“I looked at your link. You can’t use an English translation to prove he used the word “Citizen.” You have to use the original Swedish.”
True, but you also did not use the original German, Italian, or Romansch used by the Helvetic Confederacy; example, Bürgergemeinde (citizens), bourgeoisie, Tagwen, Gemischte Gemeinde, and so forth which denote forms of Swiss municipal citizenship from which Cantonal and Confederacy citizenship are derived. The Swiss citizenship is not all that unlike that of the German Holy Roman Imperial scheme of citizenship of the period, the roman Republic and Roman Empire, and more with respect to the usage of a variety of municipal citizenship as the basis for determining cantonal, state, national, and/or imperial nationality or citizenship.
“I see no references to “Citizen of England”. This is what I mean. The English usage of the word only refers to members of a City. The word is never used to refer to the members of a Nation, at least not in England.
“Usage to refer to members of a Nation appear to be a Swiss thing.”
That is a misconception. Some members of the society of the United States of America today are not citizens and are not entitled to become citizens, because they are only nationals of the United States. All citizens of the United States of America are nationals of the United States of America, but some nationals of the United States of America are not citizens of the United States of America. The same was true of England and Great Britain, all citizens, burghers, burgesses, and citizens were subjects and/or nationals of the English/British sovereign; but not all such people could be citizens. The same was true in the Helvetic Confederacy. The term, citizen, cannot be used to represent all the forms of citizenship which ultimately were used to signify membership among the inhabitants of citizenship in the Helvetic Confederacy. Then and today we still have a distinction between subjects and nationals versus citizens, whether in the United States or in Switzerland.
No I didn't, and that's because I see no examples in those languages which use the word "citizen" or a close variation thereof.
Since my effort is to trace the word "citizen", only occurrences of that word are relevant.
The Swiss citizenship is not all that unlike that of the German Holy Roman Imperial scheme of citizenship of the period, the roman Republic and Roman Empire, and more with respect to the usage of a variety of municipal citizenship as the basis for determining cantonal, state, national, and/or imperial nationality or citizenship.
Did the Holy Roman Empire use the word "Citizen"? Remember, this is an etymology effort, not a conceptual effort.
That is a misconception. Some members of the society of the United States of America today are not citizens and are not entitled to become citizens, because they are only nationals of the United States. All citizens of the United States of America are nationals of the United States of America, but some nationals of the United States of America are not citizens of the United States of America.
Yes, yes, this is all true, but seemingly beside the point. The point I am getting at is how the word "Citizen" came to be used by a populace accustomed to the word "Subject." Why did we substitute the word "Citizen" for that of the more familiar word "Subject"?
Furthermore, in English language usage, the word "citizen" did not mean having a national character. It meant being a member of a city. It was only after we started using it to describe a national character that the word came to mean this in English.
The term, citizen, cannot be used to represent all the forms of citizenship which ultimately were used to signify membership among the inhabitants of citizenship in the Helvetic Confederacy.
My point is to show that our usage of the word is closer to the Swiss usage than it is to the normal English usage of the time period.
Only the Swiss used the word to refer to inhabitants of a Nation. The English did not use the word in that manner.