so thought? if Deanne would have said that her children were being the brats they were at Dave's funnraul i wouldn't be named Henry from Dave instead aunt Katherine would of left it stand? aftre al being the only rockefeller left on the winburg side? == Prussia and Polish kingdom ==
I;ve added this into your talk page, because I started to get lost in Nicolaus Copernicus talk page...
Prussia was integral part of Polish kingdom
- Every Polish king automatically received titles of duke of Prussia, Masovia etc. Those titles indicated just that Polish kings have either claims or rule that areas, not that Masovia/Prussia were not part of Polish kingdom
- Prussians when pledging an oath where pledging the oath to Polish king, his descendants and Polish kingdom, not to Prussian duke. Well, in XVI century there were example when some Prussian elite members tried to claim they are pledging loyalty only to king personally, but they were usually put back into order
- Prussians got seats in polish parliament and senate. They were not using that right until UoL, but this was their problem (as they were explained when during UoL they tried to use arguments that they are bot bound by law about law execution since they were absent - Sicinski answered them that they had right to be present, and if they choose not to, it's their problem)
- Treaty of Torun (and earlier declaration of Casimir answering the call of Prussians in 1454(?) stated that Prussia is INCORPORATED into Polish kingdom
- Polish king when in Prussia issued rights and laws as POLISH KING (enumerating his titles, including title duke of Prussia), not as Prussian duke. In Lithuania however, for example, he issued laws as Lithuanian duke
- Prussia had a lot of authonomy, that's right, but authonomy inside Polish KINGDOM. It was not personal property of Polish king (though Polish king from time to time in later times tried to behave like that) but of Polish kingdom (frmo legal poitn of view).
Please, answer at my talk page. Szopen 17:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Dagox. You are right that Royal Prussia had wide authonomy, especially before UoL. However it was part of Polish kingdom - as I said, Prussian dignitaries have seats in Polish parliaments. They were not occupying it, but that was their problem. You are also rigth about Lucas Watzenrode. However he was elected, because the earlier treaty was imprecise and stated that bishop of Warmia must be someone "liked by the king" (In Polish - translated from latin - "mily krolowi", which would mean "well-seen by king"). The Warmia's capitule argued that Lucas Watzenrode fulfills that criteria because.. well, I forgot why exactly, had to look into my book. However few years later Warmiaks received right to went to king's courts, so he was highest judge over Warmia. This rigth was according to my book used only several times until 1650 when Warmiaks lost that privilege, but nevertheless it meant Warmia was part of kingdom of Poland. Similarly, every 10 years Warmiaks had to pledge allegiance to Polish king and Polish kingdom. I hope you noticed that in the pledge which was given by Nicolaus Copernicus: loyalty to Polish king and his descendants.
Indeed the difference in interpretation of Treaty of Torun between Prussian elites and Polish executionists is one thing which led to unification in 1569 - indeed sometimes is that Polish king thought Prussia is his private property, Polish parliament thought it is part of Polish kingdom, and Prussians were claiming that they owe loyalty to Polish king personally and they are part of Polish crown, so they have right to be protected, but not part of Polish kingdom, so they have no duty to pariticipate in other parts of kingdom burdens. However in Polish thought there was no distinction between Polish crown and Polish kingdom. Well, there was once, during times of Casimir the Great, where "Polish kingdom" denoted all Polish lands, while "Polish crown" denoted those part of Polish kingdom which were under rule of polish king. So, in times of Casimir the Great, in thought of Polish lawyers, Silesia was part of Polish kingdom, but not part of Polish crown (and similarly Pomorze was part of Polish kingdom, but not of Polish crown). The distinction in the other direction is unknown to me and seems to be own creation of Prussian opposition during complicated fight for unification in 1560s (When Prussian elites, both Polish and German speaking, were supported by Polish elites and figth with Polish executionists movement). Szopen 10:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Dagox, well, that depends. We have a letter where Copernicus address Polish king as his lord and described himself as loyal subject of Polish king - you could argue however that he used such words because he urged king for sending Polish army for help. OTOH, i know one accidents when Warmiaks refused to pay taxes which were already passed by Polish parliament and Prussian parliament, arguing - !!! - that they are _not_ subjects of king and only listen and were always listening only their bishops. Both in almost the same time, first two decades of XVI century.
From legal point of view of Poles, Warmia _was_ part of Polish kingdom - the treaties clearly stated that it was _incorporated_ into it - but not "normal" Polish province, but one with probably the widest authonomy amongst all others (e.g. there is accident when Polish starosta wanted to examine his power over the subjects of Warmia and king Sigismund - the older, I think, i read it quite a long time ago - forbade him, saying, that Warmia is excluded from his jurisdiction.). As for prince-bishop status of Warmia, I guess it is best summarised by I think Kromer (? or some other Warmia's bishops) who wrote that bishops of Warmia from times immemorial were using this title when addressing his own subjects and foreigners, but never in contacts with Polish king, because Polish king has not recognised this title. This is complicated more by the fact, that no one can point to the date when bishops actually received that title (prince). It seems they just started to call themselves by this title without any legal basis.
Also, since no polls was taken amongst Warmia's inhabitants, it can't be said whether they opposed or not calling themselves Polish. Surely those Polish-speaking (and they were already in Warmia in the beginning of XV century) would not object to :-). Szopen 15:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Dagox, I agree. Indeed Copernicus would most likely call himself "Prussian". I agree also that calling him "Prussian" astronomer would however misled most of people - "Prussians" in XV-XVI century were something else from what average person consider "Prussian" (since "Prussian" identity included both, in majority Polish-speaking gentry and in majority German-speaking town dwellers). I agree with the rest of what you have written. In the past I was suggesting calling him Polish-German astronomer, but I was constantly reverted and attacked from all sides, so I gave up. Szopen 12:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Daogx, you may be interested with talk page at Royal Prussia. I have inserted there random fragments from the book I had about Prussia. Unfortunaltey, not all of them, especially left out for now two "Panorama of Loyalty" and about Union of Lublin actions. Szopen 11:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Dagox, could you please translate those fragments I have put on Royal Prussia? I think I can understand them partially, but I would be happy ifI would be sure :)
in 1535 Royal Prussia Council declared "dweil wir eyn Volck und under eynem Herrn gesessen" and in the case of war with Albrecht "die furstliche Durchleuchtigkeit [Albrecht] nicht verlassen muchte noch kunte" and representatives of Danzig said "wir allhier im Lande, das ein corpus und unter eynem Herrn gelegen, eyner den andern in Nothen nicht verliessen".
Prussia had indygenat, separate laws, treasury and Sejmik for whole Royal Prussia. And again, I can't understand Bomelburg here: "despite this the authonomy supporters, as Gottfried Lengnich, wrote >>Die meisten Auswartige sehen die Provintz ein in drey Woywodschafften geteiletes Land ab, welches von der Cron Polen bloss dem Namen nach unterschieden is".
Samuel Luther Geret in 1774, under impression of Bar confederacy and in time of religious conflicts between catholics and lutherans: "Wenn ich betrachte, dass wir Polen geworden und, aufgehoret haben, Preussen zu seyn. Ja! Die Polen, die Feinde von Preussen, haben, seit der Ziet, dass wir an die Konige von Polen uns ergeben haben, unser Vorfahren mittlerer Zeir beredete, biss gar niemand ubrig sey, der unsern Gesetz- und Pacten massugen Zustand verstehe, und wir dergestalt blosse Woywodschafften von Preussen und keine Lande Preussen, lediglich Polacken und kein Preussen, mehr seyn werden. Einen eigenen und abgesonderten Staatskorper haben - die von der Republick Polen durch Sprache, Sitten, Rechte, Gewohnheiten, Stande und Ordnungen, Rathe, Obrigket und Richter ganz verschieden."
so thought? if Deanne would have said that her children were being the brats they were at Dave's funnraul i wouldn't be named Henry from Dave instead aunt Katherine would of left it stand? aftre al being the only rockefeller left on the winburg side? == Prussia and Polish kingdom ==
I;ve added this into your talk page, because I started to get lost in Nicolaus Copernicus talk page...
Prussia was integral part of Polish kingdom
- Every Polish king automatically received titles of duke of Prussia, Masovia etc. Those titles indicated just that Polish kings have either claims or rule that areas, not that Masovia/Prussia were not part of Polish kingdom
- Prussians when pledging an oath where pledging the oath to Polish king, his descendants and Polish kingdom, not to Prussian duke. Well, in XVI century there were example when some Prussian elite members tried to claim they are pledging loyalty only to king personally, but they were usually put back into order
- Prussians got seats in polish parliament and senate. They were not using that right until UoL, but this was their problem (as they were explained when during UoL they tried to use arguments that they are bot bound by law about law execution since they were absent - Sicinski answered them that they had right to be present, and if they choose not to, it's their problem)
- Treaty of Torun (and earlier declaration of Casimir answering the call of Prussians in 1454(?) stated that Prussia is INCORPORATED into Polish kingdom
- Polish king when in Prussia issued rights and laws as POLISH KING (enumerating his titles, including title duke of Prussia), not as Prussian duke. In Lithuania however, for example, he issued laws as Lithuanian duke
- Prussia had a lot of authonomy, that's right, but authonomy inside Polish KINGDOM. It was not personal property of Polish king (though Polish king from time to time in later times tried to behave like that) but of Polish kingdom (frmo legal poitn of view).
Please, answer at my talk page. Szopen 17:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Dagox. You are right that Royal Prussia had wide authonomy, especially before UoL. However it was part of Polish kingdom - as I said, Prussian dignitaries have seats in Polish parliaments. They were not occupying it, but that was their problem. You are also rigth about Lucas Watzenrode. However he was elected, because the earlier treaty was imprecise and stated that bishop of Warmia must be someone "liked by the king" (In Polish - translated from latin - "mily krolowi", which would mean "well-seen by king"). The Warmia's capitule argued that Lucas Watzenrode fulfills that criteria because.. well, I forgot why exactly, had to look into my book. However few years later Warmiaks received right to went to king's courts, so he was highest judge over Warmia. This rigth was according to my book used only several times until 1650 when Warmiaks lost that privilege, but nevertheless it meant Warmia was part of kingdom of Poland. Similarly, every 10 years Warmiaks had to pledge allegiance to Polish king and Polish kingdom. I hope you noticed that in the pledge which was given by Nicolaus Copernicus: loyalty to Polish king and his descendants.
Indeed the difference in interpretation of Treaty of Torun between Prussian elites and Polish executionists is one thing which led to unification in 1569 - indeed sometimes is that Polish king thought Prussia is his private property, Polish parliament thought it is part of Polish kingdom, and Prussians were claiming that they owe loyalty to Polish king personally and they are part of Polish crown, so they have right to be protected, but not part of Polish kingdom, so they have no duty to pariticipate in other parts of kingdom burdens. However in Polish thought there was no distinction between Polish crown and Polish kingdom. Well, there was once, during times of Casimir the Great, where "Polish kingdom" denoted all Polish lands, while "Polish crown" denoted those part of Polish kingdom which were under rule of polish king. So, in times of Casimir the Great, in thought of Polish lawyers, Silesia was part of Polish kingdom, but not part of Polish crown (and similarly Pomorze was part of Polish kingdom, but not of Polish crown). The distinction in the other direction is unknown to me and seems to be own creation of Prussian opposition during complicated fight for unification in 1560s (When Prussian elites, both Polish and German speaking, were supported by Polish elites and figth with Polish executionists movement). Szopen 10:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Dagox, well, that depends. We have a letter where Copernicus address Polish king as his lord and described himself as loyal subject of Polish king - you could argue however that he used such words because he urged king for sending Polish army for help. OTOH, i know one accidents when Warmiaks refused to pay taxes which were already passed by Polish parliament and Prussian parliament, arguing - !!! - that they are _not_ subjects of king and only listen and were always listening only their bishops. Both in almost the same time, first two decades of XVI century.
From legal point of view of Poles, Warmia _was_ part of Polish kingdom - the treaties clearly stated that it was _incorporated_ into it - but not "normal" Polish province, but one with probably the widest authonomy amongst all others (e.g. there is accident when Polish starosta wanted to examine his power over the subjects of Warmia and king Sigismund - the older, I think, i read it quite a long time ago - forbade him, saying, that Warmia is excluded from his jurisdiction.). As for prince-bishop status of Warmia, I guess it is best summarised by I think Kromer (? or some other Warmia's bishops) who wrote that bishops of Warmia from times immemorial were using this title when addressing his own subjects and foreigners, but never in contacts with Polish king, because Polish king has not recognised this title. This is complicated more by the fact, that no one can point to the date when bishops actually received that title (prince). It seems they just started to call themselves by this title without any legal basis.
Also, since no polls was taken amongst Warmia's inhabitants, it can't be said whether they opposed or not calling themselves Polish. Surely those Polish-speaking (and they were already in Warmia in the beginning of XV century) would not object to :-). Szopen 15:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Dagox, I agree. Indeed Copernicus would most likely call himself "Prussian". I agree also that calling him "Prussian" astronomer would however misled most of people - "Prussians" in XV-XVI century were something else from what average person consider "Prussian" (since "Prussian" identity included both, in majority Polish-speaking gentry and in majority German-speaking town dwellers). I agree with the rest of what you have written. In the past I was suggesting calling him Polish-German astronomer, but I was constantly reverted and attacked from all sides, so I gave up. Szopen 12:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Daogx, you may be interested with talk page at Royal Prussia. I have inserted there random fragments from the book I had about Prussia. Unfortunaltey, not all of them, especially left out for now two "Panorama of Loyalty" and about Union of Lublin actions. Szopen 11:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Dagox, could you please translate those fragments I have put on Royal Prussia? I think I can understand them partially, but I would be happy ifI would be sure :)
in 1535 Royal Prussia Council declared "dweil wir eyn Volck und under eynem Herrn gesessen" and in the case of war with Albrecht "die furstliche Durchleuchtigkeit [Albrecht] nicht verlassen muchte noch kunte" and representatives of Danzig said "wir allhier im Lande, das ein corpus und unter eynem Herrn gelegen, eyner den andern in Nothen nicht verliessen".
Prussia had indygenat, separate laws, treasury and Sejmik for whole Royal Prussia. And again, I can't understand Bomelburg here: "despite this the authonomy supporters, as Gottfried Lengnich, wrote >>Die meisten Auswartige sehen die Provintz ein in drey Woywodschafften geteiletes Land ab, welches von der Cron Polen bloss dem Namen nach unterschieden is".
Samuel Luther Geret in 1774, under impression of Bar confederacy and in time of religious conflicts between catholics and lutherans: "Wenn ich betrachte, dass wir Polen geworden und, aufgehoret haben, Preussen zu seyn. Ja! Die Polen, die Feinde von Preussen, haben, seit der Ziet, dass wir an die Konige von Polen uns ergeben haben, unser Vorfahren mittlerer Zeir beredete, biss gar niemand ubrig sey, der unsern Gesetz- und Pacten massugen Zustand verstehe, und wir dergestalt blosse Woywodschafften von Preussen und keine Lande Preussen, lediglich Polacken und kein Preussen, mehr seyn werden. Einen eigenen und abgesonderten Staatskorper haben - die von der Republick Polen durch Sprache, Sitten, Rechte, Gewohnheiten, Stande und Ordnungen, Rathe, Obrigket und Richter ganz verschieden."