Talk:Imperial immediacy

Wouldn't say so

De facto Reichsfreiheit corresponded to a semi-independence with a far-reaching autonomy.

This would be true in the End of the middle ages when the Kaiser was weak and thus a reichsfreie city hadn't to obey to anybody.

But formerly ther was no semi-indpendence. The reichsunmittelbaren cities hat to do what the emperor said and they did it becaus the status of Reichsfreiheit otherwise could have been taken by the emperor. Roughly speaking. Foreigner 14:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

definitely would not say so. I've fixed some of this and will come back to it another time.Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed the European Law stub, since this does not fall under the category of the European Union. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantages

As I read the the disadvantages problem, the disadvantage of imperial immediacy is that you can lose it. Is this a correct understand? If that is true, perhaps the section should be removed. No-one would say that one disadvantage of having a billion dollars is that you can not have a billion dollars in the future, would they? If it's not true, perhaps someone could clarify it... I really just don't understand the point of it.

A real disadvantage could be say higher imperial taxes or a greater obligation to defend the empire. (I don't claim these happened, I'm just making things up that could hypothetically be right in context.) But just being able to lose your rights isn't a reason for the right to be a disadvantage.

—Felix the Cassowary 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep.79.77.197.93 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_immediacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_immediacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.160.245 (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Economist

Instead of the Economist, maybe we could quote a historian (James J. Sheehan and Peter H. Wilson have both taken the revisionist view) john k (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)