The complicated stratification of the French nobility means we have to be exceedingly careful in the use of our terms. In particular, defining what is meant by ‘high aristocracy’, or by the label of grand, poses certain problems. The term grand was used in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to describe the most important nobles in France, but the nature and extent of the power they wielded changed along with the nature and power of the royal state. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, in the era of political disruption in the kingdom, grands enjoyed a territorial base and large entourages, and raised significant numbers of troops, sometimes for use against the crown. By 1701, as the Conclusion makes clear, this was no longer the situation. Etiquette and court practice reveals how the grands remained the same sorts of people as before, but in larger numbers and in a different political and cultural situation. As long as one recognises that contexts shift, it is quite valid to describe people in this way, as contmporaries did. Just because the position of the grands was associated with pomp, ostentation and intrigue at court, it does not mean they necessarily lacked power. Moreover, all social distinctions are based on a mixture of political influence, economic power and psychology. So who were the grands?

David Parrott's article on Richelieu, the grands and the army encapsulated princes du sang, princes légitimés, princes étrangers, pairs de France and ducs within this term.