Since Bodin, scholars have been debating whether sovereignty is indivisible or rather decentred, multiple, and shared. This article adds to practice-oriented conceptualizations of sovereignty, which acknowledge the existence of jurisdictional pluralism in nineteenth-century state-building. Borrowing from imperial history, it contrasts the nominal supremacy of the Prussian crown – as embodied by the monarchical principle – with the residual sovereign rights of potentates that had lost their lands in Germany's successive wars of unification. The possession of ‘bare sovereignty’ allowed such mediatized princes and exiled rulers to maintain a presence in the lives of their former subjects. They did so by exercising privileges and functions of royalty which left vague in whose name was being governed. The Hohenzollerns for their part struggled (and to a certain extent proved unwilling) to assert exclusive dominion because right of conquest-based justifications had no firm standing in international law, alienated segments of domestic public opinion, and did not necessarily serve the interests of the state. The article argues, ultimately, that the resulting negotiation and contestation of monarchical sovereignty in Prussia speaks to global themes of state-building through state destruction in the Age of Empire.

自博丹以来，学者们一直在争论主权是不可分割的，还是去中心化的、多重的和共享的。本文补充了以实践为导向的主权概念，这些概念承认 19 世纪国家建设中存在管辖权多元化。借用帝国历史，它将普鲁士王室名义上的至高无上（由君主制原则所体现）与在德国连续的统一战争中失去土地的当权者的剩余主权进行了对比。拥有“赤裸裸的主权”允许这些被调解的王子和流放的统治者在他们以前的臣民的生活中保持存在。他们通过行使皇室的特权和职能来做到这一点，而这些特权和职能在谁的名字受到管辖的情况下是模糊的。霍亨索伦家族则努力（并且在某种程度上证明不愿意）主张排他性的统治权，因为基于征服的正当理由在国际法中没有稳固的地位，疏远了国内舆论的一部分，并且不一定为他们的利益服务。状态。文章最终认为，由此产生的普鲁士君主主权的谈判和争论，反映了帝国时代通过国家毁灭来建立国家的全球主题。