , Kerckerinck , or were the extinct v. der Tinnen, v. der Wieck, Clevorn, Cleyhorst, Schenckinck, Stevening, Travelmann and Warendorf . The Belholt, Dusaes, Grael, Kneiling, Rode, Tilbeck, Voghet, v. Bocholt and v. Jüdefeld u. a. to the heirs. Streets in Münster are named after most of the hereditary families.

The hereditary men married almost exclusively among themselves, which later contributed to their decline. Marriages with members of the families of the collegiate nobility , probably also with the families of dynasties, also occurred, but marriages with "common" citizens did not. During the Hanseatic League , hereditary men were active in long-distance trade and in this way acquired great wealth. They must be counted as part of the “merchant oligarchy of the early Hanseatic era”. In addition, hereditary men served as noble castle men on the state fortresses, such as the Kerckerinck in Horstmar and the Bischopinck in Telgte and Ahlen, where the Droste zu Hülshoff also held this office.

Assets and possessions

By the 12th century at the latest, the noble blankets broke / Droste zu Hülshoff u. a. their eponymous Oberhof (Mark) in Everswinkel. The heirs also invested the wealth they had acquired in the city in landed property and rents. In the 13th century, the Kerckerinck family bought Haus Stapel . In the 14th the noble houses Brock, Kaldenhof, Lütkenbeck , Markenbeck, Ruhr, Stevern, Vögeding and Wilkinghege were hereditary property. The houses Alvinghoff, Amelsbüren, House Borg (Rinkerode) , Brückhausen, Ebbeling, Hülshoff Castle , Maser, Nysing, Rike, Kerkernitz, Cleyhorst, Bischopink, Aldebrandink, Schevenik, Tilbeck, Wyk Sentmaring, Soest, Sunger, Uhlenbrock, Getter, Handorf, Osthoff near Dülmen, Hacklenburg, Enckinckmühle, Telgte, Möllenbeck u. a. came later. Almost all hereditary moated castles were only a half-day ride from Münster. The history of hereditary property has been poorly researched. Actual real estate ownership was certainly far greater. So the hereditary men also had permanent houses in the city of Munster, the hereditary farms. These differed architecturally from the houses of the citizens and served as quarters for the ambassadors during the negotiations on the Peace of Westphalia. So then lived z. B. in the town courtyard of Droste zu Hülshoff at Alter Steinweg 30, the envoy of the House of Austria, Georg Ulrich Graf von Wolkenstein-Rodenegg.

Standing position

The hereditary men were generally considered noble since the 15th century at the latest . Heirs were canons in Munster, Osnabrück, Hildesheim, Frlitzlar and Bremen; the Schenckinck and von der Tinnen were sworn up by the Baltic knights. The original status of the hereditary families cannot be determined in every case. For not a few of the better-known hereditary families, the ministerial and thus primeval aristocratic origin is assured, for example for the Kerckerinck , the Droste zu Hülshoff as an originally noble family, Bock, Rodeleven and others. a. As descendants of the villici, the administrators of the Bispinghof in Münster (originally the Bischopinkhof), the Bischopinck must also be counted among the ancient hereditary families. In the Middle Ages the hereditary men had unhindered access to the cathedral chapter, for example members of the Kerckerinck and Droste zu Hülshoff families, who even lived with Johann III. vondeckebrock (1295–1349) held the hereditary office of drosten of the cathedral chapter and still provided two canons in the 15th century. The heir Gottfried de Ryke (Rike) was cathedral dean from 1328 to 1336. The heir Johann v. On January 5th, 1609, Bischopinck zu Nünning received an imperial nobility confirmation from Emperor Rudolph II in Prague, as he came from "a noble family". His descendants belonged to the Lithuanian / Polish nobility (Bisping zu Strubnica and Massalany) and were elected aristocratic marshals several times.

Only in their homeland, the bishopric of Münster , was the nobility quality of the hereditary men in the fight for the benefices of the cathedral chapter in question at the end of the 16th century . The non-hereditary families who were later represented in the cathedral chapter had an understandable interest in keeping the circle of those entitled to access as small as possible. This increased the chance of being able to look after one's own later sons appropriately. Members of foreign aristocratic families were also denied access to the cathedral chapter on the grounds that their eligibility could not be checked. Even the son of a Prince Lobkowitz had to renounce membership in the cathedral chapter. Some of the non-heirloom families of the landed gentry did not consider the hereditary families to be eligible for a foundation . The pen ability, i.e. H. the right to be a member of the cathedral chapter and the state parliament were repeated for the heirs in the course of the heirs' dispute and a. confirmed by the Reich Chamber of Commerce.

Course of the hereditary dispute

The background to the protracted legal dispute named after them was that the cathedral chapter of Münster had given itself a statute in 1392, in which it had its more than 100-year-old custom confirmed by the Pope to only accept descendants of noble parents. Although hereditary men had already been members earlier, the collegiate chapters in Westphalia (and in the Old Kingdom) were then occupied by non-mercenary nobles and “ knight-borns ”, each with the approval of the emperor and pope. In the middle of the 16th century, however, the hereditary men of Münster, as influential townspeople, intended to (continue to) participate in the privileges of the (universal) ecclesiastical monasteries, partly because of their knightly origin, education and property. The St. Paulus Stift of the Münster cathedral chapter was one of the richest: It represented the "largest wealth" in the monastery of Münster and its canon benefices were accordingly highly endowed and for centuries served to provide for unmarried noblemen in a "befitting manner".

The Münster inheritance Dr. iur. Johann Schenckinck actually achieved a papal “ presentation ” of such a Münster canonical canon in 1557, when all the remaining hereditary families had long since passed over to the landed gentry , but met with protests from the conventionally composed cathedral chapter. This and the estates represented in it filed a lawsuit against this “indecent” occupation at the Reich Chamber of Commerce in Speyer in 1597 , but ultimately lost to the heirs - after much back and forth - through an imperial ruling. The process - with revisions and counterclaims - lasted around two centuries.

The Kerckerinck hereditary families were co-leaders of the litigation community from the start. Bertold Kerckerinck (zu Giesking) and Johann Kerckerinck (zur Borg) represented the opposing side with eleven other families (including Schenckinck and Droste zu Hülshoff ) in 1597 , after the Roman Rota had again decided in their favor in 1573 but refused to give in and demanded revision. In 1607 the heirs had to sue again and the Thirty Years War (1618–1648) did not bring the dispute to a standstill. In 1681 things got down to business again and on October 30, 1685, after 88 years before this instance alone, the Speyer Chamber of Commerce ruled again in favor of the heirs. However, their opponents went into revision. In order to achieve the provisional enforcement of the judgment, which was nevertheless possible, twelve heirs pledged all their goods in 1686 in order to provide security in the event of loss. The revision of the “Electoral College” was finally dealt with in 1707/1708 at the Reichstag in Regensburg , but without result, so that Emperor Joseph I was presented the matter as the highest judge on December 19, 1709 in Vienna and on January 10, 1710 - under Participation of Prince Eugene - finally decided in favor of the heirs. It was z. For example, the Droste zu Hülshoff family also supported within the monastery nobility by the von der Horst , Plettenberg , Droste zu Vischering , von der Recke- Steinfurt, Bevern , Dummstoff , Beverförde zu Werries , Nagel , Ascheberg , Ketteler , Valke and Mallinckrodt families . The emperor instructed the new king in Prussia, under threat of imperial ban, to see to it that the judgment was carried out. It was only when two Prussian regiments marched in the direction of Munster that the knighthood was ready to accept the recognition of the hereditary men as eligible and knightly. Despite the victory of the heirs, the pen needle made the condition that the heirs had to bear the full costs for the revolt .

Historical significance of the hereditary dispute

The process, which in historical legal literature is referred to as “unique” both in terms of its content and its duration, is full of interesting details from the times of the time (Thirty Years of War of the Spanish Succession , changes of Pope and Emperor, etc.). It gives an insight into the legal processes of that time and the efforts of the " Old Reich " to obtain loyal judgments, but also shows the problems with their actual enforcement, reflected in the development of the "civil society" and the resistance of the "old estates", which the recognized dangers from the bourgeoisie . The competent Reich Chamber of Commerce in Speyer went up in flames in May 1689 as a result of the French incursions, but continued to work in Wetzlar from May 1693 . The trial files survived the move, but not the “Münstersche Bürgerbuch”, which is still of interest today.

The delegations of the heirmen (especially Kerckerinck and von der Tinnen ), who were "sponsored" by the heirer families, often traveled to Rome to see the Pope , to the Reichstag in Regensburg or directly to the Kaiser in Vienna, but also to the courts in Mainz , Berlin and Düsseldorf . Bernhard III. von Droste-Hülshoff (1634–1700), because the process was delayed, had to push the matter forward to the Reich Chamber of Commerce in Speyer in 1661. Both sides were at work with much whispering and intrigue; In addition to cash, “ Westphalian Schincken ” are said to have played a certain role. In the final phase of the proceedings, Johann Ludwig von Kerckerinck zu Stapel (1671–1750) was "the most ardent advocate of the matter" and also left a "record book" on the period from 1685 to 1709, which is kept in the archive Haus Stapel (near Havixbeck near Münster) still exists today. He himself could no longer experience his “victory” with the entry of his grandson Johann Franz Kerckerinck into the cathedral chapter in 1760, however.

Of the meanwhile thirty hereditary families (there were thirteen at the beginning of the dispute) only the Kerckerinck and the Droste zu Hülshoff were able to participate in the success and move into the cathedral chapter with four members each - until the end of the Münster bishopric in 1806. In 1717 the knighthood of the Hochstift z. B. the revolt of Heinrich Johann I. Droste zu Hülshoff (1677–1739) as the first family member after 150 years. Members of the Droste zu Hülshoff also achieved the highly endowed offices of provost and cathedral dean. Most of the other hereditary families were extinct in the meantime.

With the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss (1803) and the end of the Old Reich (1806), the hereditary man's privileges became obsolete anyway. They continued to have an effect on the will of the heir Rudolf von der Tinnen (1612–1702), whose foundation, which still existed in Münster, was intended to primarily support clergy and "shamefully poor" members from these families.

The barons Droste zu Hülshoff , the barons von Kerckerinck zur Borg and von Bischopinck still exist in the German aristocracy . The Jonkherren van der Wyck belong to the Dutch nobility. There are also civil descendants of the Clevorn , the Schenckinck (Schencking) and the Kerckerinck (Kerkerinck, Kerkering, Sprickmann Kerkerinck ).

The Gottfried von der Tinnen Foundation , which was founded by the heir who gave it its name, has existed in Münster since the 18th century.It was originally a family foundation for the benefit of the descendants of families who wanted to become clergymen or who were impoverished. In the 20th century it was converted into a non-profit foundation.

literature

  • Rudolfine Freiin von Oer: The Münster “hereditary dispute”. On the problem of revisions of Reich Chamber Court judgments (= sources and research on the highest jurisdiction in the Old Reich. Volume 32). Böhlau, Cologne et al. 1998, ISBN 3-412-03197-6 .
  • Rudolfine Freiin von Oer: The Münster heirmen. In: Helmut Richtering (Red.): Three hundred years of the Rudolph von der Tinnen Foundation. 1688-1988. Von der Tinnen Foundation, Münster 1988, pp. 1–14. (online, PDF; 3.7 MB) .
  • Rudolfine Freiin von Oer: Who were the heirs? In: Sources and research on the history of the city of Münster. NF 12, 1987, ISSN  0930-9292 , pp. 279-286.
  • J. Holsenbürger: The gentlemen v. Eckenbrock (by Droste-Hülshoff) and their possessions. Münster iW 1869.
  • Karl-Heinz Kirchhoff: The hereditary men and their farms in Münster. In: Westphalian magazine. 116, 1966, ISSN  0083-9043 , pp. 3-26.
  • Helmut Lahrkamp: The patriciate in Münster. In: Hellmuth Rössler (Ed.): German patriciate. 1430–1740 (= writings on the problems of the German ruling classes in modern times 3, ISSN  0582-0456 = Büdinger lectures 3, 1965). Starke, Limburg / Lahn 1968, pp. 195–207.
  • Joseph Prinz: Mimigernaford – Münster. The history of a city. (= Historical work on Westphalian regional research 4 = Publications of the Historical Commission of Westphalia 22). 3rd, revised edition. Aschendorff, Münster 1981, ISBN 3-402-05210-5 , passim .
  • Marcus Weidner: Landadel in Münster. 1600-1760. City constitution, claim of status and prince court (= sources and research on the history of the city of Münster. NF 18, series B, monographs 6). Aschendorff, Münster 2000, ISBN 3-402-06641-6 (also: Münster, Univ., Diss., 1998/99).
  • Wolfgang Weikert: Hereditary men and hereditary trials. A chapter of Münster city history. Waxmann, Münster et al. 1990, ISBN 3-89325-060-3 (At the same time: Münster, Univ., Diss., 1989: A description of the Münster city patrimony, the so-called hereditary men, as well as a description of the "hereditary man's trials" as an example of class disputes. )
  • Droste zu Hülshoff, Wilderich Freiherr: "900 years of Droste zu Hülshoff, LPV Hortense von Gelmini, 2018.
  • Droste zu Hülshoff, Wilderin Freiherr: "Annette von Droste-Hülshoff in the field of tension between her family, CA Starke Verlag, Limburg 1998.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Prince: Mimigernaford - Münster suspects that the wife of the perfectus urbis Wulfard II (Bischopink) was a noble v. Meinhövel, p. 129, fn. 75
  2. ↑ J. Holsenbürger: The gentlemen v. Eckenbrock (by Droste-Hülshoff) and their possessions. Münster iW 1869, p. 7 ff.
  3. ↑ J. Holsenbürger: The gentlemen v. Eckenbrock (by Droste-Hülshoff) and their possessions. Münster iW 1869, p. 90.
  4. ↑ J. Holsenbürger: The gentlemen v. Eckenbrock (by Droste-Hülshoff) and their possessions. Münster iW 1869, p. 21.
  5. ↑ J. Holsenbürger: The gentlemen v. Eckenbrock (by Droste-Hülshoff) and their possessions. Münster iW 1869.