WI: More Prince-Bishops Outside of HRE?

In the HRE, a number of states came to be ruled both ecclesiastically and secularly by Prince-Bishops, often corresponding to their own diocese. Some of these became very powerful such as the Archbishoprics of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne who were electors of the HRE. Other notable prince-bishoprics included Basel, Salzburg, Munster, Wurzburg, Metz, Toul, Verdun, Augsburg, Liege, Utrecht, and Trent. Outside of the HRE, such states are few in number, limited to the Papacy and the Livonian/Teutonic lands. What if prince-bishops were more common outside of the HRE by becoming both secular and ecclesiastic leaders of their communities and unifying their two positions?

For starters, one map of France in 1030 depicted some ecclesiastic lands belonging to the bishops of Reims, Châlons, Langres, Noyon, Beauvais, Laon, and Tournai. A later map showed Velay also being under ecclesiastic rule. One can also point to the Bishop of Urgell in Aragon, Spain, who is a co-prince of Andorra. What if these retained power for longer periods? What the effect of these be on the local politics?
 
For starters, one map of France in 1030 depicted some ecclesiastic lands belonging to the bishops of Reims, Châlons, Langres, Noyon, Beauvais, Laon, and Tournai. A later map showed Velay also being under ecclesiastic rule. One can also point to the Bishop of Urgell in Aragon, Spain, who is a co-prince of Andorra. What if these retained power for longer periods? What the effect of these be on the local politics?
These can't be considered as prince-bishops tough : these are defined not only by a secular rule, but also by a delegation from imperial power from which they took their secular legitimacy, and actually mixed secular and clerical power thanks to this delegation.
On the other hand, bishops with a secular holding in France, didn't have a mixed clerical and secular power, but rather bishops having in addition a nobiliar power over a territory just like their secular counterparts.
The same goes for the co-principalty of Andorra, as the bishop of Urgell is co-lord of the region not from his clerical role but nobiliar one.

As such, the nobiliar nature of listed french bishopries means it was fought over on same grounds, either by rival clerical groups (monasteries, suffragants, etc.) or secular ones (nobles, urban patriciate, communes, etc.). You'd argue you had a similar relationship between Prince-Bishops and their territories, but the nature and origin of their rule differed greatly and was definitely more alike to secular principalties for what matter the situation in France. Later ecclesiastical dominances as in Velay or Albigeois certainly didn't mixed up clerical and secular authority, while gathered on the bishop.

Arguably, the County Palatine of Durham was in-between to prince-bishopries of the HRE, and nobiliar bishopries of France.
 
These can't be considered as prince-bishops tough : these are defined not only by a secular rule, but also by a delegation from imperial power from which they took their secular legitimacy, and actually mixed secular and clerical power thanks to this delegation.
On the other hand, bishops with a secular holding in France, didn't have a mixed clerical and secular power, but rather bishops having in addition a nobiliar power over a territory just like their secular counterparts.
The same goes for the co-principalty of Andorra, as the bishop of Urgell is co-lord of the region not from his clerical role but nobiliar one.

As such, the nobiliar nature of listed french bishopries means it was fought over on same grounds, either by rival clerical groups (monasteries, suffragants, etc.) or secular ones (nobles, urban patriciate, communes, etc.). You'd argue you had a similar relationship between Prince-Bishops and their territories, but the nature and origin of their rule differed greatly and was definitely more alike to secular principalties for what matter the situation in France. Later ecclesiastical dominances as in Velay or Albigeois certainly didn't mixed up clerical and secular authority, while gathered on the bishop.

Arguably, the County Palatine of Durham was in-between to prince-bishopries of the HRE, and nobiliar bishopries of France.
Ah yes, I forgot about Durham. And thank you for better explaining the differences between the French and Imperial clerical-led areas.
 
In the HRE, a number of states came to be ruled both ecclesiastically and secularly by Prince-Bishops, often corresponding to their own diocese. Some of these became very powerful such as the Archbishoprics of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne who were electors of the HRE. Other notable prince-bishoprics included Basel, Salzburg, Munster, Wurzburg, Metz, Toul, Verdun, Augsburg, Liege, Utrecht, and Trent. Outside of the HRE, such states are few in number, limited to the Papacy and the Livonian/Teutonic lands. What if prince-bishops were more common outside of the HRE by becoming both secular and ecclesiastic leaders of their communities and unifying their two positions?

For starters, one map of France in 1030 depicted some ecclesiastic lands belonging to the bishops of Reims, Châlons, Langres, Noyon, Beauvais, Laon, and Tournai. A later map showed Velay also being under ecclesiastic rule. One can also point to the Bishop of Urgell in Aragon, Spain, who is a co-prince of Andorra. What if these retained power for longer periods? What the effect of these be on the local politics?
You forgot Rhodes and Malta!
 
Ah yes, I forgot about Durham. And thank you for better explaining the differences between the French and Imperial clerical-led areas.
Arguably, the difference wasn't that marked in the earlier periods, and the dioceses never really matched principalties : what really made the difference right from the start was the imperial delegation and support of these ecclesiastical principalties, rather than more regular nobiliar build-up where delimitations of power was never really clear.

Note that some ecclesiastical territorial build-up in France have been supported by early Capetians in the case of Tournai and Reims maybe in imitation to Ottonians in regions the kings could actually project their authority. But we're generally seeing them as co-lordships, or even secular build-up (such as the County of Langres being given to a member of the ruling dynasty) and everything in between (for Beauvais) including not real clear attribution of the county (as for Chalons). But in spite of the relative complexity of feudal France (it wasn't rare to see a same territory being divided up among various lords, more or less pledging alliegence to each other, and to various overlords for the same territory), you could argue that with a stronger or weaker royal position, you could see more sanctionned ecclesiastical-nobiliar build-up more or less superficially inspired by Ottonian in order to safeguard some territories in regions both particularily touched by political desintegration and in reach of royal power (for instance, if you manage to break up relatively unified duchies such as Normandy or Flanders).
 
Top