Talk:Libro d'Oro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Stud book is a book for animals not humand beings

Whomever keeps putting in stud book, is wrong. Nothing even in the article of stud book pertains to a human being, and more over, the Libro d'Oro was NOT a book to establish breeding in any sort of way, it is NOT a book to say one has some sort of special pedigree, is was a book to establish what political rights a family had in terms of what their title gave them, and it only became relevant in terms of marriages in order to make sure that they were following the laws that were set in place to retain legal rights that their title awarded them. Using "stud book" in this manner for this article is not objectively accurate and is sarcasim- also factually, the context is wrong, Libro was maintained in Corfu etc. because it was a colony of Venice and Venetian nobles were residing there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.141.156.193 (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Then place it into the article with a reference. An intention of the Golden Book was ccertainly to record the genealogy of noble families, in ecactly the same was a stud book records the pedigree of highly bred race horses, and this is it purpose today. Giano (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The first guy is right. The Libro d'Oro is not some book to record genetic traits in order to "breed" a human being in a certain way, which is what a stud book is trying to establish for animals, a lineage of breeding. The Libro d'Oro was a book that recored what policitcal rights a family had, and at that time, political rights had laws of marring other people who fell into the same category of political rights, otherwise they lost their own political rights- so people who were about to marry had to check the background of potential mates to make sure that they were marring someone in accordance with the law. If a royle married a noble, the child was called "morgantic" which meant it had no succession rights and just became noble, no longer royal. If a noble married a commoner, their child would loose all titular privledges period. Therefore people used the book to establish legitimacy. Many nobles and royals resented these marring laws themselves- thereby marring appropriately, but then sharing their lives with someone they actually wanted to be with.Geniejargon (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are a little confused here - "Therefore people used the book to establish legitimacy" - so it was not a "lineage of breeding."? and then you say: "Many nobles and royals resented these marring laws themselves- thereby marring appropriately, but then sharing their lives with someone they actually wanted to be with" - who do you suppose made these rules and laws? Giano (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• So how do you explain, Thomas Jefferson, who he himself believed that slavery was wrong, yet had slaves himself and wasn't able to stop it. Systems that are in place are bigger than any individual person. When these laws were put into place, it was a primitive world, with 90%+ of the population illiterate, they were laws that made sense in the middle ages and a pre-modern world. The very reason that America was able to do what it did, in terms of a revolution, was because of the enlightments and industrial revolution, creating a new class of people, bougeoise, that were educated but not nobles, and had skills to govern. Many nobles, i.e. Marquis Lafayette and others, were very happy to the rise of non-nobles through education and wanted to see a world without such restrictive marriage clauses. Many nobles themselves, were behind the push to see people become more educated so they would have abilities to rule. An illiterate person has no skills to govern. Your simplistic world's view is not based on reality.Geniejargon (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever? I think you are confusing the rules governing the marriages of Germanic and Austro-Hungarian aristocrats with the less stringeant rules governing the aristocracy of the more southern European countries, and Britain. In Italy so tolerant were the rules it was not uncommon for cicisbei to be part of the contract. However, even in in the Italian States 16 quarterings were/are of use, and the Libro d'Oro was certainly recording "lineage of breeding" for this purpose. I am unsure what the point you are trying to make is. Incidentally, you talk of the middle ages, Il Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana is stil published why do you suppose that is? Giano (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)