GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-09 > 1159096942


From: "Matt Tompkins" <>
Subject: Re: use of word, "pretender"
Date: 24 Sep 2006 04:22:22 -0700
References: <002d01c6de6e$9f815560$6401a8c0@HP>
In-Reply-To: <002d01c6de6e$9f815560$6401a8c0@HP>


"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It depends on the context, whether the word is found in a historical
document or in modern writing, because the meaning of the word has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

This thread: