Titles, The Peerage, etc.

Sat Nam! (Literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

So, what's the emotion (or lack thereof) the person has about the peer? In that person's mind, the peer could be "that goddamn bloody baron," "that noble baron," "the baron with the lovely daughters," etc.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

Is there a reason why your reader needs to know the person is a Baron?

If so, you could perhaps just state near the beginning that he's a Baron. Put it in a thought, "She remembered the look on his face when he'd been told his father died and he was now the fourth Baron Smith." Or just state it in the narrative.

Then the character can just refer to him as "John", "my Lord", "Smith" or "Lord Smith" depending on their relationship to him from then on.

it very much depends on the relationship the character has to the Baron, in terms of status. if he is a commoner he'd call him Lord, even if the baron is only a minor noble. a higher noble might call him by his first name, his family name, or his barony, I.e Albany for the Baron of Albany. depends how well they know each other

you wouldn't call a noble 'Lord + surname' - that's not how it works. their name is separate from their title and the two don't mix! so you could have John Smith, 7th Earl of Barchester, and he'd be called Lord Barchester, not Lord Smith

What Kallithrix said re Lord Smith. He would not be Lord Smith but Lord Title.

Obviously, what the baron would be called would depend on the formality of the situation. For instance, when he is being announced at dinner, etc., he'd be Baron Title. To his male friends, he'd most likely be Title, and perhaps to some close lady friends. First Name would be limited to immediate family almost exclusively.

I've been waffling a bit with my own title issue. The character's name is Ioan Witson, but his mother is Lady Rhys. I've styled him Ioan Witson, Lord Rhys, though he generally goes by Ioan Rhys. I've avoided what exactly his/her title is because it's a messy situation. His mother is actually unnaturally old, so the title is like 600 years old. Things were a tad different in the 1300s. I've been considering just making it Ioan Witson, Viscount Rhys.

Kallithrix said:

you wouldn't call a noble 'Lord + surname' - that's not how it works. their name is separate from their title and the two don't mix! so you could have John Smith, 7th Earl of Barchester, and he'd be called Lord Barchester, not Lord Smith

Click to expand...

With Barons, their surname is sometimes the same as their title and sometimes not. It could be John Smith, The Baron Whoosits, in which case he's Lord Whoosits. Or it could be John Smith, The Baron Smith, in which case he's Lord Smith. It's not often now-a-days the name and title are the same, especially since the title can be inherited by women, in which case the family name will change when a later son inherits it. Plus the family name can change with later creations. But it can happen. The likelihood of the name and title being the same increases the further back in the past the story is set.

I've rarely encountered a title above Baron where the family name and the title are the same--though, as an example, the title Earl of Salisbury was created for Patrick de Salisbury in the 1100s. The family name changed with a later creation and now the family name and title are not the same.

ETA:
Let's say you have John Smith, The Baron Hastings. His family might call him John in private and Hastings in public. His friends and Peers would call him Hastings, unless they were particularly intimate friends when it might be John in private. Almost everyone else would call him My Lord. If my narrative is in the head of a character, I'd call him whatever the character would call him in an intimate setting--whatever the character thinks of him in their head. If it's omniscient narrative, I'd probably go with Hastings.

Byron and Tennyson were both barons. The family name and title were the same, so they were called Lord Byron and Lord Tennyson.

ULTRAGOTHA said:

With Barons, their surname is sometimes the same as their title and sometimes not. It could be John Smith, The Baron Whoosits, in which case he's Lord Whoosits. Or it could be John Smith, The Baron Smith, in which case he's Lord Smith. It's not often now-a-days the name and title are the same, especially since the title can be inherited by women, in which case the family name will change when a later son inherits it. Plus the family name can change with later creations. But it can happen. The likelihood of the name and title being the same increases the further back in the past the story is set.

I've rarely encountered a title above Baron where the family name and the title are the same--though, as an example, the title Earl of Salisbury was created for Patrick de Salisbury in the 1100s. The family name changed with a later creation and now the family name and title are not the same.

ETA:
Let's say you have John Smith, The Baron Hastings. His family might call him John in private and Hastings in public. His friends and Peers would call him Hastings, unless they were particularly intimate friends when it might be John in private. Almost everyone else would call him My Lord. If my narrative is in the head of a character, I'd call him whatever the character would call him in an intimate setting--whatever the character thinks of him in their head. If it's omniscient narrative, I'd probably go with Hastings.

Click to expand...

Might this be a case of confluence? He's Patrick from Salisbury, which is, of course, a place, and he's Earl of Salisbury, which is the place he's from. He just happens to be named after the place, and the title is, conveniently, named after the same place; it's not that the title was named after him.

I may be wrong, but I think all titles are tied to a place. Or am I wrong? I know that e.g. dukedoms are. Being Duke of Wherever doesn't mean anymore that you rule Wherever, but the titles are from a place name. That might not be true of lesser titles.

angeliz2k said:

Might this be a case of confluence? He's Patrick from Salisbury, which is, of course, a place, and he's Earl of Salisbury, which is the place he's from. He just happens to be named after the place, and the title is, conveniently, named after the same place; it's not that the title was named after him.

Click to expand...

This makes sense why it is more common for title and family name to be the same the further back you go - I think originally nobles' surnames were references to the lands they held, whereas the more time went on and titles passed through the female line etc, family names and the names of titles went out of sync. But I think it very unlikely you'd find a noble with a surname like 'Smith', because occupational surnames are for peasants

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Occupational names were most common to townsfolk.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

Siri Kirpal said:

Occupational names were most common to townsfolk.

Click to expand...

Can townsfolk not be peasants? Perhaps I should have gone with the Latin term 'pleb'

Sat Nam! (Literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Peasants usually worked the land. But yeah, "plebe" would do.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal, who has a lot of occupational names in her family tree, both sides

I'll just note that surnames became commonplace and hereditary in England pretty early on, well before 1300 in most places. And over time there was a great deal of physical movement and social churn. (It might take several generations for a family to lift itself from peasant to gentry, but it happened. A lot.) Direct male succession to property averaged 2-3 generations before it was interrupted or diverted. So the relationship between names, places, and properties might vary a great deal depending on exactly when you're looking at. By 1500 there were plenty of people in the upper classes with names like Smith and Cooper.

benbenberi said:

By 1500 there were plenty of people in the upper classes with names like Smith and Cooper.

Click to expand...

Upper classes are not necessarily the nobility though, right? Or are there examples of people who held titles having 'commoner' surnames?

I see a Baker, a Clerke, a Decker (?), a Farmer, a Fletcher, a Gardner, a few Hawkins (?), a Hunter, a Miller, a Page, several Smiths, a Smyth, a Taylor, a Warren, and a Wright amongst the baronetcies. The vast majority of them were created under George III, but I don't think any of them predate George I (August of 1714).

Looking amongst the viscounties, I see a few Butlers, a Roper, a Smythe and a Smyth, a Bard, a Stewart (?), a Trench, a Parker, a Bridgeman, a Milles (?), a Kitchener, and some others. These tend to be a bit older-- a lot of Charles I, some Charles II, some William & Mary, etc.

If someone wanted to, they could look through the baronies, the earldoms, the marquessates, and the dukedoms, and do a surname survey.

The Butlers of Ormond (& other places) were one of the premier noble dynasties in Ireland (Anglo Norman) and go back to the 12c. The Stewarts were, of course, kings of Scotland from the 14c. Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st earl of Shaftesbury, prominent politician of the Commonwealth & Restoration era, was Baron Cooper of Pawlett before he was an earl, and his father, an MP, was a baronet. The family were locally important for generations before. There were a whole slew of fairly prominent Tudor gentlemen, not all related, named Smith.

In England the "nobility" was defined legally as titled heads of family who sat in the House of Lords. Technically not even the sons and nephews of an earl counted as noble. The social class was much broader and encompassed a large number of people without titles.

benbenberi said:

In England the "nobility" was defined legally as titled heads of family who sat in the House of Lords. Technically not even the sons and nephews of an earl counted as noble. The social class was much broader and encompassed a large number of people without titles.

Click to expand...

Whenever I think of 'nobility' it's the legal definition I am referring to - titled lords and their wives. I never use it to refer to the social class, which to me is simply 'the upper class', but... I don't know if that's a me thing or a Brit thing

Kallithrix said:

Whenever I think of 'nobility' it's the legal definition I am referring to - titled lords and their wives. I never use it to refer to the social class, which to me is simply 'the upper class', but... I don't know if that's a me thing or a Brit thing

Click to expand...

Wives aren't included in the legal category.

This extremely narrow definition of nobility is, in fact, an English peculiarity. In every other European country the nobility included not only the family of the title-holder, but also a large number of untitled families -- the sort who in England would have been categorized as "the gentry" and occupied the House of Commons. Depending on the period, there might be significant legal ramifications, and the nobility might be more or less permeable at the boundaries. (Frex. in France in the 16-18c there was a well-defined path by which an individual could purchase certain royal offices and acquire noble status either immediately, or (more often) in 3 generations. There were also repeated campaigns by the royal govt to require people who claimed the perqs of nobility to provide documentary proof of their status -- which typically resulted in many families, some of genuinely ancient stock without the papers to prove it, being thrown off the rolls as fake nobles.)

benbenberi said:

Wives aren't included in the legal category.

Click to expand...

Hmph. I'd still refer to a Duchess as a noble...

So here's my riddle, alluded to above in this thread:

The characters in question are a mother and son. The mother has a title in her own right. She's referred to as Lady Rhys. Rhys is not her family name, but the name of the title (as mentioned, I haven't determined whether it would be, e.g., a baronetcy or what; that detail isn't particularly relevant and doesn't come up). Her married name is Witson. Her son is the MC. The father, a commoner, dies when our MC is a boy; I believe he would have the courtesy title of Lord Rhys. Given that the mother is the one who possesses the title in her own right, that would, then, mean that the MC's title would be a courtesy title, correct? It would be "First-name Last-name, Lord Rhys"? And he would then inherit the actual title when his mother died?

It's a bit of a morass to navigate, but I want to get it right!

Oh, btw, this is all at the turn of the 20th century.

eldergrantaire said:

I think the son's title actually does depend on what the title is. I don't think it could be a baronetcy, because baronets are always male so there'd be no way for the mother to hold the title. As far as I know there's only one rank of the peerage that could be held by women in their own right, which is Baroness. However, the husband of a baroness in her own right gains no title or style from his wife- courtesy titles by marriage are only a thing for women, I'm pretty sure.

Quoting Wikipedia:

However, 'The Honourable' is not a title like most other titles- it is only ever used on envelopes (i.e. when writing a letter to someone, you'd address it to 'The Honble John Smith'). It is never used in conversation or to announce someone- they are announced as plain old 'Mr John Smith'.

I actually don't know how a baroness passes down her title- I assume it would pass to the eldest son, but I don't have any evidence for that.

Click to expand...

Thank you, eldergrantaire!

Sorry, I said "baronetcy" but I meant "baronage", because I was thinking of "baron" not "baronet"!

angeliz2k said:

So here's my riddle, alluded to above in this thread:

The characters in question are a mother and son. The mother has a title in her own right. She's referred to as Lady Rhys. Rhys is not her family name, but the name of the title (as mentioned, I haven't determined whether it would be, e.g., a baronetcy or what; that detail isn't particularly relevant and doesn't come up). Her married name is Witson. Her son is the MC. The father, a commoner, dies when our MC is a boy; I believe he would have the courtesy title of Lord Rhys. Given that the mother is the one who possesses the title in her own right, that would, then, mean that the MC's title would be a courtesy title, correct? It would be "First-name Last-name, Lord Rhys"? And he would then inherit the actual title when his mother died?

It's a bit of a morass to navigate, but I want to get it right!

Oh, btw, this is all at the turn of the 20th century.

Click to expand...

What country are you basing this on? Because that's not really how I understand it works in England/Wales.

If you're setting this story in an alternate universe or history, you can set your titles up however you want. But in England/Wales, it's usually only Baronies that are inherited by women and their sons would not have any title until she died, and certainly not her title.

For males, titles higher than Baron might also have lesser titles. The holder of these multiple titles can gift one of the lesser titles to his heir.

So John Newton, fourth Baron Whoosits, is granted a Viscountcy. He becomes Viscount St. George AND The Baron Whoosits. He may choose to grant the title Baron Whoosits to his heir as a courtesy title.

Or one man may be granted a boatload of titles over his lifetime.
Duke of Wellington, Marquess of Wellington, Marquess of Douro, Earl of Mornington, Earl of Wellington, Viscount Wellesley, Viscount Wellington, Baron Mornington, and Baron Douro. (The Viscountcy of Wellesley and the Barony and Earldom of Mornington are in the Peerage of Ireland; the rest are in the Peerage of the United Kingdom.)

So the Duke of Wellington granted his lesser title of Marquess of Douro to his eldest son as a courtesy title. Other sons and daughters would have courtesy titles of Lord/Lady Firstname. The eldest son of his eldest son is granted the lesser lesser title of Earl of Mornington as a courtesy. When the Duke dies, everyone moves up a title. (The courtesy titles other than Lord/Lady Firstname are in the gift of the Duke. He doesn't HAVE to grant them, it's just tradition.)

Anyway, it's unlikely that a woman would have a high enough title to have lesser titles in her gift to grant to an heir.

Who can inherit a title is laid out in the grant of the title. It's often just the eldest surviving son of any legitimate son of the original person granted the title. If there is no direct male descendant, you go back up the family tree until you find one--uncle or cousin, etc--but no further back up the family tree than the person who was granted the title. But sometimes, as with some Baronies, daughters can inherit (sometimes all of them equally).