Systematic nobility
System Excessive needle was from 1757 to 1918 existing civil privilege for members of the armed forces in the Habsburg ruled countries which civil officers under certain conditions as " ennoblement through official channels" a legal claim on elevation to the hereditary simple nobility guaranteed.
history
.jpg)
Around the middle of the 18th century, aristocratic and bourgeois officers also led largely separate lives in the Habsburg- ruled countries with different career opportunities . As part of the internal reforms in her countries, Maria Theresa set out during the Seven Years' War to create a new and unified elite of officers and civil servants in her empire, a significant proportion of whom were recruited from the bourgeoisie. One element in achieving this goal was the granting of a special prerogative for their officers, and so by Maria Theresa's highest resolution of January 12, 1757, all holders of an officer ’s license were granted the right to be raised to the hereditary Austrian nobility under certain conditions. While the decree of January 12, 1757 still held out the prospect of being awarded the knighthood , according to an instruction of the Court War Council of April 16, 1757, only the simple nobility should be granted. A prerequisite for acquiring a legal claim to ennoblement was initially, in addition to having an officer’s license, thirty years of perfect military service. Any periods of service before reaching an officer rank - for example as a simple soldier or NCO - could be taken into account, but the period of service had to have been uninterrupted and in the Austrian army. If you quit the service, the time you had worked up to that point expired and was no longer valid for any later request. This also applied to officers whose active service was interrupted by a pension.
From September 13, 1798, the previous rules under Emperor Franz came under the condition that every applicant for a systematic nobility had to fight with the sword and in the line . The phrase "with the sword" meant that the aristocratic applicant must have served his thirty years in active service in the army, navy , Landwehr , guard or gendarmerie , and the term "in line" meant that the aristocratic applicant was actively involved in a battle must have participated during a military conflict. Later, officers who had not had a campaign with enemy contact, but had shown other extraordinary merits , could apply to the systematic nobility. On December 3, 1810, the regulations were further modified, and in 1821 the emperor issued a further regulation so that the systematic nobility should only be given to those officers who have served in line with the sword for thirty years without interruption during this time have distinguished themselves through constant good behavior in front of the enemy and through a completely faultless conduite. In this context, “Conduite” meant the personal conduct and behavior during active military service - recorded in the confidential service reviews for officers, and behind the phrase “good conduct before the enemy” hid the demand for bravery in warfare. Military officials or military doctors who did not belong to combat units, on the other hand, were excluded from the systematic acquisition of nobility.
_02.jpg)
Under Emperor Franz Joseph , the rules on systematic nobility remained essentially unchanged, but from August 21, 1894, officers of Hungarian citizenship who had acquired the right to be awarded the systematic nobility were granted Hungarian nobility (1757 was solely from the award of an Austrian Nobility was mentioned). As of April 30, 1896 was kuk officers also obtain the system related needle when not with the sword, and in the line fought, but instead a forty-year period of military service had boast. With the very highest resolution of June 28, 1915, further regulations were passed. The military commanders were instructed, when assessing the submitted applications, to check the eligibility requirements more strictly and to take into account the applicants' financial circumstances and the social status of their children. In addition, a new fee schedule came into force (see below). It was not until the beginning of 1916 that Emperor Franz Joseph had personal information submitted to each applicant and then proceeded to award them by resolution of the very highest , even with the systematic nobility .
These regulations remained in force until the end of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in 1918. While the outlined conditions for awarding the award led to the fact that only comparatively few Austro-Hungarian officers could apply for systematic nobility during the long peace period from 1866 to 1914, the outbreak of the First World War fundamentally changed this situation. Numerous Austro-Hungarian officers who had been part of the Austro-Hungarian armed forces for over thirty years, but had no prospect of forty years of service until their retirement, suddenly were able to serve “in line” and “good behavior” through the war in front of the enemy ”and yet to apply for the systematic nobility. The more than 700 ennoblings that Emperor Karl I carried out between 1916 and 1918 can thus be traced.
Procedure
procedure
_in_Paradeadjustierung.png)
In the case of the systematic nobility, the elevation to the hereditary simple nobility was always carried out as an administrative process that ran the same when all the necessary requirements were met. Until about 1916, the Austro-Hungarian monarch was, as mentioned, almost not involved and after the process was over, he only signed the nobility diploma presented to him.
If an Austro-Hungarian officer had achieved the prerequisites necessary for his "ennoblement on the official channels", he could start compiling the documents required for the application. Obtaining the necessary papers could sometimes take a very considerable amount of time and could already result in considerable costs at this point in the procedure.
The actual request had to be addressed to His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty and ask in a few words for the granting of systematic nobility. A short biography should state the most important achievements of the applicant in order to be included in the nobility diploma. The application also had to include: a handwritten declaration by the applicant about the payment of the processing fees incurred in the course of the ennoblement process, the officer's qualification list, information from the accounting department and finally a description of the duties. In particular, the applicant's description of service and conduct of business was of decisive importance for the further course of the procedure. This reputation had to relate not only to the applicant's behavior in front of the enemy, but should also represent his entire private personality. This service and conduct description was formulated by the applicant's military superior. If retired officers sought the systematic nobility, their behavior had to be checked since retirement; a corresponding certificate had to be prepared by the competent military territorial command. If the applicant had belonged to different regiments or corps in the course of his service, previous service reports were also to be submitted. Excerpts from the criminal record covering the entire period of service had to be provided. The relevant military superiors of the applicant had to sign for the accuracy of the documents issued.
_cropped.jpg)
Furthermore, the applicant had to explain whether he wanted to be awarded the word of honor " noble ", a territorial title or both in the course of his elevation to the hereditary simple nobility . If the applicant requested the award of a territorial predicate, he had to submit a list of three possible predicates. The principle was that a territorial predicate chosen in this way could not match a real place name. Exceptions to this rule required separate approval from the Ministry of the Interior or the monarch personally, and were only granted if the applicant had performed a very “excellent weapon” at the location in question. As István Deák remarks, this regulation led to a large number of rather peculiar predicates that easily identified those who carried them as belonging to the new nobility . Some officers chose the name of a place where they had served in the course of their thirty or forty years of service, or instead used more or less creative paraphrases. In 1906, Lieutenant Colonel Adam Brandner chose the title “Noble von Wolfszahn” to commemorate his work on Mount Vučji zub (German “Wolfszahn”) on the border between Bosnia and Herzegovina . In 1913, Lieutenant Field Marshal Hermann Kusmanek chose the title “von Burgneustädten” in grateful memory of his former training facility, the Theresian Military Academy in the castle in Wiener Neustadt . When choosing their territorial predicate, other officers tried to prove their vocation as a soldier or their loyalty to the monarch (e.g. "Waldstein Edler von Heilwehr" or "Nawratil Edler von Kronenschild"). Since many kuk garrisons were in the Hungarian or Slavic areas of the monarchy, the ratings chosen by the officers stationed there reflected the ethnic diversity of Austria-Hungary.
Finally, a design of the coat of arms including a professional description had to be enclosed with the application. In principle, each applicant was allowed to design his own coat of arms and freely determine the symbolism, but a draft was only accepted if it was judged by the responsible official in the Ministry of the Interior, the "coat of arms censor", as appropriate to the rules of the art and appropriate to the class .
Once the applicant had gathered all the necessary documents, he had to send the sheets provided with the required stamps either to the kuk war ministry or to the national defense ministry responsible for him ( kk ministry for national defense for Austria, ku Honvéd ministry for Hungary). From there, the application was forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior, where the documents were carefully examined. To assess the application, not only the certificates of conduct submitted by the applicant were used, but also the entries in the conduit lists. If even one of the prerequisites was missing, or if an objection arose on the basis of the documents submitted, the application for granting the systematic nobility had to be rejected. In this case, the applicant, like any other citizen, had the opportunity to apply for a noble status “on the basis of special merits”. However, the Austro-Hungarian monarchs always reserved the right to ignore some shortcomings when there were circumstances worthy of consideration.
costs
The systematic nobility was granted tax-free , i. H. without paying the so-called “nobility tax”, which was usually prescribed for other class surveys. For the simple Austrian aristocracy, for example, the aristocratic tax in 1915 was 2100 K. The fees for the honorific “noble”, the territorial title and the issuing of the nobility diploma, however, always had to be paid for the systematic aristocracy, whereby the territorial title and the honorary word Edler ”10% of the aristocratic tax prescribed for simple nobility were invoiced. In principle, there was no provision for an exemption from the predicate or honorary fee . The officer making the application was charged the following fees for the award of systematic nobility:
| fees | 1811 | 1915 | 1918 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Territorial predicate | 107.5 fl. | 210 K. | 210 K. |
| Word of honor " noble " | 107.5 fl. | 210 K. | 210 K. |
| Diploma issue | 73 fl. | 330 K. | 600 K. |
Before the processing fees incurred in the course of the ennoblement procedure had not been paid properly and in full, no use could be made of the conferred hereditary simple nobility . If the fees were not paid into the Vienna Central Office within a year, the process of conferring systematic nobility came to a standstill and could not be restarted even with a subsequent payment. However, the applicant could recently apply to be granted systematic nobility.
The costs for issuing the diploma included the writing fee, collation fee, sigilation fee, the fees for the coat of arms censor and those for the coat of arms painter. In addition, fees had to be paid for the metal or wooden capsule in which the imperial seal was located, for the gold cord, as well as for velvet and bookbinding.
The authorities were able to offset extra expenses for particularly sumptuously executed noble diplomas. An inadequately submitted coat of arms proposal by the applicant could also lead to higher costs, since in this case the coat of arms censor had to make a corrected new design in accordance with the rules of the art .
See also
literature
- Arno Kerschbaumer: Nobilitations under the reign of Emperor Franz Joseph I. / I. Ferenc József király (1914–1916) . Graz 2017 ( ISBN 978-3-9504153-2-2 )
- Arno Kerschbaumer: Nobilitations under the reign of Emperor Karl I / IV. Károly király (1916–1921) . Graz 2016 ( ISBN 978-3-9504153-1-5 )
- Peter Wiesflecker: ennobling Emperor Charles I of Austria - studies on the Austrian nobility at the end of the Danube monarchy . Vienna (Univ. Diss.) 1992
- István Deák : The K. (below) K. Officer 1848–1918 , translated by Marie-Therese Pitner. Böhlau Verlag (Vienna-Cologne-Weimar) 1991
- Peter Frank-Döfering, Nobility Lexicon of the Austrian Empire 1804–1918 . Herder Verlag (Freiburg) 1989
- Michael Göbl: Austrian chancellery heraldry and coat of arms symbolism of the 19th century using the example of coats of arms given to military personnel . Vienna (Dipl.Arb.) 1986
- Nikolaus von Preradovich : The ruling classes in Prussia and Austria 1804-1918. With an outlook up to 1945 . 2nd edition Steiner Verlag (Wiesbaden) 1966 (see excerpt here )
Individual evidence
- ↑ a b c d e f g István Deák, Der K. (below) K. Officer 1848–1918 , translated by Marie-Therese Pitner, Böhlau Verlag (Vienna-Cologne-Weimar) 1991, pp. 189–191.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i Arno Kerschbaumer, Nobilitations under the reign of Emperor Karl I / IV. Károly király (1916–1921) , Graz 2016, pp. 18–19.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h Peter Frank-Döfering, Adelslexikon des Österreichischen Kaisertums 1804–1918 , Herder Verlag (Freiburg) 1989, pp. 642–643.
- ↑ a b c d Arno Kerschbaumer, Nobilitations under the reign of Emperor Franz Joseph I. / I. Ferenc József király (1914–1916) . Graz 2017, p. 18.
- ↑ Peter Wiesflecker, Nobilitierungen Emperor Charles I of Austria - Studies on the Austrian nobility at the end of the Danube Monarchy , Vienna (Univ. Diss.) 1992.
- ↑ Arno Kerschbaumer, Nobilitations under the reign of Emperor Karl I / IV. Károly király (1916–1921) , Graz 2016, p. 23.
- ↑ Arno Kerschbaumer, Nobilitations under the reign of Emperor Franz Joseph I. / I. Ferenc József király (1914–1916) . Graz 2017, pp. 125–127.
- ↑ Peter Frank-Döfering, Adelslexikon des Österreichischen Kaisertums 1804-1918 , Herder Verlag (Freiburg) 1989, pp. 643, 653.
- ^ A b c Peter Frank-Döfering, Adelslexikon des Österreichischen Kaisertums 1804–1918 , Herder Verlag (Freiburg) 1989, p. 654.