The article is a conflation of the actual Bishopric of Utrecht, which was disestablished in 1528, and its successor, the Lordship of Utrecht, which was established in 1528.
Both the Dutch Wikipedia article "Sticht Utrecht" and the French Wikipedia article "Principauté d'Utrecht" show that it ended in 1528.
George Edmundson wrote, in History of Holland, that Henry of the Palatinate, "who in opposition to his wishes had been elected Bishop of Utrecht, was compelled (1528) to cede to" Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, "the temporalities of the see, retaining the spiritual office only."[1]: 21 Joseph Lins wrote, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, that Henry of the Palatinate who was also Bishop of Freising and Worms, resigned the see in 1528 with the consent of the chapter, and transferred his secular authority to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, who was also Duke of Brabant and Count of Holland. Thus Utrecht came under the sovereignty of the Hapsburgs; the Chapters voluntarily transferred their right of electing the bishop to Charles V, and Pope Clement VII gave his consent to the proceeding.[2]
The article also confuses two types of administrative areas, the "Diocese of Utrecht", an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, with the "Bishopric of Utrecht", a civil jurisdiction. The diocese existed before, during, and after the bishopric.
–BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
This 2003 edit added content about 18th century events in an article about something that ended in 1528. This was clearly a misunderstanding about what the article was about. This 2005 edit added content which corrected the list of officials and added historical context but that correction was edited to:
Similarly, added content about the Dutch Mission and the next edit removed the list of officials and the term Dutch Mission. A few months later another list was added, along with the first reference (which was incorrectly located in a header).
I think that this 2008 edit, in which Arnoutf changed part of the lead
from: "[...] is a former Archbishopric [...] until the collapse of the Empire in the French Revolutionary Wars in 1806, being a territory of the Habsburgs from 1528 onwards."
to: "[...] is the Archbishopric [...] until the reformation in the Netherlands ended the official Catholic church hierarchy in 1580. The archbishopric was reinstated in 1853."
because the contributor thought he needed to "remove anti reformation/pro catholic POV lines"
but unfortunately distorted the basic facts about the subject. Again, in my opinion, just because the article is a conflation.
These facts need reliable sources and to be reintegrated into the article.
–BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Similarly, Watisfictie added a Former Country Infobox to the Archdiocese of Utrecht (695–1580) article. I, BoBoMisiu, reverted Watisfictie's edit and removed the Infobox.
–BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
BoBoMisiu, I thought it was wel known that in the early middle ages kings transferred worldly powers to bishops, since bishops - in contrary to counts and dukes - ought not to leave legitimate heirs. More on this in the following references, supporting that Archdiocese Utrecht had civil jurisdiction, before the Bishopric of Utrecht was erected:
- http://books.google.nl/books?id=Y50fi5AvrY8C&lpg=PA90&dq=bishop%20utrecht%20secular%20power&hl=nl&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q=utrecht%20secular%20power&f=false
- http://books.google.nl/books?id=bnZocwvkcykC&lpg=PA158&dq=bishop%20utrecht%20secular%20power&hl=nl&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q=bishop%20utrecht%20secular%20power&f=false
- http://books.google.nl/books?id=ShOnykzju1QC&lpg=PA274&dq=bishop%20utrecht%20medieval%20authority&hl=nl&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q=bishop%20utrecht%20medieval%20authority&f=false
--Watisfictie (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Watisfictie, thanks for the links. I do see what you are reading but I disagree with you.
- Marco Mosert makes it clear that around 900 the Carolingians "did not manage to keep the peace" so the local aristocracy increased their power. He also wrote that the king "retained the right to invest them with their secular offices" which implies that the king could divest them of those same "secular offices" (Discovering the Dutch, p. 90, at Google Books). I do not see that the king had a the right to invest or divest any ecclesiastic office. Door Randall Lesaffer makes it clear that earlier Carolingian feudal contract "was a real contract" (European legal history, p. 151, at Google Books). The Numismatischer Verlag Fritz-Rudolf Künker makes it clear that Utrecht was "part of the Ottonian system" "to counterbalance the political weight of local secular lords" (The De Wit Collection of Medieval Coins, p. 274, at Google Books). Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, flourished c. 936 – c. 973 which leaves more than two centuries earlier not discussed in these sources.
- Appointments of bishops, as individuals, to administer royal properties or estates in the region was not the same over the period of many centuries. The royal territories changed but were not the same as the diocesan feudal estates. Even after the bishops were appointed as princes, the diocese still retained some separate estates from the royal territories. That did not make the diocese an equivalent of the local secular rulers and aristocracy. The diocese was not same type of thing as the royal estates that, at times, some bishops managed. Just as today, a farmer can also be the leader of a local government at the same time and in that capacity manage properties owned by that government. That farmer is concurrently a farmer managing a farm and a leader managing all that he was appointed to do. The farmer might also evangelize for a religion. Nevertheless, that farm is still a farm and not government property.
- —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
.svg)
