Lafayette
Man of Artistic Fingers
I know a king has a throne room to hold court, but what do you call the place where a duke holds court? I tried google, but came up short.
Where Does the Duke Sit?
- Thread starter Lafayette
- Start date
If the duke is a ruling duke or sovereign prince (which historically many of them were in in Europe*) instead of the vassal of a king, then it would be a throne room, too.
It might be a throne room anyway, depending on the period, how recently the duchy had been independent, and how powerful a figure the duke still was. I'm assuming that if your duke in question is "holding court," then he falls into the category of important and powerful enough.
Other important figures, such as bishops and archbishops, sit on thrones, also. Though a bishop or archbishop's throne in their cathedral is called a "cathedra", that word translates as a bishop or archbishop's throne.
_________
*For instance, in Germany, which we now know as one nation, was made up of many small duchies, grand duchies, and principalities, each with their own separate ruler, not just in the medieval period but also well into the nineteenth century. The situation was similar in Italy. The only ruling duke now is the Duke of Luxembourg.
It might be a throne room anyway, depending on the period, how recently the duchy had been independent, and how powerful a figure the duke still was. I'm assuming that if your duke in question is "holding court," then he falls into the category of important and powerful enough.
Other important figures, such as bishops and archbishops, sit on thrones, also. Though a bishop or archbishop's throne in their cathedral is called a "cathedra", that word translates as a bishop or archbishop's throne.
_________
*For instance, in Germany, which we now know as one nation, was made up of many small duchies, grand duchies, and principalities, each with their own separate ruler, not just in the medieval period but also well into the nineteenth century. The situation was similar in Italy. The only ruling duke now is the Duke of Luxembourg.
The Big Peat
Darth Buddha
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,764
Like elephants - where ever they want to.
(Teresa's answer is more useful).
(Teresa's answer is more useful).
Just adding to Teresa's answer. (And speculating a bit!)
It probably depends on how powerful the Duke is and also, probably, cultural issues.
So there were some very powerful dukes in Europe - the Dukes of Burgundy and the Grand Dukes of Lithuania come to mind- that were in effect Kings in power and territory, and they certainly acted like kings in their heydays, having lavish courts and - at least for Lithuania in my quick googling - ducal thrones. Hence I expect they would have ducal throne rooms too. Add to the the Duchy of Milan and the Venetian Doge - Doge comes from the Latin dux which is the root word for Duke as well, so he was really the same thing. Both of these had ducal thrones too.
Getting to be called officially a king was still a labyrinthian process - that was very, excuse the pun, 'game of thrones' - no matter how powerful a duke was, he could just not call himself a king - you needed the say-so from someone more powerful. (See the development of the Norman state in southern Italy/Scilly for example. From memory, Roger II needed the Pope to grant him the rank of King of Scilly, and even that caused a bit of a stink with the existing European kings.)
For another take, in England Dukes were a peerage generally given to those of royal blood*, I believe, so I think it was to give such people a higher rank than the original (more common, but still aristocratic) Earls. I don't think they would have had a specific "throne" for such Dukedoms, as these people were basically the line of succession for the English throne. Although I am speculating here. I've never heard of the Duke of York's throne, say, in the Wars of the Roses. Certainly today none of the British Dukes have individual thrones.
For lesser nobility in the medieval period, perhaps they had audience chambers (?). Certainly for lords of lower ranks they definitely doubled up the their banqueting halls** as audience chambers when doing official business or meeting guests etc.
===================================
* Having said that, I believe the first Dukes of Burgundy were off the French royal line too. It's complicated.
**They likely didn't have enough buildings or space to have a throne room on its own, for whatever their title was.
It probably depends on how powerful the Duke is and also, probably, cultural issues.
So there were some very powerful dukes in Europe - the Dukes of Burgundy and the Grand Dukes of Lithuania come to mind- that were in effect Kings in power and territory, and they certainly acted like kings in their heydays, having lavish courts and - at least for Lithuania in my quick googling - ducal thrones. Hence I expect they would have ducal throne rooms too. Add to the the Duchy of Milan and the Venetian Doge - Doge comes from the Latin dux which is the root word for Duke as well, so he was really the same thing. Both of these had ducal thrones too.
Getting to be called officially a king was still a labyrinthian process - that was very, excuse the pun, 'game of thrones' - no matter how powerful a duke was, he could just not call himself a king - you needed the say-so from someone more powerful. (See the development of the Norman state in southern Italy/Scilly for example. From memory, Roger II needed the Pope to grant him the rank of King of Scilly, and even that caused a bit of a stink with the existing European kings.)
For another take, in England Dukes were a peerage generally given to those of royal blood*, I believe, so I think it was to give such people a higher rank than the original (more common, but still aristocratic) Earls. I don't think they would have had a specific "throne" for such Dukedoms, as these people were basically the line of succession for the English throne. Although I am speculating here. I've never heard of the Duke of York's throne, say, in the Wars of the Roses. Certainly today none of the British Dukes have individual thrones.
For lesser nobility in the medieval period, perhaps they had audience chambers (?). Certainly for lords of lower ranks they definitely doubled up the their banqueting halls** as audience chambers when doing official business or meeting guests etc.
===================================
* Having said that, I believe the first Dukes of Burgundy were off the French royal line too. It's complicated.
**They likely didn't have enough buildings or space to have a throne room on its own, for whatever their title was.
I read about the Dukes of Burgundy holding lavish courts that are virtually the same as their 'official' liege lord - the Kings of France - but I mean that in the method and style that they did government - pomp, aristocratic activities and constantly moving about their territories to claim their taxes.
Of course they were very (extremely for the time?) wealthy and they tried to manoeuvre themselves into actual independence from France...till they were annexed properly in 1477.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,485
I think it in part depends on the year and the country. It would also depending of the standing of the King and the Duke, and their relationship to each other.
Sitting on a throne and holding court would (to some) seem like a challenge to the King. Which, in somewhere like France (where the King at times was little more than a figurehead) wouldn't be as much of a problem as it would in England was usually the one in control.
Sitting on a throne and holding court would (to some) seem like a challenge to the King. Which, in somewhere like France (where the King at times was little more than a figurehead) wouldn't be as much of a problem as it would in England was usually the one in control.
chornedsnorkack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2015
- Messages
- 167
An example from England: High Great Chamber
www.rob-tomlinson.com
Chairs under canopy. Not called Throne, but chairs which are don´t look obviously different.
The builder was a countess. The second richest woman in England after Bess Tudor. None of her children were by the earl (Shreswbury) - the father of all her children had been just a knight, and so were her three sons (her middle son did become a baron after she completed the Hall, and an earl after she died). She was also potentially dabbling into succession, and threatening to make her granddaughter Queen Regnant of England. The Tudors were wary about overmighty subjects, and shortened all their dukes... yet Bess the Countess dared sit a throne like this.
Hardwick Hall in Derbyshire | Rob Tomlinson
Hardwick Hall is stamped with the ego of Bess of Hardwick, her initials adorn the surface of the place. The plaster friezes of the Great High Chamber are evidence to this as much as anything, as the panoramic photographs here attempt to show.
www.rob-tomlinson.com
The builder was a countess. The second richest woman in England after Bess Tudor. None of her children were by the earl (Shreswbury) - the father of all her children had been just a knight, and so were her three sons (her middle son did become a baron after she completed the Hall, and an earl after she died). She was also potentially dabbling into succession, and threatening to make her granddaughter Queen Regnant of England. The Tudors were wary about overmighty subjects, and shortened all their dukes... yet Bess the Countess dared sit a throne like this.
This raises the question of what exactly is meant by the phrase. Is holding court merely a vague, general term for any sort of formal ceremony involving the king? That then leaves open the question of dukes, counts, viscounts, marquises, and the rest of the herd.
Or does it mean something specific? The parallel to bishops is apt here. By old rule (I don't keep track of modern practice), the pope's words are infallible when speaking ex cathedra, that is when speaking from his episcopal chair. By analogy, then, a king's judgment is formal and legally valid when spoken "in court". I don't know of any particular historical precedent for that, just speculating.
Anyway, it suddenly brought home to this aging historian that it's possible to use a phrase for one's entire professional career without actually thinking much about what it meant. This from a disciple of Marc Bloch is really rather unforgivable, but there it is. When is a king holding court and when is he just sitting down?
Or does it mean something specific? The parallel to bishops is apt here. By old rule (I don't keep track of modern practice), the pope's words are infallible when speaking ex cathedra, that is when speaking from his episcopal chair. By analogy, then, a king's judgment is formal and legally valid when spoken "in court". I don't know of any particular historical precedent for that, just speculating.
Anyway, it suddenly brought home to this aging historian that it's possible to use a phrase for one's entire professional career without actually thinking much about what it meant. This from a disciple of Marc Bloch is really rather unforgivable, but there it is. When is a king holding court and when is he just sitting down?
It's just from watching TV court drama but the phrase "The court is now in session" springs to mind. There must have been a dividing line agreed between social court and legal court, otherwise if the King said to his latest flirt, "you must always wear pink" it would have the weight of law.
Not even a ceremony as such, I'd have said, but the monarch being formally seated in a public room being attended by courtiers, counsellors, ambassadors etc, dispensing favours, accepting petitions, giving audiences, perhaps even consulting with the great men or seeking counsel in some cases, though in the English court, certainly from the Tudors onwards, the latter activities tended to be done in privy chambers.
I know that's its literal translation is "from the chair" but I've always understood that to be metaphorical rather than literal. How could that work if whatever was to be an issue of dogma if it was written down rather than spoken?
What you mean by "judgment"? If it's to do with a legal issue, then the king can only give judgement within the court as part of the court procedure. His judgement on non-legal issues would have no legal standing at all wherever it's given -- the fact he pronounces that a wine is excellent has no legal validity. On the other hand, a monarch can exercise legal powers anywhere so doesn't need to be in court eg a death warrant could be signed in bed and be legally valid.
There has always been a distinction within the curia regis between the governmental aspects of the court and the court of law -- it's not a question of the monarch deciding on a whim which hat s/he would wear on any particular day, but they each comprised a wholly different organisation with separate bureaucracies and procedure.
No. Just no.
It surely depends on who is in the room with him and what is happening there.
As to the name where the monarch held court, rather than calling it a throne room in England at least, it's more likely to have been known as the Presence Chamber. For the aristocracy under the monarch, they'd have various public rooms within their residences, including some kind of great hall or great chamber, but they'd be unwise to call it anything more regal than that. I'm not convinced by "audience chamber" for a non-reigning duke, since that would also imply a formal meeting of eg an ambassador presenting his credentials, requiring the authority of a head of state, not just an aristocrat interviewing someone.
Similar threads
-
Does anyone have an easy way to adjust where the chapter breaks are?- Started by Bramandin
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
-
