use of word, "pretender"

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Diana Gale Matthiesen

use of word, "pretender"

Legg inn av Diana Gale Matthiesen » 22 sep 2006 19:56:02

I have a question about the meaning, especially the connotations, of the word,
"pretender." I know what my dictionary says, but I'd like to have a better feel
for how it's used and what it implies. To me, one connotation is derogatory and
the other is not. For example,

If a person would have been the next monarch, had their monarchy had not been
overthrown, I see no reason to necessarily hold the person in contempt, but if
someone affects a position or title -- or usurps such a title -- to which they
were never rightfully eligible, I view that as contemptible.

Would the term, "pretender," apply to both, or to only the former?

Diana

Chris Dickinson

Re: use of word, "pretender"

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 22 sep 2006 19:56:03

Diana wrote:


I have a question about the meaning, especially the connotations, of the
word,
"pretender." I know what my dictionary says, but I'd like to have a better
feel
for how it's used and what it implies. To me, one connotation is
derogatory and
the other is not. For example,

If a person would have been the next monarch, had their monarchy had not
been
overthrown, I see no reason to necessarily hold the person in contempt, but
if
someone affects a position or title -- or usurps such a title -- to which
they
were never rightfully eligible, I view that as contemptible.

Would the term, "pretender," apply to both, or to only the former?


I don't think you can make it as simple as that. Nor is it fair to make
moral judgements on those involved.

The classic case of the use of 'Pretender' is out of this period and refers
(Old and Young) to the Jacobite heirs to the English and Scottish thrones,
James and Charles (Bonnie Prince Charlie).

From a progressive perspective they were pretenders, and had no right
whatsoever to the throne - the basic principle being established was that
Parliament decided the succession, not Blood; but from their perspective,
they had every entitlement.

[What does annoy me is non-Brits who still refer today to the Old Pretender
as James III, akin (if at least harmless) to the 20th century funding of the
IRA]

One of the simple facts of politics is that people and countries make
titular claim to things that they have no practical control over, with
varying degrees of theoretical justification and of political manipulation.
I don't think that one can make moral judgements about this - at what point
did the English monarch's claim to be King of France become contemptible?

This happens at all levels. It happens, for instance, at manorial and parish
level where boundaries are unclear; and the entitlement to fines, rents and
the like are in dispute. The same sort of thing happens between properties
over responsibility for boundary walls!.

But, going back to your original comment, I would think that the use of the
term 'Pretender' is always derogatory. It is used from the perspective of
the person, group, political body, culture that HAS - the party that HASN'T
would use another term like 'rightful king'.

Chris

Diana Gale Matthiesen

RE: use of word, "pretender"

Legg inn av Diana Gale Matthiesen » 23 sep 2006 16:20:02

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dickinson [mailto:chris@dickinson.uk.net]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 1:40 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: use of word, "pretender"

snip


One of the simple facts of politics is that people and countries make
titular claim to things that they have no practical control over, with
varying degrees of theoretical justification and of political
manipulation. I don't think that one can make moral judgements
about this - at what point did the English monarch's claim to be
King of France become contemptible?

But of course we can and do make moral judgments. One person's champion is
another's terrorist. One person's religion is another's nonsense. It all
depends on your point of view. Thank you for reminding me that is the case.

snip

But, going back to your original comment, I would think that
the use of the term 'Pretender' is always derogatory. It is
used from the perspective of the person, group, political
body, culture that HAS - the party that HASN'T would use
another term like 'rightful king'.

That the intent is always derogatory by the one who applies the term makes
sense, so thank you for clarifying that point.

What about someone who has no blood-right to being king vanquishing the rightful
king and taking his place claiming to be the rightful king? He's not the one
out of power, he's the one in power, but shouldn't be. Is he a pretender? It's
not an outright conquest because he claims to be in power rightfully.

I know I'm picking this to death, but I don't want to mis-use the word.




Gjest

Re: use of word, "pretender"

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 sep 2006 17:27:52

"Diana Gale Matthiesen" schrieb:

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dickinson [mailto:chris@dickinson.uk.net]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 1:40 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: use of word, "pretender"

snip

One of the simple facts of politics is that people and countries make
titular claim to things that they have no practical control over, with
varying degrees of theoretical justification and of political
manipulation. I don't think that one can make moral judgements
about this - at what point did the English monarch's claim to be
King of France become contemptible?

But of course we can and do make moral judgments. One person's champion is
another's terrorist. One person's religion is another's nonsense. It all
depends on your point of view. Thank you for reminding me that is the case.


snip

But, going back to your original comment, I would think that
the use of the term 'Pretender' is always derogatory. It is
used from the perspective of the person, group, political
body, culture that HAS - the party that HASN'T would use
another term like 'rightful king'.

That the intent is always derogatory by the one who applies the term makes
sense, so thank you for clarifying that point.

What about someone who has no blood-right to being king vanquishing the rightful
king and taking his place claiming to be the rightful king? He's not the one
out of power, he's the one in power, but shouldn't be. Is he a pretender? It's
not an outright conquest because he claims to be in power rightfully.

I know I'm picking this to death, but I don't want to mis-use the word.

Actually, I differ from Chris's point of view. The word Pretender can
in some circumstances be used simply to describe someone who would be
king if circumstances were different and who maintains (or has not
renounced) his claim. When I talk about the French Pretender [not that
I often get the occasion to, but you know what I mean], I mean the head
of the Orleanist house, whose claims to me seem the best of the bunch.
I don't do this in a derogatory sense, but because it's the easiest way
to refer to him. I wouldn't call him The King of France or the de-jure
king or somesuch, because he isn't a king - he's merely a claimant to a
(no longer existant) throne.

Michael

Chris Dickinson

Re: use of word, "pretender"

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 23 sep 2006 21:43:04

Diana Gale Mattheisen wrote:

One of the simple facts of politics is that people and countries make
titular claim to things that they have no practical control over, with
varying degrees of theoretical justification and of political
manipulation. I don't think that one can make moral judgements
about this - at what point did the English monarch's claim to be
King of France become contemptible?

But of course we can and do make moral judgments. One person's champion is
another's terrorist. One person's religion is another's nonsense. It all
depends on your point of view. Thank you for reminding me that is the
case.


Yes, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that one can't make moral judgements
about historical characters (or, indeed, living ones!).

However, the further back in time you go, the more difficult it is generally
to make judgements that are fair or that have purpose.

I'm quite happy to say that there is absolute good or evil that transcends
environment, but there's a middle area that is very difficult to judge. We
use moral judgement, much like flipping a coin, to make easy decisions about
complex issues - and that has huge practical value in an immediate
environment; but not so much when we can stand back and consider the
evidence (having done so, yes, we can stand back and say so-and-so is a
monster). The point is that we don't need to react instantly to historical
characters and, given our very distant perspective, we shouldn't do so
without due cause.

So far as the pretension to titles is concerned, I wouldn't judge that on a
moral scale of 1 to 10 that this is much to get worried about.


What about someone who has no blood-right to being king vanquishing the
rightful
king and taking his place claiming to be the rightful king? He's not the
one
out of power, he's the one in power, but shouldn't be. Is he a pretender?
It's
not an outright conquest because he claims to be in power rightfully.


It is interesting that people or dynasties that take power by force (or just
achieve power) usually try to find a legitimacy of some sort. So, for
instance, medieval monarchies looked back to the Roman Empire (Holy Roman
Empire, Kaiser, Tsar) or to God (crowning ceremonies), later dynasties to
Charlemagne, the Normans married into the Anglo-Saxons and the Tudors into
the Yorkists. Power always needs spin.

Chris

Chris Dickinson

Re: use of word, "pretender"

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 23 sep 2006 21:43:52

Michael wrote:


Actually, I differ from Chris's point of view. The word Pretender can
in some circumstances be used simply to describe someone who would be
king if circumstances were different and who maintains (or has not
renounced) his claim. When I talk about the French Pretender [not that
I often get the occasion to, but you know what I mean], I mean the head
of the Orleanist house, whose claims to me seem the best of the bunch.
I don't do this in a derogatory sense, but because it's the easiest way
to refer to him. I wouldn't call him The King of France or the de-jure
king or somesuch, because he isn't a king - he's merely a claimant to a
(no longer existant) throne.


I take your point.

My response was really to the query about the self-assumption of titles.

However, in referring to the 'French Pretender', you would still be taking
on the board the offical view of the winners, and this could still be
classed as a derogratory comment by the losers :-)

That said, I do accept that a later use of the word Pretender by
historians to encapsulate a political reality in a single word doesn't have
any necessary value judgements attached.

Chris

Peter Stewart

Re: use of word, "pretender"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 sep 2006 00:42:07

<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1159028872.796581.314150@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Actually, I differ from Chris's point of view. The word Pretender can
in some circumstances be used simply to describe someone who would be
king if circumstances were different and who maintains (or has not
renounced) his claim. When I talk about the French Pretender [not that
I often get the occasion to, but you know what I mean], I mean the head
of the Orleanist house, whose claims to me seem the best of the bunch.
I don't do this in a derogatory sense, but because it's the easiest way
to refer to him. I wouldn't call him The King of France or the de-jure
king or somesuch, because he isn't a king - he's merely a claimant to a
(no longer existant) throne.

Is he? Last I heard he was living as a citizen of the French Republic, a
condition that practically - and morally - negates any claim be sovereign of
the nation.

If he does maintain a bogus claim and you refer to him as "the French
Pretender" in the context described, rather than, say, "the Orleanist
pretender", you risk being misinterpreted, since others might assume you
mean the Bonapartist or the Bourbon counterpart. I doubt whether supporters
of the Prince Napoleon or the duke of Anjou would understand the count of
Paris to be "the French Pretender" without your explaining the preference.

These three don't exactly make a "bunch" either.

Peter Stewart

David Teague

RE: use of word, "pretender"

Legg inn av David Teague » 24 sep 2006 07:26:01

From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: use of word, "pretender"
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:19:23 -0400

< major snipping>
What about someone who has no blood-right to being king vanquishing the
rightful king and taking his place claiming to be the rightful king? He's
not the one out of power, he's the one in power, but shouldn't be. Is he a
pretender?
<snip>

No; he's a usurper, not a pretender.

<snip>
I know I'm picking this to death, but I don't want to mis-use the word.
<snip>

Basically, what it boils down to is this: "pretender" is one of those words
-- like "usurper," for that matter -- which pretty much always carries a
value judgment. If the speaker/writer wishes to pass no judgment on the
situation, the term with which I am most familiar is "claimant."

To use period examples:

Henry Tudor (pre-Bosworth) was the Lancastrian claimant.

Richard III is often (though hardly universally) refered to as a usurper --
except by his partisans and defenders (then and now).

Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel were either imposters, or pretenders, or
both, depending on your point of view.

And, of course -- as mentioned earlier in this thread -- the dispossessed
Stuarts were known as the Old Pretender and Young Pretender, respectively.

Hope this helps.

David Teague

Matt Tompkins

Re: use of word, "pretender"

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 24 sep 2006 12:22:22

"Diana Gale Matthiesen" wrote:
I have a question about the meaning, especially the connotations, of the word,
"pretender." I know what my dictionary says, but I'd like to have a better feel
for how it's used and what it implies. To me, one connotation is derogatory and
the other is not. For example,

If a person would have been the next monarch, had their monarchy had not been
overthrown, I see no reason to necessarily hold the person in contempt, but if
someone affects a position or title -- or usurps such a title -- to which they
were never rightfully eligible, I view that as contemptible.

Would the term, "pretender," apply to both, or to only the former?


It depends on the context, whether the word is found in a historical
document or in modern writing, because the meaning of the word has
changed. Its original meaning was just 'claimant', with no moral
associations, but it later came to mean only a claimant whose claim was
false.

Here are some of the definitions given in the Oxford English
Dictionary:

2. One who puts forth a claim, or who aspires to or aims at something;
a claimant, candidate, or aspirant; now, one who makes baseless
pretensions.

2.c. A claimant to a throne or the office of a ruler; orig. in a
neutral sense, but now always applied to a claimant who is held to have
no just title

3. One who pretends or lays claim to something; one who makes a
profession, show, or assertion, esp. without adequate grounds, falsely,
or with intent to deceive; a dissembler, deceiver, charlatan,
hypocrite.

Matt Tompkins

Diana Gale Matthiesen

RE: use of word, "pretender"

Legg inn av Diana Gale Matthiesen » 24 sep 2006 16:20:02

Helps very much, David. Now that I have a better understanding of "pretender,"
it looks like I'll be using "usurper," instead.

Diana

-----Original Message-----
From: David Teague [mailto:davteague@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:19 AM
To: DianaGM@dgmweb.net; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: use of word, "pretender"




From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: use of word, "pretender"
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:19:23 -0400

major snipping
What about someone who has no blood-right to being king
vanquishing the
rightful king and taking his place claiming to be the
rightful king? He's
not the one out of power, he's the one in power, but
shouldn't be. Is he a
pretender?
snip

No; he's a usurper, not a pretender.

snip
I know I'm picking this to death, but I don't want to mis-use
the word.
snip

Basically, what it boils down to is this: "pretender" is one
of those words
-- like "usurper," for that matter -- which pretty much
always carries a
value judgment. If the speaker/writer wishes to pass no
judgment on the
situation, the term with which I am most familiar is "claimant."

To use period examples:

Henry Tudor (pre-Bosworth) was the Lancastrian claimant.

Richard III is often (though hardly universally) refered to
as a usurper --
except by his partisans and defenders (then and now).

Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel were either imposters, or
pretenders, or
both, depending on your point of view.

And, of course -- as mentioned earlier in this thread -- the
dispossessed
Stuarts were known as the Old Pretender and Young Pretender,
respectively.

Hope this helps.

David Teague




Diana Gale Matthiesen

RE: use of word, "pretender"

Legg inn av Diana Gale Matthiesen » 24 sep 2006 16:31:01

Actually, definition 3 is pretty close (the Oxford definitions are more helpful
than those in my Webster's unabridged). Thank you for sharing them.

The context here is contemporary. I didn't want to "name names" because it
would undoubtedly shift the discussion to the validity of the claim, which would
be off topic for GEN-MEDIEVAL. But I figured if there was any group that
understood the meaning of the word, "pretender," it would be the subscribers to
this list, so I very much appreciate everyone's input.

And the bottom line appears to be that I will go with "usurper." Pretender is
too "mild" for the situation.

Diana

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins [mailto:mllt1@le.ac.uk]
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:22 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: use of word, "pretender"

"Diana Gale Matthiesen" wrote:
I have a question about the meaning, especially the
connotations, of the word,
"pretender." I know what my dictionary says, but I'd like
to have a better feel
for how it's used and what it implies. To me, one
connotation is derogatory and
the other is not. For example,

If a person would have been the next monarch, had their
monarchy had not been
overthrown, I see no reason to necessarily hold the person
in contempt, but if
someone affects a position or title -- or usurps such a
title -- to which they
were never rightfully eligible, I view that as contemptible.

Would the term, "pretender," apply to both, or to only the former?


It depends on the context, whether the word is found in a historical
document or in modern writing, because the meaning of the word has
changed. Its original meaning was just 'claimant', with no moral
associations, but it later came to mean only a claimant whose
claim was
false.

Here are some of the definitions given in the Oxford English
Dictionary:

2. One who puts forth a claim, or who aspires to or aims at something;
a claimant, candidate, or aspirant; now, one who makes baseless
pretensions.

2.c. A claimant to a throne or the office of a ruler; orig. in a
neutral sense, but now always applied to a claimant who is
held to have
no just title

3. One who pretends or lays claim to something; one who makes a
profession, show, or assertion, esp. without adequate
grounds, falsely,
or with intent to deceive; a dissembler, deceiver, charlatan,
hypocrite.

Matt Tompkins



Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»