Lord Who?

Barbie_back_to_school From Loretta:

Just back from vacation, I am reaching into the blog topics file.  Sharon Baumgartner wins a Loretta Chase book of her choice for asking the following:

“Every once in a while a character in a historical romance will be referred to simply as Lord Such-and-such, with no indication ever being given as to what his title actually is (Earl, Viscount, Baron).  Sometimes the title is the same as the last name, sometimes it is different.  Was this a typical way to refer to nobility at times, with the actual rank being a given to those of the time?  Was the rank understood to be different if the last name was the same?”

Crowns_coronetsBritish titles and styles of address is a quicksand topic.  One of my favorite quotations on this subject comes from my 1936 Whitaker’s Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Companionage:

“The rules which govern the arrangements of the Peerage are marked by so many complications that even an expert may occasionally be perplexed.”  (italics mine)

This is why, whenever I respond to questions about same, I do so with trembling typing fingers, sure that someone, somewhere, will remind me of an exception I forgot to except or a subtlety I’ve overlooked.  As I try to answer your question, please bear that in mind.

Lawrenceduke_of_wellingtonThe grades of the peerage are, in order of rank, Duke, Marquess or Marquis (pronounced “markwiss” or "markwess" but not "markee"), Earl, Viscount (rhymes with My Count–"s" is silent), Baron.  Anyone  referred to or addressed as Lord So & So is below the rank of Duke.

How do we know this?  A duke is addressed as Your Grace (older style guides include the form My Lord Duke) or, by equals, Duke.  He might be referred to as the Duke of Someplace, e.g., the gentleman here is the Duke of Wellington.  But the duke is never Lord Wellington.  (This rule does not apply to Royal Dukes, who are younger sons of the monarch.  They’re addressed differently.)  

3rd_earl_of_egremontBelow the rank of Duke, the correct form is “Lord.”  So a Lord Somebody is a Marquess/Marquis, Earl, Viscount, or Baron.  One doesn’t address these peers as Marquess of So & So or Baron Such & Such, and normally doesn’t refer to them by their rank.  In conversation, people would refer to this gentleman, the Earl of Egremont, as Lord Egremont or, very informally, Egremont. 

According to my Titles and Forms of Address“All peers and peeresses below ducal rank are called lord and lady in speech….there are a few formal occasions in which the full title would be used, but it would never happen in intimate speech.”

Sometimes the title is the same as the last name and sometimes not.  For a great many peerages, the title comes from the name of a place.  All dukes’ titles are from a place, even when the family name is the same as the title.  But a baron’s title might come from a place, his family name, or another source entirely.

Earl_granville_2 If there's no “of”, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a family name.  And if there is an “of”, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a family name.

The first Earl Granville–whose wife raised the two illegitimate children he had with her aunt–is missing the "of," though Granville isn’t his family name but the name of an ancestor whose title became extinct.  This earl's family name is Leveson-Gower, pronounced lewson-gorr (pronunciation is another minefield).

Dunrobin_castle_2 Leveson-Gower is also the family name of the Duke of Sutherland, who’s selling the Titian and who has a really nice place in Scotland, Dunrobin Castle, that I got to visit years ago when the dollar wasn’t like Monopoly money.  L_owl(That's me at his place with the owl.)

But I digress.

Viscounts and Barons, whether the title is from a place or not, don’t have an “of” in their titles, thus, the Viscount Hereford or the Baron Headley.

Viscount_castlereaghSo no, there’s no way to tell the rank simply from the name used in the title.  Those with whom they associate are supposed to know whether Lord Castlereagh here is a marquess or earl or viscount or baron.  I’ve always imagined that members of the aristocracy learned who was who in the same way they learned to speak, and the knowledge was, like accent, one of the ways members of the upper orders could tell who was one of them and who wasn’t.  It was a small world, after all.

And that’s as far as I dare to go on the topic.  Not a word about younger sons, wives, daughters, son’s wives, daughter’s husbands, etc.

English_dukesIf you’d like to explore this labyrinth, there are plenty of references.  In addition to the aforementioned Whitakers, and an 1811 Debretts reprint, my frequently-used guides are:

Titles and Forms of Address:  A Guide to Correct Use, A&C Black, London.

Measures, Howard.  Styles of Address.  Thomas Y Crowell

Emily Hendrickson, The Regency Reference Book.  An excellent reference for a great many Regency-era subjects, it's sold privately.  Contact Emily at regencygal@hotmail.com for information or to order a copy.

Candice Hern has heaps of terrific Regency-era stuff on her website, including a Who’s Who of the lords & ladies we often encounter in the stories and a fabulous collection of fashion plates. 

Tomjerry_at_almacks Of course, not everyone needs to know more.  Before I got into this business, I had very little understanding of British titles and would not have known or cared when an author used the incorrect form.  Now that I do know, such mistakes may unsuspend my suspension of disbelief.

But what about you?  When you’re reading about lords and ladies, do the titles interest you?  Do you get curious, as Sharon did?  Does incorrect usage bother you?  Or are titles and styles of address simply minor details?

185 thoughts on “Lord Who?”

  1. I just finished something last night from a major writer at a major house which had a major error—calling a character Sir Surname, when I believe it should have been Sir Firstname.
    I find the actual title thing to be pretty straightforward, until you get to the courtesy titles and how to address the daughters and third sons, etc.
    I once asked a question I never got an answer to—is a marquess always heir to a duke? A viscount always heir to an earl? Do peerages stop or always eventually go right to the top?

    Reply
  2. I just finished something last night from a major writer at a major house which had a major error—calling a character Sir Surname, when I believe it should have been Sir Firstname.
    I find the actual title thing to be pretty straightforward, until you get to the courtesy titles and how to address the daughters and third sons, etc.
    I once asked a question I never got an answer to—is a marquess always heir to a duke? A viscount always heir to an earl? Do peerages stop or always eventually go right to the top?

    Reply
  3. I just finished something last night from a major writer at a major house which had a major error—calling a character Sir Surname, when I believe it should have been Sir Firstname.
    I find the actual title thing to be pretty straightforward, until you get to the courtesy titles and how to address the daughters and third sons, etc.
    I once asked a question I never got an answer to—is a marquess always heir to a duke? A viscount always heir to an earl? Do peerages stop or always eventually go right to the top?

    Reply
  4. I just finished something last night from a major writer at a major house which had a major error—calling a character Sir Surname, when I believe it should have been Sir Firstname.
    I find the actual title thing to be pretty straightforward, until you get to the courtesy titles and how to address the daughters and third sons, etc.
    I once asked a question I never got an answer to—is a marquess always heir to a duke? A viscount always heir to an earl? Do peerages stop or always eventually go right to the top?

    Reply
  5. I just finished something last night from a major writer at a major house which had a major error—calling a character Sir Surname, when I believe it should have been Sir Firstname.
    I find the actual title thing to be pretty straightforward, until you get to the courtesy titles and how to address the daughters and third sons, etc.
    I once asked a question I never got an answer to—is a marquess always heir to a duke? A viscount always heir to an earl? Do peerages stop or always eventually go right to the top?

    Reply
  6. I’m more interested in where they’re the Duke of. Much amusement when authors not familiar with an area chose a really rundown district or somewhere now very urban. Of course there are plenty of dukes of places that have become urban, but I can’t imagine anyone choosing the name now out of choice.

    Reply
  7. I’m more interested in where they’re the Duke of. Much amusement when authors not familiar with an area chose a really rundown district or somewhere now very urban. Of course there are plenty of dukes of places that have become urban, but I can’t imagine anyone choosing the name now out of choice.

    Reply
  8. I’m more interested in where they’re the Duke of. Much amusement when authors not familiar with an area chose a really rundown district or somewhere now very urban. Of course there are plenty of dukes of places that have become urban, but I can’t imagine anyone choosing the name now out of choice.

    Reply
  9. I’m more interested in where they’re the Duke of. Much amusement when authors not familiar with an area chose a really rundown district or somewhere now very urban. Of course there are plenty of dukes of places that have become urban, but I can’t imagine anyone choosing the name now out of choice.

    Reply
  10. I’m more interested in where they’re the Duke of. Much amusement when authors not familiar with an area chose a really rundown district or somewhere now very urban. Of course there are plenty of dukes of places that have become urban, but I can’t imagine anyone choosing the name now out of choice.

    Reply
  11. Before I knew anything about titles, I didn’t know whether the author was right or wrong, and it didn’t bother me, either. Now that I know a few things, and I agree, the more I read up on it, the less I know, I get very irritated when the author gets it wrong.
    What especially irritates me is when they get something wrong that is very easy to look up. One book called the daughter of the Earl of Appleton Lady Appleton. No, Lady Appleton is the earl’s wife. The Earl’s daughter Mary is Lady Mary /last name/, where last name is the family name, which may or may not be Appleton. She is addressed as Lady Mary.
    If you really want to get confused, here’s a long list of ways to address peers.
    http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles12.html

    Reply
  12. Before I knew anything about titles, I didn’t know whether the author was right or wrong, and it didn’t bother me, either. Now that I know a few things, and I agree, the more I read up on it, the less I know, I get very irritated when the author gets it wrong.
    What especially irritates me is when they get something wrong that is very easy to look up. One book called the daughter of the Earl of Appleton Lady Appleton. No, Lady Appleton is the earl’s wife. The Earl’s daughter Mary is Lady Mary /last name/, where last name is the family name, which may or may not be Appleton. She is addressed as Lady Mary.
    If you really want to get confused, here’s a long list of ways to address peers.
    http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles12.html

    Reply
  13. Before I knew anything about titles, I didn’t know whether the author was right or wrong, and it didn’t bother me, either. Now that I know a few things, and I agree, the more I read up on it, the less I know, I get very irritated when the author gets it wrong.
    What especially irritates me is when they get something wrong that is very easy to look up. One book called the daughter of the Earl of Appleton Lady Appleton. No, Lady Appleton is the earl’s wife. The Earl’s daughter Mary is Lady Mary /last name/, where last name is the family name, which may or may not be Appleton. She is addressed as Lady Mary.
    If you really want to get confused, here’s a long list of ways to address peers.
    http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles12.html

    Reply
  14. Before I knew anything about titles, I didn’t know whether the author was right or wrong, and it didn’t bother me, either. Now that I know a few things, and I agree, the more I read up on it, the less I know, I get very irritated when the author gets it wrong.
    What especially irritates me is when they get something wrong that is very easy to look up. One book called the daughter of the Earl of Appleton Lady Appleton. No, Lady Appleton is the earl’s wife. The Earl’s daughter Mary is Lady Mary /last name/, where last name is the family name, which may or may not be Appleton. She is addressed as Lady Mary.
    If you really want to get confused, here’s a long list of ways to address peers.
    http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles12.html

    Reply
  15. Before I knew anything about titles, I didn’t know whether the author was right or wrong, and it didn’t bother me, either. Now that I know a few things, and I agree, the more I read up on it, the less I know, I get very irritated when the author gets it wrong.
    What especially irritates me is when they get something wrong that is very easy to look up. One book called the daughter of the Earl of Appleton Lady Appleton. No, Lady Appleton is the earl’s wife. The Earl’s daughter Mary is Lady Mary /last name/, where last name is the family name, which may or may not be Appleton. She is addressed as Lady Mary.
    If you really want to get confused, here’s a long list of ways to address peers.
    http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles12.html

    Reply
  16. What really gets my goat is when you have your addresses right in your MS and an unknowledgeable contest judge thinks s/he knows more (or doesn’t know anything at all) and tanks your scores because s/he was miffed or confused. I’ve learned that it’s not about being right but about bending to readers needs. So, I’ve actually introduced a few purposeful “mistakes” just so I can get past the judges radar. Ah, well… live and learn.
    As a reader, before I had a basic understanding of peerage, I was often confused by titles but found such confusion easily ignored if the story was good.
    My favorite resource on titles (and all things Regency) is Emily Hendrickson’s The Regency Reference Book. It comes on CD and it’s searchable!! No more thumbing or scrolling through text, taking hours to find what you want. And, if a question arises or you simply don’t understand, just shoot Emily an email. She’s a fabulous woman who really knows her stuff and how to enhance yours.
    🙂
    Nina

    Reply
  17. What really gets my goat is when you have your addresses right in your MS and an unknowledgeable contest judge thinks s/he knows more (or doesn’t know anything at all) and tanks your scores because s/he was miffed or confused. I’ve learned that it’s not about being right but about bending to readers needs. So, I’ve actually introduced a few purposeful “mistakes” just so I can get past the judges radar. Ah, well… live and learn.
    As a reader, before I had a basic understanding of peerage, I was often confused by titles but found such confusion easily ignored if the story was good.
    My favorite resource on titles (and all things Regency) is Emily Hendrickson’s The Regency Reference Book. It comes on CD and it’s searchable!! No more thumbing or scrolling through text, taking hours to find what you want. And, if a question arises or you simply don’t understand, just shoot Emily an email. She’s a fabulous woman who really knows her stuff and how to enhance yours.
    🙂
    Nina

    Reply
  18. What really gets my goat is when you have your addresses right in your MS and an unknowledgeable contest judge thinks s/he knows more (or doesn’t know anything at all) and tanks your scores because s/he was miffed or confused. I’ve learned that it’s not about being right but about bending to readers needs. So, I’ve actually introduced a few purposeful “mistakes” just so I can get past the judges radar. Ah, well… live and learn.
    As a reader, before I had a basic understanding of peerage, I was often confused by titles but found such confusion easily ignored if the story was good.
    My favorite resource on titles (and all things Regency) is Emily Hendrickson’s The Regency Reference Book. It comes on CD and it’s searchable!! No more thumbing or scrolling through text, taking hours to find what you want. And, if a question arises or you simply don’t understand, just shoot Emily an email. She’s a fabulous woman who really knows her stuff and how to enhance yours.
    🙂
    Nina

    Reply
  19. What really gets my goat is when you have your addresses right in your MS and an unknowledgeable contest judge thinks s/he knows more (or doesn’t know anything at all) and tanks your scores because s/he was miffed or confused. I’ve learned that it’s not about being right but about bending to readers needs. So, I’ve actually introduced a few purposeful “mistakes” just so I can get past the judges radar. Ah, well… live and learn.
    As a reader, before I had a basic understanding of peerage, I was often confused by titles but found such confusion easily ignored if the story was good.
    My favorite resource on titles (and all things Regency) is Emily Hendrickson’s The Regency Reference Book. It comes on CD and it’s searchable!! No more thumbing or scrolling through text, taking hours to find what you want. And, if a question arises or you simply don’t understand, just shoot Emily an email. She’s a fabulous woman who really knows her stuff and how to enhance yours.
    🙂
    Nina

    Reply
  20. What really gets my goat is when you have your addresses right in your MS and an unknowledgeable contest judge thinks s/he knows more (or doesn’t know anything at all) and tanks your scores because s/he was miffed or confused. I’ve learned that it’s not about being right but about bending to readers needs. So, I’ve actually introduced a few purposeful “mistakes” just so I can get past the judges radar. Ah, well… live and learn.
    As a reader, before I had a basic understanding of peerage, I was often confused by titles but found such confusion easily ignored if the story was good.
    My favorite resource on titles (and all things Regency) is Emily Hendrickson’s The Regency Reference Book. It comes on CD and it’s searchable!! No more thumbing or scrolling through text, taking hours to find what you want. And, if a question arises or you simply don’t understand, just shoot Emily an email. She’s a fabulous woman who really knows her stuff and how to enhance yours.
    🙂
    Nina

    Reply
  21. I am fortunate enough to have a British friend who, at my age, was taught in school there, the hierarchy of the peerage (don’t ask, I’m not telling! 😉 ) which, I understand, isn’t necessarily taught anymore. I ask her if there’s anything I don’t understand when I’m trying to research things but, as you pointed out, it is a huge labyrinth of who falls where on the peerage order when you start getting into younger sons and such.
    Then too, you have the title “Sir” which could be bestowed for services to the crown among a varitey of other things and that opens a whole new can of worms! Because some were acceptable ‘Sirs’, and some just…weren’t.

    Reply
  22. I am fortunate enough to have a British friend who, at my age, was taught in school there, the hierarchy of the peerage (don’t ask, I’m not telling! 😉 ) which, I understand, isn’t necessarily taught anymore. I ask her if there’s anything I don’t understand when I’m trying to research things but, as you pointed out, it is a huge labyrinth of who falls where on the peerage order when you start getting into younger sons and such.
    Then too, you have the title “Sir” which could be bestowed for services to the crown among a varitey of other things and that opens a whole new can of worms! Because some were acceptable ‘Sirs’, and some just…weren’t.

    Reply
  23. I am fortunate enough to have a British friend who, at my age, was taught in school there, the hierarchy of the peerage (don’t ask, I’m not telling! 😉 ) which, I understand, isn’t necessarily taught anymore. I ask her if there’s anything I don’t understand when I’m trying to research things but, as you pointed out, it is a huge labyrinth of who falls where on the peerage order when you start getting into younger sons and such.
    Then too, you have the title “Sir” which could be bestowed for services to the crown among a varitey of other things and that opens a whole new can of worms! Because some were acceptable ‘Sirs’, and some just…weren’t.

    Reply
  24. I am fortunate enough to have a British friend who, at my age, was taught in school there, the hierarchy of the peerage (don’t ask, I’m not telling! 😉 ) which, I understand, isn’t necessarily taught anymore. I ask her if there’s anything I don’t understand when I’m trying to research things but, as you pointed out, it is a huge labyrinth of who falls where on the peerage order when you start getting into younger sons and such.
    Then too, you have the title “Sir” which could be bestowed for services to the crown among a varitey of other things and that opens a whole new can of worms! Because some were acceptable ‘Sirs’, and some just…weren’t.

    Reply
  25. I am fortunate enough to have a British friend who, at my age, was taught in school there, the hierarchy of the peerage (don’t ask, I’m not telling! 😉 ) which, I understand, isn’t necessarily taught anymore. I ask her if there’s anything I don’t understand when I’m trying to research things but, as you pointed out, it is a huge labyrinth of who falls where on the peerage order when you start getting into younger sons and such.
    Then too, you have the title “Sir” which could be bestowed for services to the crown among a varitey of other things and that opens a whole new can of worms! Because some were acceptable ‘Sirs’, and some just…weren’t.

    Reply
  26. “I once asked a question I never got an answer to—is a marquess always heir to a duke? A viscount always heir to an earl? Do peerages stop or always eventually go right to the top?”
    Maggie, a duke’s heir may be an earl or a viscount or Captain Somebody or have no title at all. According to Titles and Forms of Address: “In almost every case, [dukes, marquesses, and earls] have lesser titles, also, of which the eldest son usually takes the highest as his courtesy title and uses it in every way as if it were his by right….The eldest son aof a duke is born in the degree of a marquess, but his courtesy title depends upon his father’s lesser dignities. He takes the highest of these…” No, peerages do not necessarily progress to the top ranks. My 1964 Whitakers lists baronies going back to the 13th and 14th centuries. Someone like the Duke of Wellington progressed rapidly through the ranks because of his spectacular military service. One of my Annual Registers lists peers & has a column telling whether the peerage was obtained by Court Favour, Family Influence, State Service, Naval Services, Military Services, Diplomatic Services, Legal services, Marriage, or Influence of Wealth.

    Reply
  27. “I once asked a question I never got an answer to—is a marquess always heir to a duke? A viscount always heir to an earl? Do peerages stop or always eventually go right to the top?”
    Maggie, a duke’s heir may be an earl or a viscount or Captain Somebody or have no title at all. According to Titles and Forms of Address: “In almost every case, [dukes, marquesses, and earls] have lesser titles, also, of which the eldest son usually takes the highest as his courtesy title and uses it in every way as if it were his by right….The eldest son aof a duke is born in the degree of a marquess, but his courtesy title depends upon his father’s lesser dignities. He takes the highest of these…” No, peerages do not necessarily progress to the top ranks. My 1964 Whitakers lists baronies going back to the 13th and 14th centuries. Someone like the Duke of Wellington progressed rapidly through the ranks because of his spectacular military service. One of my Annual Registers lists peers & has a column telling whether the peerage was obtained by Court Favour, Family Influence, State Service, Naval Services, Military Services, Diplomatic Services, Legal services, Marriage, or Influence of Wealth.

    Reply
  28. “I once asked a question I never got an answer to—is a marquess always heir to a duke? A viscount always heir to an earl? Do peerages stop or always eventually go right to the top?”
    Maggie, a duke’s heir may be an earl or a viscount or Captain Somebody or have no title at all. According to Titles and Forms of Address: “In almost every case, [dukes, marquesses, and earls] have lesser titles, also, of which the eldest son usually takes the highest as his courtesy title and uses it in every way as if it were his by right….The eldest son aof a duke is born in the degree of a marquess, but his courtesy title depends upon his father’s lesser dignities. He takes the highest of these…” No, peerages do not necessarily progress to the top ranks. My 1964 Whitakers lists baronies going back to the 13th and 14th centuries. Someone like the Duke of Wellington progressed rapidly through the ranks because of his spectacular military service. One of my Annual Registers lists peers & has a column telling whether the peerage was obtained by Court Favour, Family Influence, State Service, Naval Services, Military Services, Diplomatic Services, Legal services, Marriage, or Influence of Wealth.

    Reply
  29. “I once asked a question I never got an answer to—is a marquess always heir to a duke? A viscount always heir to an earl? Do peerages stop or always eventually go right to the top?”
    Maggie, a duke’s heir may be an earl or a viscount or Captain Somebody or have no title at all. According to Titles and Forms of Address: “In almost every case, [dukes, marquesses, and earls] have lesser titles, also, of which the eldest son usually takes the highest as his courtesy title and uses it in every way as if it were his by right….The eldest son aof a duke is born in the degree of a marquess, but his courtesy title depends upon his father’s lesser dignities. He takes the highest of these…” No, peerages do not necessarily progress to the top ranks. My 1964 Whitakers lists baronies going back to the 13th and 14th centuries. Someone like the Duke of Wellington progressed rapidly through the ranks because of his spectacular military service. One of my Annual Registers lists peers & has a column telling whether the peerage was obtained by Court Favour, Family Influence, State Service, Naval Services, Military Services, Diplomatic Services, Legal services, Marriage, or Influence of Wealth.

    Reply
  30. “I once asked a question I never got an answer to—is a marquess always heir to a duke? A viscount always heir to an earl? Do peerages stop or always eventually go right to the top?”
    Maggie, a duke’s heir may be an earl or a viscount or Captain Somebody or have no title at all. According to Titles and Forms of Address: “In almost every case, [dukes, marquesses, and earls] have lesser titles, also, of which the eldest son usually takes the highest as his courtesy title and uses it in every way as if it were his by right….The eldest son aof a duke is born in the degree of a marquess, but his courtesy title depends upon his father’s lesser dignities. He takes the highest of these…” No, peerages do not necessarily progress to the top ranks. My 1964 Whitakers lists baronies going back to the 13th and 14th centuries. Someone like the Duke of Wellington progressed rapidly through the ranks because of his spectacular military service. One of my Annual Registers lists peers & has a column telling whether the peerage was obtained by Court Favour, Family Influence, State Service, Naval Services, Military Services, Diplomatic Services, Legal services, Marriage, or Influence of Wealth.

    Reply
  31. Francois, it’s interesting that when you see the title, you picture the place as it is today. I think most of us pick names for the sound (editors do reject names that don’t sound right–not manly enough, for instance, or sounding like a villain’s name) or some connection to the character of the hero, and, since we are setting books in the past, we picture attractive countryside of times past rather than urban blight.____ Linda, that one with using last name where it should be first name (and vice versa) makes me crazy–because it is one of the basics, and so easy to look up. Do you notice this happens more in mysteries than in romances? I find it in books that seem otherwise so well researched, and it stuns me. The website you mention is another excellent one.___Nina, I couldn’t agree more. Emily is knowledgeable and generous with her help. Readers who’d like to buy the CD can email her at the address listed above in the blog.___theo, how cool that your friend learned it in school! So I guess our characters learned from their tutors and governesses and parents. It’s becoming arcane knowledge, though. It’s one thing when the U.S. newspapers are clueless about titles, but when I see egregious errors in UK papers, I do wonder. Still, fact checking isn’t what it used to be, anywhere in the world.

    Reply
  32. Francois, it’s interesting that when you see the title, you picture the place as it is today. I think most of us pick names for the sound (editors do reject names that don’t sound right–not manly enough, for instance, or sounding like a villain’s name) or some connection to the character of the hero, and, since we are setting books in the past, we picture attractive countryside of times past rather than urban blight.____ Linda, that one with using last name where it should be first name (and vice versa) makes me crazy–because it is one of the basics, and so easy to look up. Do you notice this happens more in mysteries than in romances? I find it in books that seem otherwise so well researched, and it stuns me. The website you mention is another excellent one.___Nina, I couldn’t agree more. Emily is knowledgeable and generous with her help. Readers who’d like to buy the CD can email her at the address listed above in the blog.___theo, how cool that your friend learned it in school! So I guess our characters learned from their tutors and governesses and parents. It’s becoming arcane knowledge, though. It’s one thing when the U.S. newspapers are clueless about titles, but when I see egregious errors in UK papers, I do wonder. Still, fact checking isn’t what it used to be, anywhere in the world.

    Reply
  33. Francois, it’s interesting that when you see the title, you picture the place as it is today. I think most of us pick names for the sound (editors do reject names that don’t sound right–not manly enough, for instance, or sounding like a villain’s name) or some connection to the character of the hero, and, since we are setting books in the past, we picture attractive countryside of times past rather than urban blight.____ Linda, that one with using last name where it should be first name (and vice versa) makes me crazy–because it is one of the basics, and so easy to look up. Do you notice this happens more in mysteries than in romances? I find it in books that seem otherwise so well researched, and it stuns me. The website you mention is another excellent one.___Nina, I couldn’t agree more. Emily is knowledgeable and generous with her help. Readers who’d like to buy the CD can email her at the address listed above in the blog.___theo, how cool that your friend learned it in school! So I guess our characters learned from their tutors and governesses and parents. It’s becoming arcane knowledge, though. It’s one thing when the U.S. newspapers are clueless about titles, but when I see egregious errors in UK papers, I do wonder. Still, fact checking isn’t what it used to be, anywhere in the world.

    Reply
  34. Francois, it’s interesting that when you see the title, you picture the place as it is today. I think most of us pick names for the sound (editors do reject names that don’t sound right–not manly enough, for instance, or sounding like a villain’s name) or some connection to the character of the hero, and, since we are setting books in the past, we picture attractive countryside of times past rather than urban blight.____ Linda, that one with using last name where it should be first name (and vice versa) makes me crazy–because it is one of the basics, and so easy to look up. Do you notice this happens more in mysteries than in romances? I find it in books that seem otherwise so well researched, and it stuns me. The website you mention is another excellent one.___Nina, I couldn’t agree more. Emily is knowledgeable and generous with her help. Readers who’d like to buy the CD can email her at the address listed above in the blog.___theo, how cool that your friend learned it in school! So I guess our characters learned from their tutors and governesses and parents. It’s becoming arcane knowledge, though. It’s one thing when the U.S. newspapers are clueless about titles, but when I see egregious errors in UK papers, I do wonder. Still, fact checking isn’t what it used to be, anywhere in the world.

    Reply
  35. Francois, it’s interesting that when you see the title, you picture the place as it is today. I think most of us pick names for the sound (editors do reject names that don’t sound right–not manly enough, for instance, or sounding like a villain’s name) or some connection to the character of the hero, and, since we are setting books in the past, we picture attractive countryside of times past rather than urban blight.____ Linda, that one with using last name where it should be first name (and vice versa) makes me crazy–because it is one of the basics, and so easy to look up. Do you notice this happens more in mysteries than in romances? I find it in books that seem otherwise so well researched, and it stuns me. The website you mention is another excellent one.___Nina, I couldn’t agree more. Emily is knowledgeable and generous with her help. Readers who’d like to buy the CD can email her at the address listed above in the blog.___theo, how cool that your friend learned it in school! So I guess our characters learned from their tutors and governesses and parents. It’s becoming arcane knowledge, though. It’s one thing when the U.S. newspapers are clueless about titles, but when I see egregious errors in UK papers, I do wonder. Still, fact checking isn’t what it used to be, anywhere in the world.

    Reply
  36. I think one of the reasons that title-gaffes are so irritating is that they’re often repeated over and over again throughout a book, every time the character is mentioned. When it’s a hero or heroine, that’s a whole lot of irritation — especially when it can be avoided with a handbook such as the one Loretta mentioned.
    Yes, ultimately the story’s more important, but not bothering to “get things right” in historical fiction, whether it’s wrong dates, anachronistic dress, or goofy titles, is just as careless as lousy grammar. And readers DO notice: this blog is proof enough of that. 🙂

    Reply
  37. I think one of the reasons that title-gaffes are so irritating is that they’re often repeated over and over again throughout a book, every time the character is mentioned. When it’s a hero or heroine, that’s a whole lot of irritation — especially when it can be avoided with a handbook such as the one Loretta mentioned.
    Yes, ultimately the story’s more important, but not bothering to “get things right” in historical fiction, whether it’s wrong dates, anachronistic dress, or goofy titles, is just as careless as lousy grammar. And readers DO notice: this blog is proof enough of that. 🙂

    Reply
  38. I think one of the reasons that title-gaffes are so irritating is that they’re often repeated over and over again throughout a book, every time the character is mentioned. When it’s a hero or heroine, that’s a whole lot of irritation — especially when it can be avoided with a handbook such as the one Loretta mentioned.
    Yes, ultimately the story’s more important, but not bothering to “get things right” in historical fiction, whether it’s wrong dates, anachronistic dress, or goofy titles, is just as careless as lousy grammar. And readers DO notice: this blog is proof enough of that. 🙂

    Reply
  39. I think one of the reasons that title-gaffes are so irritating is that they’re often repeated over and over again throughout a book, every time the character is mentioned. When it’s a hero or heroine, that’s a whole lot of irritation — especially when it can be avoided with a handbook such as the one Loretta mentioned.
    Yes, ultimately the story’s more important, but not bothering to “get things right” in historical fiction, whether it’s wrong dates, anachronistic dress, or goofy titles, is just as careless as lousy grammar. And readers DO notice: this blog is proof enough of that. 🙂

    Reply
  40. I think one of the reasons that title-gaffes are so irritating is that they’re often repeated over and over again throughout a book, every time the character is mentioned. When it’s a hero or heroine, that’s a whole lot of irritation — especially when it can be avoided with a handbook such as the one Loretta mentioned.
    Yes, ultimately the story’s more important, but not bothering to “get things right” in historical fiction, whether it’s wrong dates, anachronistic dress, or goofy titles, is just as careless as lousy grammar. And readers DO notice: this blog is proof enough of that. 🙂

    Reply
  41. So–how DO you address the Holy Roman Emperor when you’re asking him how he likes his eggs?
    The one that bugs me the most is referring to Sir Winston Churchill and his ilk as “Sir Churchill” rather than “Sir Winston.” Also I never can remember if the younger sons of marquesses are lords or honorables–which is why I never speak to them in the express checkout line at the supermarket.
    A fun guide through the various titles and creations is THE WIMSEY FAMILY by C.W. Scott-Giles and Dorothy L. Sayers, available at great cost from the Dorothy L. Sayers Society:
    http://www.sayers.org.uk/press/wimseyfamily.html
    or more reasonably from UBS. It tells you all about the murrain of mice and the hosier’s widow, as well.
    I have just sent a query about Earl **of** X vs. Earl (Spencer, for example) to a friend knowledgeable about heraldry. I wonder if the Tigress can help; she knows a member of the College of Arms, and her great-uncle (I think) was Rouge Dragon Extraordinary or some such.

    Reply
  42. So–how DO you address the Holy Roman Emperor when you’re asking him how he likes his eggs?
    The one that bugs me the most is referring to Sir Winston Churchill and his ilk as “Sir Churchill” rather than “Sir Winston.” Also I never can remember if the younger sons of marquesses are lords or honorables–which is why I never speak to them in the express checkout line at the supermarket.
    A fun guide through the various titles and creations is THE WIMSEY FAMILY by C.W. Scott-Giles and Dorothy L. Sayers, available at great cost from the Dorothy L. Sayers Society:
    http://www.sayers.org.uk/press/wimseyfamily.html
    or more reasonably from UBS. It tells you all about the murrain of mice and the hosier’s widow, as well.
    I have just sent a query about Earl **of** X vs. Earl (Spencer, for example) to a friend knowledgeable about heraldry. I wonder if the Tigress can help; she knows a member of the College of Arms, and her great-uncle (I think) was Rouge Dragon Extraordinary or some such.

    Reply
  43. So–how DO you address the Holy Roman Emperor when you’re asking him how he likes his eggs?
    The one that bugs me the most is referring to Sir Winston Churchill and his ilk as “Sir Churchill” rather than “Sir Winston.” Also I never can remember if the younger sons of marquesses are lords or honorables–which is why I never speak to them in the express checkout line at the supermarket.
    A fun guide through the various titles and creations is THE WIMSEY FAMILY by C.W. Scott-Giles and Dorothy L. Sayers, available at great cost from the Dorothy L. Sayers Society:
    http://www.sayers.org.uk/press/wimseyfamily.html
    or more reasonably from UBS. It tells you all about the murrain of mice and the hosier’s widow, as well.
    I have just sent a query about Earl **of** X vs. Earl (Spencer, for example) to a friend knowledgeable about heraldry. I wonder if the Tigress can help; she knows a member of the College of Arms, and her great-uncle (I think) was Rouge Dragon Extraordinary or some such.

    Reply
  44. So–how DO you address the Holy Roman Emperor when you’re asking him how he likes his eggs?
    The one that bugs me the most is referring to Sir Winston Churchill and his ilk as “Sir Churchill” rather than “Sir Winston.” Also I never can remember if the younger sons of marquesses are lords or honorables–which is why I never speak to them in the express checkout line at the supermarket.
    A fun guide through the various titles and creations is THE WIMSEY FAMILY by C.W. Scott-Giles and Dorothy L. Sayers, available at great cost from the Dorothy L. Sayers Society:
    http://www.sayers.org.uk/press/wimseyfamily.html
    or more reasonably from UBS. It tells you all about the murrain of mice and the hosier’s widow, as well.
    I have just sent a query about Earl **of** X vs. Earl (Spencer, for example) to a friend knowledgeable about heraldry. I wonder if the Tigress can help; she knows a member of the College of Arms, and her great-uncle (I think) was Rouge Dragon Extraordinary or some such.

    Reply
  45. So–how DO you address the Holy Roman Emperor when you’re asking him how he likes his eggs?
    The one that bugs me the most is referring to Sir Winston Churchill and his ilk as “Sir Churchill” rather than “Sir Winston.” Also I never can remember if the younger sons of marquesses are lords or honorables–which is why I never speak to them in the express checkout line at the supermarket.
    A fun guide through the various titles and creations is THE WIMSEY FAMILY by C.W. Scott-Giles and Dorothy L. Sayers, available at great cost from the Dorothy L. Sayers Society:
    http://www.sayers.org.uk/press/wimseyfamily.html
    or more reasonably from UBS. It tells you all about the murrain of mice and the hosier’s widow, as well.
    I have just sent a query about Earl **of** X vs. Earl (Spencer, for example) to a friend knowledgeable about heraldry. I wonder if the Tigress can help; she knows a member of the College of Arms, and her great-uncle (I think) was Rouge Dragon Extraordinary or some such.

    Reply
  46. According to my friend, “Earl of X” means you hold a territory by that name, which may or may not be the same as your own surname. “Earl X” means you got the title for services to the Crown, and there’s no fief necessarily attached to it.
    Clement Attlee, the Labour Party leader, always swore the only title he’d ever accept was “Lord Love-a-Duck of Limehouse”–but he wound up as Earl Attlee all the same.

    Reply
  47. According to my friend, “Earl of X” means you hold a territory by that name, which may or may not be the same as your own surname. “Earl X” means you got the title for services to the Crown, and there’s no fief necessarily attached to it.
    Clement Attlee, the Labour Party leader, always swore the only title he’d ever accept was “Lord Love-a-Duck of Limehouse”–but he wound up as Earl Attlee all the same.

    Reply
  48. According to my friend, “Earl of X” means you hold a territory by that name, which may or may not be the same as your own surname. “Earl X” means you got the title for services to the Crown, and there’s no fief necessarily attached to it.
    Clement Attlee, the Labour Party leader, always swore the only title he’d ever accept was “Lord Love-a-Duck of Limehouse”–but he wound up as Earl Attlee all the same.

    Reply
  49. According to my friend, “Earl of X” means you hold a territory by that name, which may or may not be the same as your own surname. “Earl X” means you got the title for services to the Crown, and there’s no fief necessarily attached to it.
    Clement Attlee, the Labour Party leader, always swore the only title he’d ever accept was “Lord Love-a-Duck of Limehouse”–but he wound up as Earl Attlee all the same.

    Reply
  50. According to my friend, “Earl of X” means you hold a territory by that name, which may or may not be the same as your own surname. “Earl X” means you got the title for services to the Crown, and there’s no fief necessarily attached to it.
    Clement Attlee, the Labour Party leader, always swore the only title he’d ever accept was “Lord Love-a-Duck of Limehouse”–but he wound up as Earl Attlee all the same.

    Reply
  51. I never knew about the “of”. I find the whole thing very confusing and that’s just the English titles, what about the German, French or Russian?

    Reply
  52. I never knew about the “of”. I find the whole thing very confusing and that’s just the English titles, what about the German, French or Russian?

    Reply
  53. I never knew about the “of”. I find the whole thing very confusing and that’s just the English titles, what about the German, French or Russian?

    Reply
  54. I never knew about the “of”. I find the whole thing very confusing and that’s just the English titles, what about the German, French or Russian?

    Reply
  55. I never knew about the “of”. I find the whole thing very confusing and that’s just the English titles, what about the German, French or Russian?

    Reply
  56. My first introduction to the world of titles was via the Count of Sesame Street, modelled on Count Dracula. Kind of funny to think that this icon was actually a lesser aristo rather than lord of all he surveyed (unless, perhaps, the Transylvanian/Romanian system was structured differently).

    Reply
  57. My first introduction to the world of titles was via the Count of Sesame Street, modelled on Count Dracula. Kind of funny to think that this icon was actually a lesser aristo rather than lord of all he surveyed (unless, perhaps, the Transylvanian/Romanian system was structured differently).

    Reply
  58. My first introduction to the world of titles was via the Count of Sesame Street, modelled on Count Dracula. Kind of funny to think that this icon was actually a lesser aristo rather than lord of all he surveyed (unless, perhaps, the Transylvanian/Romanian system was structured differently).

    Reply
  59. My first introduction to the world of titles was via the Count of Sesame Street, modelled on Count Dracula. Kind of funny to think that this icon was actually a lesser aristo rather than lord of all he surveyed (unless, perhaps, the Transylvanian/Romanian system was structured differently).

    Reply
  60. My first introduction to the world of titles was via the Count of Sesame Street, modelled on Count Dracula. Kind of funny to think that this icon was actually a lesser aristo rather than lord of all he surveyed (unless, perhaps, the Transylvanian/Romanian system was structured differently).

    Reply
  61. What bothers me more than mistakes about title are mistakes about inheritance. I don’t know how many times some clueless writer has had an older brother inheriting one title and his younger brother or even first cousin who is the son of his father’s brother inheriting another, supposedly from some uncle or other. If there is any way for this to actually happen, I can’t imagine what it could be.

    Reply
  62. What bothers me more than mistakes about title are mistakes about inheritance. I don’t know how many times some clueless writer has had an older brother inheriting one title and his younger brother or even first cousin who is the son of his father’s brother inheriting another, supposedly from some uncle or other. If there is any way for this to actually happen, I can’t imagine what it could be.

    Reply
  63. What bothers me more than mistakes about title are mistakes about inheritance. I don’t know how many times some clueless writer has had an older brother inheriting one title and his younger brother or even first cousin who is the son of his father’s brother inheriting another, supposedly from some uncle or other. If there is any way for this to actually happen, I can’t imagine what it could be.

    Reply
  64. What bothers me more than mistakes about title are mistakes about inheritance. I don’t know how many times some clueless writer has had an older brother inheriting one title and his younger brother or even first cousin who is the son of his father’s brother inheriting another, supposedly from some uncle or other. If there is any way for this to actually happen, I can’t imagine what it could be.

    Reply
  65. What bothers me more than mistakes about title are mistakes about inheritance. I don’t know how many times some clueless writer has had an older brother inheriting one title and his younger brother or even first cousin who is the son of his father’s brother inheriting another, supposedly from some uncle or other. If there is any way for this to actually happen, I can’t imagine what it could be.

    Reply
  66. The first I remember about hearing about English titles was when Lady Di appeared and and I believe her brother was an Earl. I didn’t really think about it until so many years later when I started reading historical romances set in England.

    Reply
  67. The first I remember about hearing about English titles was when Lady Di appeared and and I believe her brother was an Earl. I didn’t really think about it until so many years later when I started reading historical romances set in England.

    Reply
  68. The first I remember about hearing about English titles was when Lady Di appeared and and I believe her brother was an Earl. I didn’t really think about it until so many years later when I started reading historical romances set in England.

    Reply
  69. The first I remember about hearing about English titles was when Lady Di appeared and and I believe her brother was an Earl. I didn’t really think about it until so many years later when I started reading historical romances set in England.

    Reply
  70. The first I remember about hearing about English titles was when Lady Di appeared and and I believe her brother was an Earl. I didn’t really think about it until so many years later when I started reading historical romances set in England.

    Reply
  71. I don’t read very many mysteries, so I don’t know if they get titles right or not. I do know Dorothy L. Sayers had them correct. I remember thinking why is Lord Peter Wimsey’s brother the Duke of Denver? Shouldn’t Peter’s name be Denver, or the Duke’s Wimsey? And what really threw me was that Harriet Vane’s name when she married Peter was Lady Peter Wimsey. But because the stories were so good, and Sayers didn’t belabor the titles, I never gave them more than a fleeting thought.
    I seem to remember people getting the titles correct in the romances I read maybe 5, 10, years ago. Recently they seem to make more errors. Maybe it’s because I read a lot more romances these days, or I know more.

    Reply
  72. I don’t read very many mysteries, so I don’t know if they get titles right or not. I do know Dorothy L. Sayers had them correct. I remember thinking why is Lord Peter Wimsey’s brother the Duke of Denver? Shouldn’t Peter’s name be Denver, or the Duke’s Wimsey? And what really threw me was that Harriet Vane’s name when she married Peter was Lady Peter Wimsey. But because the stories were so good, and Sayers didn’t belabor the titles, I never gave them more than a fleeting thought.
    I seem to remember people getting the titles correct in the romances I read maybe 5, 10, years ago. Recently they seem to make more errors. Maybe it’s because I read a lot more romances these days, or I know more.

    Reply
  73. I don’t read very many mysteries, so I don’t know if they get titles right or not. I do know Dorothy L. Sayers had them correct. I remember thinking why is Lord Peter Wimsey’s brother the Duke of Denver? Shouldn’t Peter’s name be Denver, or the Duke’s Wimsey? And what really threw me was that Harriet Vane’s name when she married Peter was Lady Peter Wimsey. But because the stories were so good, and Sayers didn’t belabor the titles, I never gave them more than a fleeting thought.
    I seem to remember people getting the titles correct in the romances I read maybe 5, 10, years ago. Recently they seem to make more errors. Maybe it’s because I read a lot more romances these days, or I know more.

    Reply
  74. I don’t read very many mysteries, so I don’t know if they get titles right or not. I do know Dorothy L. Sayers had them correct. I remember thinking why is Lord Peter Wimsey’s brother the Duke of Denver? Shouldn’t Peter’s name be Denver, or the Duke’s Wimsey? And what really threw me was that Harriet Vane’s name when she married Peter was Lady Peter Wimsey. But because the stories were so good, and Sayers didn’t belabor the titles, I never gave them more than a fleeting thought.
    I seem to remember people getting the titles correct in the romances I read maybe 5, 10, years ago. Recently they seem to make more errors. Maybe it’s because I read a lot more romances these days, or I know more.

    Reply
  75. I don’t read very many mysteries, so I don’t know if they get titles right or not. I do know Dorothy L. Sayers had them correct. I remember thinking why is Lord Peter Wimsey’s brother the Duke of Denver? Shouldn’t Peter’s name be Denver, or the Duke’s Wimsey? And what really threw me was that Harriet Vane’s name when she married Peter was Lady Peter Wimsey. But because the stories were so good, and Sayers didn’t belabor the titles, I never gave them more than a fleeting thought.
    I seem to remember people getting the titles correct in the romances I read maybe 5, 10, years ago. Recently they seem to make more errors. Maybe it’s because I read a lot more romances these days, or I know more.

    Reply
  76. Susan S, it’s even worse when the author uses two different wrong forms of address for the same person throughout the book, e.g.,–for a duke–“Lord Devonshire” and “Lord John” being deemed interchangeable.__Tal, firstly, speaking of Sayers, thanks for arousing book lust (not that it’s so hard to do with me). I want that tome.
    Secondly:
    *According to my friend, “Earl of X” means you hold a territory by that name, which may or may not be the same as your own surname. “Earl X” means you got the title for services to the Crown, and there’s no fief necessarily attached to it.* Tal, has your friend got a source for this? I ask because it’s not tallying with my materials–or maybe I’m not interpreting it correctly. My book says, of earls, that it’s “sometimes territorial, sometimes taken from the family name. In the former case the preposition ‘of’ is generally used, and in the latter case it is not, although there are numerous exceptions to both rules.” I would have liked them to cite the exceptions, but they didn’t, and I’m not sure whether this refers to receiving land or not. Could they already have land & the title came from that? Hard to believe that all the “of”s received land–but I’m not sure that’s what your friend means. Further enlightenment welcome. 🙂

    Reply
  77. Susan S, it’s even worse when the author uses two different wrong forms of address for the same person throughout the book, e.g.,–for a duke–“Lord Devonshire” and “Lord John” being deemed interchangeable.__Tal, firstly, speaking of Sayers, thanks for arousing book lust (not that it’s so hard to do with me). I want that tome.
    Secondly:
    *According to my friend, “Earl of X” means you hold a territory by that name, which may or may not be the same as your own surname. “Earl X” means you got the title for services to the Crown, and there’s no fief necessarily attached to it.* Tal, has your friend got a source for this? I ask because it’s not tallying with my materials–or maybe I’m not interpreting it correctly. My book says, of earls, that it’s “sometimes territorial, sometimes taken from the family name. In the former case the preposition ‘of’ is generally used, and in the latter case it is not, although there are numerous exceptions to both rules.” I would have liked them to cite the exceptions, but they didn’t, and I’m not sure whether this refers to receiving land or not. Could they already have land & the title came from that? Hard to believe that all the “of”s received land–but I’m not sure that’s what your friend means. Further enlightenment welcome. 🙂

    Reply
  78. Susan S, it’s even worse when the author uses two different wrong forms of address for the same person throughout the book, e.g.,–for a duke–“Lord Devonshire” and “Lord John” being deemed interchangeable.__Tal, firstly, speaking of Sayers, thanks for arousing book lust (not that it’s so hard to do with me). I want that tome.
    Secondly:
    *According to my friend, “Earl of X” means you hold a territory by that name, which may or may not be the same as your own surname. “Earl X” means you got the title for services to the Crown, and there’s no fief necessarily attached to it.* Tal, has your friend got a source for this? I ask because it’s not tallying with my materials–or maybe I’m not interpreting it correctly. My book says, of earls, that it’s “sometimes territorial, sometimes taken from the family name. In the former case the preposition ‘of’ is generally used, and in the latter case it is not, although there are numerous exceptions to both rules.” I would have liked them to cite the exceptions, but they didn’t, and I’m not sure whether this refers to receiving land or not. Could they already have land & the title came from that? Hard to believe that all the “of”s received land–but I’m not sure that’s what your friend means. Further enlightenment welcome. 🙂

    Reply
  79. Susan S, it’s even worse when the author uses two different wrong forms of address for the same person throughout the book, e.g.,–for a duke–“Lord Devonshire” and “Lord John” being deemed interchangeable.__Tal, firstly, speaking of Sayers, thanks for arousing book lust (not that it’s so hard to do with me). I want that tome.
    Secondly:
    *According to my friend, “Earl of X” means you hold a territory by that name, which may or may not be the same as your own surname. “Earl X” means you got the title for services to the Crown, and there’s no fief necessarily attached to it.* Tal, has your friend got a source for this? I ask because it’s not tallying with my materials–or maybe I’m not interpreting it correctly. My book says, of earls, that it’s “sometimes territorial, sometimes taken from the family name. In the former case the preposition ‘of’ is generally used, and in the latter case it is not, although there are numerous exceptions to both rules.” I would have liked them to cite the exceptions, but they didn’t, and I’m not sure whether this refers to receiving land or not. Could they already have land & the title came from that? Hard to believe that all the “of”s received land–but I’m not sure that’s what your friend means. Further enlightenment welcome. 🙂

    Reply
  80. Susan S, it’s even worse when the author uses two different wrong forms of address for the same person throughout the book, e.g.,–for a duke–“Lord Devonshire” and “Lord John” being deemed interchangeable.__Tal, firstly, speaking of Sayers, thanks for arousing book lust (not that it’s so hard to do with me). I want that tome.
    Secondly:
    *According to my friend, “Earl of X” means you hold a territory by that name, which may or may not be the same as your own surname. “Earl X” means you got the title for services to the Crown, and there’s no fief necessarily attached to it.* Tal, has your friend got a source for this? I ask because it’s not tallying with my materials–or maybe I’m not interpreting it correctly. My book says, of earls, that it’s “sometimes territorial, sometimes taken from the family name. In the former case the preposition ‘of’ is generally used, and in the latter case it is not, although there are numerous exceptions to both rules.” I would have liked them to cite the exceptions, but they didn’t, and I’m not sure whether this refers to receiving land or not. Could they already have land & the title came from that? Hard to believe that all the “of”s received land–but I’m not sure that’s what your friend means. Further enlightenment welcome. 🙂

    Reply
  81. *what about the German, French or Russian?* Kay, I’ve always believed that the English system is the most complicated, even though other nations seemed to allow more princes and such, more titles altogether because they hadn’t such strict rules of primogeniture. One nice thing about my Venice setting was that titles were a recent development there, and “your excellency” sufficed in all kinds of cases.__Maya, I don’t know about Transylvania, but Sesame Street was a kingdom unto itself, and that Count sure could count!__ Elaine, I’m thinking of the Duke of Wellington. His brother had one title, and the duke got his own. One brother might inherit a title and another might receive a title for service of some kind. Then their offspring–who would be cousins–would inherit different titles. Or do you mean something else? OTOH I can’t see how a younger brother could inherit a title from another relative. A title isn’t like money or personal property. You can’t simply leave a title to somebody in your will.

    Reply
  82. *what about the German, French or Russian?* Kay, I’ve always believed that the English system is the most complicated, even though other nations seemed to allow more princes and such, more titles altogether because they hadn’t such strict rules of primogeniture. One nice thing about my Venice setting was that titles were a recent development there, and “your excellency” sufficed in all kinds of cases.__Maya, I don’t know about Transylvania, but Sesame Street was a kingdom unto itself, and that Count sure could count!__ Elaine, I’m thinking of the Duke of Wellington. His brother had one title, and the duke got his own. One brother might inherit a title and another might receive a title for service of some kind. Then their offspring–who would be cousins–would inherit different titles. Or do you mean something else? OTOH I can’t see how a younger brother could inherit a title from another relative. A title isn’t like money or personal property. You can’t simply leave a title to somebody in your will.

    Reply
  83. *what about the German, French or Russian?* Kay, I’ve always believed that the English system is the most complicated, even though other nations seemed to allow more princes and such, more titles altogether because they hadn’t such strict rules of primogeniture. One nice thing about my Venice setting was that titles were a recent development there, and “your excellency” sufficed in all kinds of cases.__Maya, I don’t know about Transylvania, but Sesame Street was a kingdom unto itself, and that Count sure could count!__ Elaine, I’m thinking of the Duke of Wellington. His brother had one title, and the duke got his own. One brother might inherit a title and another might receive a title for service of some kind. Then their offspring–who would be cousins–would inherit different titles. Or do you mean something else? OTOH I can’t see how a younger brother could inherit a title from another relative. A title isn’t like money or personal property. You can’t simply leave a title to somebody in your will.

    Reply
  84. *what about the German, French or Russian?* Kay, I’ve always believed that the English system is the most complicated, even though other nations seemed to allow more princes and such, more titles altogether because they hadn’t such strict rules of primogeniture. One nice thing about my Venice setting was that titles were a recent development there, and “your excellency” sufficed in all kinds of cases.__Maya, I don’t know about Transylvania, but Sesame Street was a kingdom unto itself, and that Count sure could count!__ Elaine, I’m thinking of the Duke of Wellington. His brother had one title, and the duke got his own. One brother might inherit a title and another might receive a title for service of some kind. Then their offspring–who would be cousins–would inherit different titles. Or do you mean something else? OTOH I can’t see how a younger brother could inherit a title from another relative. A title isn’t like money or personal property. You can’t simply leave a title to somebody in your will.

    Reply
  85. *what about the German, French or Russian?* Kay, I’ve always believed that the English system is the most complicated, even though other nations seemed to allow more princes and such, more titles altogether because they hadn’t such strict rules of primogeniture. One nice thing about my Venice setting was that titles were a recent development there, and “your excellency” sufficed in all kinds of cases.__Maya, I don’t know about Transylvania, but Sesame Street was a kingdom unto itself, and that Count sure could count!__ Elaine, I’m thinking of the Duke of Wellington. His brother had one title, and the duke got his own. One brother might inherit a title and another might receive a title for service of some kind. Then their offspring–who would be cousins–would inherit different titles. Or do you mean something else? OTOH I can’t see how a younger brother could inherit a title from another relative. A title isn’t like money or personal property. You can’t simply leave a title to somebody in your will.

    Reply
  86. I had no idea that is how you pronounce Leveson-Gower, and I’ve read boatloads of the family letters. Oh well. I’ll probably never be able to train myself to pronounce it correctly now, but it’s not like folks know who I’m talking about when I (rarely) mention Granville.

    Reply
  87. I had no idea that is how you pronounce Leveson-Gower, and I’ve read boatloads of the family letters. Oh well. I’ll probably never be able to train myself to pronounce it correctly now, but it’s not like folks know who I’m talking about when I (rarely) mention Granville.

    Reply
  88. I had no idea that is how you pronounce Leveson-Gower, and I’ve read boatloads of the family letters. Oh well. I’ll probably never be able to train myself to pronounce it correctly now, but it’s not like folks know who I’m talking about when I (rarely) mention Granville.

    Reply
  89. I had no idea that is how you pronounce Leveson-Gower, and I’ve read boatloads of the family letters. Oh well. I’ll probably never be able to train myself to pronounce it correctly now, but it’s not like folks know who I’m talking about when I (rarely) mention Granville.

    Reply
  90. I had no idea that is how you pronounce Leveson-Gower, and I’ve read boatloads of the family letters. Oh well. I’ll probably never be able to train myself to pronounce it correctly now, but it’s not like folks know who I’m talking about when I (rarely) mention Granville.

    Reply
  91. Maureen, IIRC, Lady Di was one who was incorrectly titled in news reports. And her brother Earl Spencer often appeared as the Earl of Spencer & sometimes as Lord Firstname (I forget his first name).__ Linda, Sayers did get them right, and I think other authors of ealier times did so, too. I may notice more errors in mysteries because I read more of them. For a number of reasons, I read less and less in my own genre. But I remember lots of mistakes in romances years ago. Some of them, I blush to add, were my own–but it wasn’t for lack of trying. It was for lack of understanding. Even now, I always feel I’m treading on thin ice and hesitate to make pronouncements.

    Reply
  92. Maureen, IIRC, Lady Di was one who was incorrectly titled in news reports. And her brother Earl Spencer often appeared as the Earl of Spencer & sometimes as Lord Firstname (I forget his first name).__ Linda, Sayers did get them right, and I think other authors of ealier times did so, too. I may notice more errors in mysteries because I read more of them. For a number of reasons, I read less and less in my own genre. But I remember lots of mistakes in romances years ago. Some of them, I blush to add, were my own–but it wasn’t for lack of trying. It was for lack of understanding. Even now, I always feel I’m treading on thin ice and hesitate to make pronouncements.

    Reply
  93. Maureen, IIRC, Lady Di was one who was incorrectly titled in news reports. And her brother Earl Spencer often appeared as the Earl of Spencer & sometimes as Lord Firstname (I forget his first name).__ Linda, Sayers did get them right, and I think other authors of ealier times did so, too. I may notice more errors in mysteries because I read more of them. For a number of reasons, I read less and less in my own genre. But I remember lots of mistakes in romances years ago. Some of them, I blush to add, were my own–but it wasn’t for lack of trying. It was for lack of understanding. Even now, I always feel I’m treading on thin ice and hesitate to make pronouncements.

    Reply
  94. Maureen, IIRC, Lady Di was one who was incorrectly titled in news reports. And her brother Earl Spencer often appeared as the Earl of Spencer & sometimes as Lord Firstname (I forget his first name).__ Linda, Sayers did get them right, and I think other authors of ealier times did so, too. I may notice more errors in mysteries because I read more of them. For a number of reasons, I read less and less in my own genre. But I remember lots of mistakes in romances years ago. Some of them, I blush to add, were my own–but it wasn’t for lack of trying. It was for lack of understanding. Even now, I always feel I’m treading on thin ice and hesitate to make pronouncements.

    Reply
  95. Maureen, IIRC, Lady Di was one who was incorrectly titled in news reports. And her brother Earl Spencer often appeared as the Earl of Spencer & sometimes as Lord Firstname (I forget his first name).__ Linda, Sayers did get them right, and I think other authors of ealier times did so, too. I may notice more errors in mysteries because I read more of them. For a number of reasons, I read less and less in my own genre. But I remember lots of mistakes in romances years ago. Some of them, I blush to add, were my own–but it wasn’t for lack of trying. It was for lack of understanding. Even now, I always feel I’m treading on thin ice and hesitate to make pronouncements.

    Reply
  96. I am not 100% sure about German titles, although reasonably so about Austrian ones (which were abolished in 1918, incidentially). Anyway, from what I gather the system was rather different fromt the British one. For one, all the progeny of an aristocrat had the same title. No courtesy titles etc. Of course, the inheritance went to the first son, usually. Titles were also a lot more territoral, esp. Dukes. Remember that Germany was not united until the 1870s! There were many dukedoms, principalities etc. and they were all seperate “states” withing the Holy Roman Empire. Liechtenstein is actually a leftover from that time! One mistake that a lot of English speaking writers make, when it comes to German/Austrian titles, is that they focus too much on the “von”. Von denotes a very low rank, actually. There are plenty of vons around, they were handed out as rewards for faithful service etc., but most of the holders lived a very burgeous lifestyle. They were definitly not considered aristocratic, in particularly not by the aristocrats! Names are also a minefield here, and the Hapsburgs of course…. they had very strict laws as far as marriage was concerned (mostly, they married their cousins and look where that led!)… anyway, enough said!

    Reply
  97. I am not 100% sure about German titles, although reasonably so about Austrian ones (which were abolished in 1918, incidentially). Anyway, from what I gather the system was rather different fromt the British one. For one, all the progeny of an aristocrat had the same title. No courtesy titles etc. Of course, the inheritance went to the first son, usually. Titles were also a lot more territoral, esp. Dukes. Remember that Germany was not united until the 1870s! There were many dukedoms, principalities etc. and they were all seperate “states” withing the Holy Roman Empire. Liechtenstein is actually a leftover from that time! One mistake that a lot of English speaking writers make, when it comes to German/Austrian titles, is that they focus too much on the “von”. Von denotes a very low rank, actually. There are plenty of vons around, they were handed out as rewards for faithful service etc., but most of the holders lived a very burgeous lifestyle. They were definitly not considered aristocratic, in particularly not by the aristocrats! Names are also a minefield here, and the Hapsburgs of course…. they had very strict laws as far as marriage was concerned (mostly, they married their cousins and look where that led!)… anyway, enough said!

    Reply
  98. I am not 100% sure about German titles, although reasonably so about Austrian ones (which were abolished in 1918, incidentially). Anyway, from what I gather the system was rather different fromt the British one. For one, all the progeny of an aristocrat had the same title. No courtesy titles etc. Of course, the inheritance went to the first son, usually. Titles were also a lot more territoral, esp. Dukes. Remember that Germany was not united until the 1870s! There were many dukedoms, principalities etc. and they were all seperate “states” withing the Holy Roman Empire. Liechtenstein is actually a leftover from that time! One mistake that a lot of English speaking writers make, when it comes to German/Austrian titles, is that they focus too much on the “von”. Von denotes a very low rank, actually. There are plenty of vons around, they were handed out as rewards for faithful service etc., but most of the holders lived a very burgeous lifestyle. They were definitly not considered aristocratic, in particularly not by the aristocrats! Names are also a minefield here, and the Hapsburgs of course…. they had very strict laws as far as marriage was concerned (mostly, they married their cousins and look where that led!)… anyway, enough said!

    Reply
  99. I am not 100% sure about German titles, although reasonably so about Austrian ones (which were abolished in 1918, incidentially). Anyway, from what I gather the system was rather different fromt the British one. For one, all the progeny of an aristocrat had the same title. No courtesy titles etc. Of course, the inheritance went to the first son, usually. Titles were also a lot more territoral, esp. Dukes. Remember that Germany was not united until the 1870s! There were many dukedoms, principalities etc. and they were all seperate “states” withing the Holy Roman Empire. Liechtenstein is actually a leftover from that time! One mistake that a lot of English speaking writers make, when it comes to German/Austrian titles, is that they focus too much on the “von”. Von denotes a very low rank, actually. There are plenty of vons around, they were handed out as rewards for faithful service etc., but most of the holders lived a very burgeous lifestyle. They were definitly not considered aristocratic, in particularly not by the aristocrats! Names are also a minefield here, and the Hapsburgs of course…. they had very strict laws as far as marriage was concerned (mostly, they married their cousins and look where that led!)… anyway, enough said!

    Reply
  100. I am not 100% sure about German titles, although reasonably so about Austrian ones (which were abolished in 1918, incidentially). Anyway, from what I gather the system was rather different fromt the British one. For one, all the progeny of an aristocrat had the same title. No courtesy titles etc. Of course, the inheritance went to the first son, usually. Titles were also a lot more territoral, esp. Dukes. Remember that Germany was not united until the 1870s! There were many dukedoms, principalities etc. and they were all seperate “states” withing the Holy Roman Empire. Liechtenstein is actually a leftover from that time! One mistake that a lot of English speaking writers make, when it comes to German/Austrian titles, is that they focus too much on the “von”. Von denotes a very low rank, actually. There are plenty of vons around, they were handed out as rewards for faithful service etc., but most of the holders lived a very burgeous lifestyle. They were definitly not considered aristocratic, in particularly not by the aristocrats! Names are also a minefield here, and the Hapsburgs of course…. they had very strict laws as far as marriage was concerned (mostly, they married their cousins and look where that led!)… anyway, enough said!

    Reply
  101. Maya, Vlad Dracula’s official title was Prince of Wallachia. It’s complicated:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Dracula#Wallachian_royalty_and_family_background
    Elaine, there are some special cases (mostly Scottish, I believe) in which a title can be inherited through the female line, and perhaps settled on a particular descendent. It takes an Act of Parliament at the very least. It’s possible that some aristocrat with no male heirs might get his title settled on the second son of a female relative, though I don’t know of this actually happening. I believe the said heir would be required to take the relative’s name instead of or in addition to his own.
    Take a look at this genealogy, courtesy of Wikipedia:
    Garret Wesley succeeded his father as 2nd Baron Mornington in 1758. In 1760, in recognition of his musical and philanthropic achievements, he was created Viscount Wellesley, of Dangan Castle in the County of Meath, and Earl of Mornington. He married Hon. Anne Hill-Trevor, eldest daughter of the banker Arthur Hill-Trevor, 1st Lord Dungannon and wife Anne Stafford in 1759. His children were:
    Richard, Viscount Wellesley, later 1st Marquess Wellesley, 2nd Earl of Mornington (20 June 1760–26 September 1842)
    Hon. William, later Wellesley-Pole and 3rd Earl of Mornington, 1st Baron Maryborough (20 May 1763–22 February 1845)
    Hon. Arthur, later 1st Duke of Wellington (c. 1 May 1769–14 September 1852)
    The Revd and Hon. Gerald Valerian (7 December 1770–24 October 1848)
    Hon. Henry, later 1st Baron Cowley (20 January 1773–27 April 1847)
    Lady Anne (1775–16 December 1844), married (1) Hon. Henry FitzRoy (younger son of Charles FitzRoy, 1st Baron Southampton), (2) Charles Culling Smith.
    Four of Lord Mornington’s five sons were created peers in the Peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. The Barony of Wellesley (held by the Marquess Wellesley) and the Barony of Maryborough are now extinct, whilst the Dukedom of Wellington and Barony of Cowley are extant. The Earldom of Mornington is held by the Dukes of Wellington, and the Barons Cowley have since been elevated to be Earls Cowley
    (I wonder why Gerald was such an underachiever.)
    At the time of her marriage, Diana was Lady Diana Spencer. Her father (since deceased) was Earl Spencer, her brother Viscount Althorp. A woman who has no title of her own takes her husband’s title. As a younger son, Lord Peter took his first name with his title, and his wife became Lady Peter. Strictly speaking, there was no such person as “Princess Diana,” since she was a commoner; she should have been referred to as either “Diana, Princess of Wales” or “Princess Charles.” The confusion is natural, as I once figured out that the last Princess of Wales not born royal was Anne Neville, daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker, who was married to Henry, Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI (Part Two). After his death she married Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III. It was a love match by all accounts.
    Speaking of the Wimseys, remember that the courtesy title of the Duke of Denver’s heir was Viscount St. George, because that was the highest lesser title his father held. And I know that in the 19th century the Dukedom of Queensberry became extinct but the Marquessate of Queensberry survived. (Henry Blythe’s OLD Q is the story of the last Duke, a famous rake whose career lasted from the reign of George II almost to the accession of Victoria.)
    Of course, if you want to be REALLY confused, check out the “Earl of Devon” and the “Earl of Devonshire” in Wikipedia.
    Loretta: Definitely get THE WIMSEY FAMILY used. It’s a VERY slim volume and the Sayers Society volume would appear to be severely overpriced unless it’s bound in gold and gems.
    It seems that your source is saying much the same as mine as for “of” and land. In earlier times, if the King chose to bestow a title on someone, it might have included a grant of land or the recipient might already have held land (perhaps through a dowry), and the title, if the King chose, might be the name of the fief. I am really unfamiliar with “earl-without-of,” except as contemporary titles of honor bestowed on notables like Attlee, Lady Thatcher, Lord Olivier, and the like–some of whom, of course, did not get Earldoms. But Earl Mountbatten of Burma got his title for his exploits there, like Viscount Mongomery of Alamein. I’m afraid of asking my friend, as though he’s very knowledgeable, he does have a tendency to pronounce authoritatively even when he’s completely wrong. Maybe there’s something on the Debrett’s site that explains this.
    The confused romantic/sexual relationships of the Leveson-Gowers are also discussed in another book by Henry Blythe: CARO: THE FATAL PASSION, a biography of Lady Caroline Lamb, who was raised in the Devonshire household because her mother was the Duchess’s sister. I always remember a remark in Lord David Cecil’s biography of Caro’s husband, MELBOURNE, that half the time the children ate off gold plate and the rest of the time nobody remembered to feed them. It’s also a glaring example of what happens when governessess and tutors are not allowed to discipline their socially superior charges.
    (Anyone planning to write about the Regency or Victorian eras should collect Blythe’s books. They are full of useful details like at what time different parts of London became fashionable, and food fights and riots at Eton. He started as a sportswriter, did a history of prizefighting, and got into Regency/Victorian society in general, with emphasis on rakes and gamblers. THE POCKET VENUS tells how one aristocrat lost the equivalent of half a million pounds (which he didn’t actually have) in today’s money in three minutes in spite bets against his rival’s horse in the Derby. HELL AND HAZARD has a subtitle that tells it all: “William Crockford vs. the Gentlemen of England.” You might well be surprised to learn that Regency gentlemen were not the sportsmen they are in Heyer: they made ridiculous bets, wept and threw conniption fits when they lost, and cheated when they thought they could get away with it. In one notorious running of the Derby, of the first five finishers, two were nobbled and three were ringers.)
    The title that’s always confused me most is Grand Duke/Duchess, which seems to mean different things in different countries.
    There’s a very popular time-travel novel, which I won’t name, in which a big thing is made of the hero (from Elizabethan England) being a knight. But he’s a second son; knighthood isn’t heritable anyway; and his family has always kept him close to home, so there’s no way he could have earned a knighthood.
    For that matter, how can the Bennett estate be entailed on someone named Collins? Either it’s tail male, in which case the heir would be a Bennett; or it’s not entailed, in which case the daughters could inherit. There is a way, which I’ll explain if nobody guesses. Hint: It’s something that happened in Jane’s own family.
    LizA: Isn’t the German/Austrian “von” more or less the equivalent of the English “squire”?

    Reply
  102. Maya, Vlad Dracula’s official title was Prince of Wallachia. It’s complicated:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Dracula#Wallachian_royalty_and_family_background
    Elaine, there are some special cases (mostly Scottish, I believe) in which a title can be inherited through the female line, and perhaps settled on a particular descendent. It takes an Act of Parliament at the very least. It’s possible that some aristocrat with no male heirs might get his title settled on the second son of a female relative, though I don’t know of this actually happening. I believe the said heir would be required to take the relative’s name instead of or in addition to his own.
    Take a look at this genealogy, courtesy of Wikipedia:
    Garret Wesley succeeded his father as 2nd Baron Mornington in 1758. In 1760, in recognition of his musical and philanthropic achievements, he was created Viscount Wellesley, of Dangan Castle in the County of Meath, and Earl of Mornington. He married Hon. Anne Hill-Trevor, eldest daughter of the banker Arthur Hill-Trevor, 1st Lord Dungannon and wife Anne Stafford in 1759. His children were:
    Richard, Viscount Wellesley, later 1st Marquess Wellesley, 2nd Earl of Mornington (20 June 1760–26 September 1842)
    Hon. William, later Wellesley-Pole and 3rd Earl of Mornington, 1st Baron Maryborough (20 May 1763–22 February 1845)
    Hon. Arthur, later 1st Duke of Wellington (c. 1 May 1769–14 September 1852)
    The Revd and Hon. Gerald Valerian (7 December 1770–24 October 1848)
    Hon. Henry, later 1st Baron Cowley (20 January 1773–27 April 1847)
    Lady Anne (1775–16 December 1844), married (1) Hon. Henry FitzRoy (younger son of Charles FitzRoy, 1st Baron Southampton), (2) Charles Culling Smith.
    Four of Lord Mornington’s five sons were created peers in the Peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. The Barony of Wellesley (held by the Marquess Wellesley) and the Barony of Maryborough are now extinct, whilst the Dukedom of Wellington and Barony of Cowley are extant. The Earldom of Mornington is held by the Dukes of Wellington, and the Barons Cowley have since been elevated to be Earls Cowley
    (I wonder why Gerald was such an underachiever.)
    At the time of her marriage, Diana was Lady Diana Spencer. Her father (since deceased) was Earl Spencer, her brother Viscount Althorp. A woman who has no title of her own takes her husband’s title. As a younger son, Lord Peter took his first name with his title, and his wife became Lady Peter. Strictly speaking, there was no such person as “Princess Diana,” since she was a commoner; she should have been referred to as either “Diana, Princess of Wales” or “Princess Charles.” The confusion is natural, as I once figured out that the last Princess of Wales not born royal was Anne Neville, daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker, who was married to Henry, Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI (Part Two). After his death she married Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III. It was a love match by all accounts.
    Speaking of the Wimseys, remember that the courtesy title of the Duke of Denver’s heir was Viscount St. George, because that was the highest lesser title his father held. And I know that in the 19th century the Dukedom of Queensberry became extinct but the Marquessate of Queensberry survived. (Henry Blythe’s OLD Q is the story of the last Duke, a famous rake whose career lasted from the reign of George II almost to the accession of Victoria.)
    Of course, if you want to be REALLY confused, check out the “Earl of Devon” and the “Earl of Devonshire” in Wikipedia.
    Loretta: Definitely get THE WIMSEY FAMILY used. It’s a VERY slim volume and the Sayers Society volume would appear to be severely overpriced unless it’s bound in gold and gems.
    It seems that your source is saying much the same as mine as for “of” and land. In earlier times, if the King chose to bestow a title on someone, it might have included a grant of land or the recipient might already have held land (perhaps through a dowry), and the title, if the King chose, might be the name of the fief. I am really unfamiliar with “earl-without-of,” except as contemporary titles of honor bestowed on notables like Attlee, Lady Thatcher, Lord Olivier, and the like–some of whom, of course, did not get Earldoms. But Earl Mountbatten of Burma got his title for his exploits there, like Viscount Mongomery of Alamein. I’m afraid of asking my friend, as though he’s very knowledgeable, he does have a tendency to pronounce authoritatively even when he’s completely wrong. Maybe there’s something on the Debrett’s site that explains this.
    The confused romantic/sexual relationships of the Leveson-Gowers are also discussed in another book by Henry Blythe: CARO: THE FATAL PASSION, a biography of Lady Caroline Lamb, who was raised in the Devonshire household because her mother was the Duchess’s sister. I always remember a remark in Lord David Cecil’s biography of Caro’s husband, MELBOURNE, that half the time the children ate off gold plate and the rest of the time nobody remembered to feed them. It’s also a glaring example of what happens when governessess and tutors are not allowed to discipline their socially superior charges.
    (Anyone planning to write about the Regency or Victorian eras should collect Blythe’s books. They are full of useful details like at what time different parts of London became fashionable, and food fights and riots at Eton. He started as a sportswriter, did a history of prizefighting, and got into Regency/Victorian society in general, with emphasis on rakes and gamblers. THE POCKET VENUS tells how one aristocrat lost the equivalent of half a million pounds (which he didn’t actually have) in today’s money in three minutes in spite bets against his rival’s horse in the Derby. HELL AND HAZARD has a subtitle that tells it all: “William Crockford vs. the Gentlemen of England.” You might well be surprised to learn that Regency gentlemen were not the sportsmen they are in Heyer: they made ridiculous bets, wept and threw conniption fits when they lost, and cheated when they thought they could get away with it. In one notorious running of the Derby, of the first five finishers, two were nobbled and three were ringers.)
    The title that’s always confused me most is Grand Duke/Duchess, which seems to mean different things in different countries.
    There’s a very popular time-travel novel, which I won’t name, in which a big thing is made of the hero (from Elizabethan England) being a knight. But he’s a second son; knighthood isn’t heritable anyway; and his family has always kept him close to home, so there’s no way he could have earned a knighthood.
    For that matter, how can the Bennett estate be entailed on someone named Collins? Either it’s tail male, in which case the heir would be a Bennett; or it’s not entailed, in which case the daughters could inherit. There is a way, which I’ll explain if nobody guesses. Hint: It’s something that happened in Jane’s own family.
    LizA: Isn’t the German/Austrian “von” more or less the equivalent of the English “squire”?

    Reply
  103. Maya, Vlad Dracula’s official title was Prince of Wallachia. It’s complicated:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Dracula#Wallachian_royalty_and_family_background
    Elaine, there are some special cases (mostly Scottish, I believe) in which a title can be inherited through the female line, and perhaps settled on a particular descendent. It takes an Act of Parliament at the very least. It’s possible that some aristocrat with no male heirs might get his title settled on the second son of a female relative, though I don’t know of this actually happening. I believe the said heir would be required to take the relative’s name instead of or in addition to his own.
    Take a look at this genealogy, courtesy of Wikipedia:
    Garret Wesley succeeded his father as 2nd Baron Mornington in 1758. In 1760, in recognition of his musical and philanthropic achievements, he was created Viscount Wellesley, of Dangan Castle in the County of Meath, and Earl of Mornington. He married Hon. Anne Hill-Trevor, eldest daughter of the banker Arthur Hill-Trevor, 1st Lord Dungannon and wife Anne Stafford in 1759. His children were:
    Richard, Viscount Wellesley, later 1st Marquess Wellesley, 2nd Earl of Mornington (20 June 1760–26 September 1842)
    Hon. William, later Wellesley-Pole and 3rd Earl of Mornington, 1st Baron Maryborough (20 May 1763–22 February 1845)
    Hon. Arthur, later 1st Duke of Wellington (c. 1 May 1769–14 September 1852)
    The Revd and Hon. Gerald Valerian (7 December 1770–24 October 1848)
    Hon. Henry, later 1st Baron Cowley (20 January 1773–27 April 1847)
    Lady Anne (1775–16 December 1844), married (1) Hon. Henry FitzRoy (younger son of Charles FitzRoy, 1st Baron Southampton), (2) Charles Culling Smith.
    Four of Lord Mornington’s five sons were created peers in the Peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. The Barony of Wellesley (held by the Marquess Wellesley) and the Barony of Maryborough are now extinct, whilst the Dukedom of Wellington and Barony of Cowley are extant. The Earldom of Mornington is held by the Dukes of Wellington, and the Barons Cowley have since been elevated to be Earls Cowley
    (I wonder why Gerald was such an underachiever.)
    At the time of her marriage, Diana was Lady Diana Spencer. Her father (since deceased) was Earl Spencer, her brother Viscount Althorp. A woman who has no title of her own takes her husband’s title. As a younger son, Lord Peter took his first name with his title, and his wife became Lady Peter. Strictly speaking, there was no such person as “Princess Diana,” since she was a commoner; she should have been referred to as either “Diana, Princess of Wales” or “Princess Charles.” The confusion is natural, as I once figured out that the last Princess of Wales not born royal was Anne Neville, daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker, who was married to Henry, Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI (Part Two). After his death she married Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III. It was a love match by all accounts.
    Speaking of the Wimseys, remember that the courtesy title of the Duke of Denver’s heir was Viscount St. George, because that was the highest lesser title his father held. And I know that in the 19th century the Dukedom of Queensberry became extinct but the Marquessate of Queensberry survived. (Henry Blythe’s OLD Q is the story of the last Duke, a famous rake whose career lasted from the reign of George II almost to the accession of Victoria.)
    Of course, if you want to be REALLY confused, check out the “Earl of Devon” and the “Earl of Devonshire” in Wikipedia.
    Loretta: Definitely get THE WIMSEY FAMILY used. It’s a VERY slim volume and the Sayers Society volume would appear to be severely overpriced unless it’s bound in gold and gems.
    It seems that your source is saying much the same as mine as for “of” and land. In earlier times, if the King chose to bestow a title on someone, it might have included a grant of land or the recipient might already have held land (perhaps through a dowry), and the title, if the King chose, might be the name of the fief. I am really unfamiliar with “earl-without-of,” except as contemporary titles of honor bestowed on notables like Attlee, Lady Thatcher, Lord Olivier, and the like–some of whom, of course, did not get Earldoms. But Earl Mountbatten of Burma got his title for his exploits there, like Viscount Mongomery of Alamein. I’m afraid of asking my friend, as though he’s very knowledgeable, he does have a tendency to pronounce authoritatively even when he’s completely wrong. Maybe there’s something on the Debrett’s site that explains this.
    The confused romantic/sexual relationships of the Leveson-Gowers are also discussed in another book by Henry Blythe: CARO: THE FATAL PASSION, a biography of Lady Caroline Lamb, who was raised in the Devonshire household because her mother was the Duchess’s sister. I always remember a remark in Lord David Cecil’s biography of Caro’s husband, MELBOURNE, that half the time the children ate off gold plate and the rest of the time nobody remembered to feed them. It’s also a glaring example of what happens when governessess and tutors are not allowed to discipline their socially superior charges.
    (Anyone planning to write about the Regency or Victorian eras should collect Blythe’s books. They are full of useful details like at what time different parts of London became fashionable, and food fights and riots at Eton. He started as a sportswriter, did a history of prizefighting, and got into Regency/Victorian society in general, with emphasis on rakes and gamblers. THE POCKET VENUS tells how one aristocrat lost the equivalent of half a million pounds (which he didn’t actually have) in today’s money in three minutes in spite bets against his rival’s horse in the Derby. HELL AND HAZARD has a subtitle that tells it all: “William Crockford vs. the Gentlemen of England.” You might well be surprised to learn that Regency gentlemen were not the sportsmen they are in Heyer: they made ridiculous bets, wept and threw conniption fits when they lost, and cheated when they thought they could get away with it. In one notorious running of the Derby, of the first five finishers, two were nobbled and three were ringers.)
    The title that’s always confused me most is Grand Duke/Duchess, which seems to mean different things in different countries.
    There’s a very popular time-travel novel, which I won’t name, in which a big thing is made of the hero (from Elizabethan England) being a knight. But he’s a second son; knighthood isn’t heritable anyway; and his family has always kept him close to home, so there’s no way he could have earned a knighthood.
    For that matter, how can the Bennett estate be entailed on someone named Collins? Either it’s tail male, in which case the heir would be a Bennett; or it’s not entailed, in which case the daughters could inherit. There is a way, which I’ll explain if nobody guesses. Hint: It’s something that happened in Jane’s own family.
    LizA: Isn’t the German/Austrian “von” more or less the equivalent of the English “squire”?

    Reply
  104. Maya, Vlad Dracula’s official title was Prince of Wallachia. It’s complicated:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Dracula#Wallachian_royalty_and_family_background
    Elaine, there are some special cases (mostly Scottish, I believe) in which a title can be inherited through the female line, and perhaps settled on a particular descendent. It takes an Act of Parliament at the very least. It’s possible that some aristocrat with no male heirs might get his title settled on the second son of a female relative, though I don’t know of this actually happening. I believe the said heir would be required to take the relative’s name instead of or in addition to his own.
    Take a look at this genealogy, courtesy of Wikipedia:
    Garret Wesley succeeded his father as 2nd Baron Mornington in 1758. In 1760, in recognition of his musical and philanthropic achievements, he was created Viscount Wellesley, of Dangan Castle in the County of Meath, and Earl of Mornington. He married Hon. Anne Hill-Trevor, eldest daughter of the banker Arthur Hill-Trevor, 1st Lord Dungannon and wife Anne Stafford in 1759. His children were:
    Richard, Viscount Wellesley, later 1st Marquess Wellesley, 2nd Earl of Mornington (20 June 1760–26 September 1842)
    Hon. William, later Wellesley-Pole and 3rd Earl of Mornington, 1st Baron Maryborough (20 May 1763–22 February 1845)
    Hon. Arthur, later 1st Duke of Wellington (c. 1 May 1769–14 September 1852)
    The Revd and Hon. Gerald Valerian (7 December 1770–24 October 1848)
    Hon. Henry, later 1st Baron Cowley (20 January 1773–27 April 1847)
    Lady Anne (1775–16 December 1844), married (1) Hon. Henry FitzRoy (younger son of Charles FitzRoy, 1st Baron Southampton), (2) Charles Culling Smith.
    Four of Lord Mornington’s five sons were created peers in the Peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. The Barony of Wellesley (held by the Marquess Wellesley) and the Barony of Maryborough are now extinct, whilst the Dukedom of Wellington and Barony of Cowley are extant. The Earldom of Mornington is held by the Dukes of Wellington, and the Barons Cowley have since been elevated to be Earls Cowley
    (I wonder why Gerald was such an underachiever.)
    At the time of her marriage, Diana was Lady Diana Spencer. Her father (since deceased) was Earl Spencer, her brother Viscount Althorp. A woman who has no title of her own takes her husband’s title. As a younger son, Lord Peter took his first name with his title, and his wife became Lady Peter. Strictly speaking, there was no such person as “Princess Diana,” since she was a commoner; she should have been referred to as either “Diana, Princess of Wales” or “Princess Charles.” The confusion is natural, as I once figured out that the last Princess of Wales not born royal was Anne Neville, daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker, who was married to Henry, Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI (Part Two). After his death she married Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III. It was a love match by all accounts.
    Speaking of the Wimseys, remember that the courtesy title of the Duke of Denver’s heir was Viscount St. George, because that was the highest lesser title his father held. And I know that in the 19th century the Dukedom of Queensberry became extinct but the Marquessate of Queensberry survived. (Henry Blythe’s OLD Q is the story of the last Duke, a famous rake whose career lasted from the reign of George II almost to the accession of Victoria.)
    Of course, if you want to be REALLY confused, check out the “Earl of Devon” and the “Earl of Devonshire” in Wikipedia.
    Loretta: Definitely get THE WIMSEY FAMILY used. It’s a VERY slim volume and the Sayers Society volume would appear to be severely overpriced unless it’s bound in gold and gems.
    It seems that your source is saying much the same as mine as for “of” and land. In earlier times, if the King chose to bestow a title on someone, it might have included a grant of land or the recipient might already have held land (perhaps through a dowry), and the title, if the King chose, might be the name of the fief. I am really unfamiliar with “earl-without-of,” except as contemporary titles of honor bestowed on notables like Attlee, Lady Thatcher, Lord Olivier, and the like–some of whom, of course, did not get Earldoms. But Earl Mountbatten of Burma got his title for his exploits there, like Viscount Mongomery of Alamein. I’m afraid of asking my friend, as though he’s very knowledgeable, he does have a tendency to pronounce authoritatively even when he’s completely wrong. Maybe there’s something on the Debrett’s site that explains this.
    The confused romantic/sexual relationships of the Leveson-Gowers are also discussed in another book by Henry Blythe: CARO: THE FATAL PASSION, a biography of Lady Caroline Lamb, who was raised in the Devonshire household because her mother was the Duchess’s sister. I always remember a remark in Lord David Cecil’s biography of Caro’s husband, MELBOURNE, that half the time the children ate off gold plate and the rest of the time nobody remembered to feed them. It’s also a glaring example of what happens when governessess and tutors are not allowed to discipline their socially superior charges.
    (Anyone planning to write about the Regency or Victorian eras should collect Blythe’s books. They are full of useful details like at what time different parts of London became fashionable, and food fights and riots at Eton. He started as a sportswriter, did a history of prizefighting, and got into Regency/Victorian society in general, with emphasis on rakes and gamblers. THE POCKET VENUS tells how one aristocrat lost the equivalent of half a million pounds (which he didn’t actually have) in today’s money in three minutes in spite bets against his rival’s horse in the Derby. HELL AND HAZARD has a subtitle that tells it all: “William Crockford vs. the Gentlemen of England.” You might well be surprised to learn that Regency gentlemen were not the sportsmen they are in Heyer: they made ridiculous bets, wept and threw conniption fits when they lost, and cheated when they thought they could get away with it. In one notorious running of the Derby, of the first five finishers, two were nobbled and three were ringers.)
    The title that’s always confused me most is Grand Duke/Duchess, which seems to mean different things in different countries.
    There’s a very popular time-travel novel, which I won’t name, in which a big thing is made of the hero (from Elizabethan England) being a knight. But he’s a second son; knighthood isn’t heritable anyway; and his family has always kept him close to home, so there’s no way he could have earned a knighthood.
    For that matter, how can the Bennett estate be entailed on someone named Collins? Either it’s tail male, in which case the heir would be a Bennett; or it’s not entailed, in which case the daughters could inherit. There is a way, which I’ll explain if nobody guesses. Hint: It’s something that happened in Jane’s own family.
    LizA: Isn’t the German/Austrian “von” more or less the equivalent of the English “squire”?

    Reply
  105. Maya, Vlad Dracula’s official title was Prince of Wallachia. It’s complicated:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Dracula#Wallachian_royalty_and_family_background
    Elaine, there are some special cases (mostly Scottish, I believe) in which a title can be inherited through the female line, and perhaps settled on a particular descendent. It takes an Act of Parliament at the very least. It’s possible that some aristocrat with no male heirs might get his title settled on the second son of a female relative, though I don’t know of this actually happening. I believe the said heir would be required to take the relative’s name instead of or in addition to his own.
    Take a look at this genealogy, courtesy of Wikipedia:
    Garret Wesley succeeded his father as 2nd Baron Mornington in 1758. In 1760, in recognition of his musical and philanthropic achievements, he was created Viscount Wellesley, of Dangan Castle in the County of Meath, and Earl of Mornington. He married Hon. Anne Hill-Trevor, eldest daughter of the banker Arthur Hill-Trevor, 1st Lord Dungannon and wife Anne Stafford in 1759. His children were:
    Richard, Viscount Wellesley, later 1st Marquess Wellesley, 2nd Earl of Mornington (20 June 1760–26 September 1842)
    Hon. William, later Wellesley-Pole and 3rd Earl of Mornington, 1st Baron Maryborough (20 May 1763–22 February 1845)
    Hon. Arthur, later 1st Duke of Wellington (c. 1 May 1769–14 September 1852)
    The Revd and Hon. Gerald Valerian (7 December 1770–24 October 1848)
    Hon. Henry, later 1st Baron Cowley (20 January 1773–27 April 1847)
    Lady Anne (1775–16 December 1844), married (1) Hon. Henry FitzRoy (younger son of Charles FitzRoy, 1st Baron Southampton), (2) Charles Culling Smith.
    Four of Lord Mornington’s five sons were created peers in the Peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. The Barony of Wellesley (held by the Marquess Wellesley) and the Barony of Maryborough are now extinct, whilst the Dukedom of Wellington and Barony of Cowley are extant. The Earldom of Mornington is held by the Dukes of Wellington, and the Barons Cowley have since been elevated to be Earls Cowley
    (I wonder why Gerald was such an underachiever.)
    At the time of her marriage, Diana was Lady Diana Spencer. Her father (since deceased) was Earl Spencer, her brother Viscount Althorp. A woman who has no title of her own takes her husband’s title. As a younger son, Lord Peter took his first name with his title, and his wife became Lady Peter. Strictly speaking, there was no such person as “Princess Diana,” since she was a commoner; she should have been referred to as either “Diana, Princess of Wales” or “Princess Charles.” The confusion is natural, as I once figured out that the last Princess of Wales not born royal was Anne Neville, daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker, who was married to Henry, Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI (Part Two). After his death she married Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III. It was a love match by all accounts.
    Speaking of the Wimseys, remember that the courtesy title of the Duke of Denver’s heir was Viscount St. George, because that was the highest lesser title his father held. And I know that in the 19th century the Dukedom of Queensberry became extinct but the Marquessate of Queensberry survived. (Henry Blythe’s OLD Q is the story of the last Duke, a famous rake whose career lasted from the reign of George II almost to the accession of Victoria.)
    Of course, if you want to be REALLY confused, check out the “Earl of Devon” and the “Earl of Devonshire” in Wikipedia.
    Loretta: Definitely get THE WIMSEY FAMILY used. It’s a VERY slim volume and the Sayers Society volume would appear to be severely overpriced unless it’s bound in gold and gems.
    It seems that your source is saying much the same as mine as for “of” and land. In earlier times, if the King chose to bestow a title on someone, it might have included a grant of land or the recipient might already have held land (perhaps through a dowry), and the title, if the King chose, might be the name of the fief. I am really unfamiliar with “earl-without-of,” except as contemporary titles of honor bestowed on notables like Attlee, Lady Thatcher, Lord Olivier, and the like–some of whom, of course, did not get Earldoms. But Earl Mountbatten of Burma got his title for his exploits there, like Viscount Mongomery of Alamein. I’m afraid of asking my friend, as though he’s very knowledgeable, he does have a tendency to pronounce authoritatively even when he’s completely wrong. Maybe there’s something on the Debrett’s site that explains this.
    The confused romantic/sexual relationships of the Leveson-Gowers are also discussed in another book by Henry Blythe: CARO: THE FATAL PASSION, a biography of Lady Caroline Lamb, who was raised in the Devonshire household because her mother was the Duchess’s sister. I always remember a remark in Lord David Cecil’s biography of Caro’s husband, MELBOURNE, that half the time the children ate off gold plate and the rest of the time nobody remembered to feed them. It’s also a glaring example of what happens when governessess and tutors are not allowed to discipline their socially superior charges.
    (Anyone planning to write about the Regency or Victorian eras should collect Blythe’s books. They are full of useful details like at what time different parts of London became fashionable, and food fights and riots at Eton. He started as a sportswriter, did a history of prizefighting, and got into Regency/Victorian society in general, with emphasis on rakes and gamblers. THE POCKET VENUS tells how one aristocrat lost the equivalent of half a million pounds (which he didn’t actually have) in today’s money in three minutes in spite bets against his rival’s horse in the Derby. HELL AND HAZARD has a subtitle that tells it all: “William Crockford vs. the Gentlemen of England.” You might well be surprised to learn that Regency gentlemen were not the sportsmen they are in Heyer: they made ridiculous bets, wept and threw conniption fits when they lost, and cheated when they thought they could get away with it. In one notorious running of the Derby, of the first five finishers, two were nobbled and three were ringers.)
    The title that’s always confused me most is Grand Duke/Duchess, which seems to mean different things in different countries.
    There’s a very popular time-travel novel, which I won’t name, in which a big thing is made of the hero (from Elizabethan England) being a knight. But he’s a second son; knighthood isn’t heritable anyway; and his family has always kept him close to home, so there’s no way he could have earned a knighthood.
    For that matter, how can the Bennett estate be entailed on someone named Collins? Either it’s tail male, in which case the heir would be a Bennett; or it’s not entailed, in which case the daughters could inherit. There is a way, which I’ll explain if nobody guesses. Hint: It’s something that happened in Jane’s own family.
    LizA: Isn’t the German/Austrian “von” more or less the equivalent of the English “squire”?

    Reply
  106. Talpianna, do you mean that Mr. Collins’s father was adopted and took the name of his adopted parents, like Jane Austen’s brother? There was some sort of rift between Collins sr. and Mr Bennet. Hence the olive branch image in Mr. Collins’s letter.

    Reply
  107. Talpianna, do you mean that Mr. Collins’s father was adopted and took the name of his adopted parents, like Jane Austen’s brother? There was some sort of rift between Collins sr. and Mr Bennet. Hence the olive branch image in Mr. Collins’s letter.

    Reply
  108. Talpianna, do you mean that Mr. Collins’s father was adopted and took the name of his adopted parents, like Jane Austen’s brother? There was some sort of rift between Collins sr. and Mr Bennet. Hence the olive branch image in Mr. Collins’s letter.

    Reply
  109. Talpianna, do you mean that Mr. Collins’s father was adopted and took the name of his adopted parents, like Jane Austen’s brother? There was some sort of rift between Collins sr. and Mr Bennet. Hence the olive branch image in Mr. Collins’s letter.

    Reply
  110. Talpianna, do you mean that Mr. Collins’s father was adopted and took the name of his adopted parents, like Jane Austen’s brother? There was some sort of rift between Collins sr. and Mr Bennet. Hence the olive branch image in Mr. Collins’s letter.

    Reply
  111. Ingrid, that’s what I was thinking of. It is possible to break an entail, at least nowadays; but I think both the heir and the heir’s heir have to agree to it. Sometimes breaking the entail in order to sell the family Rembrandts is the only way they can pay the death duties and hang on to the rest of the estate. This was particularly fierce during the World Wars, when several successive heirs might die within weeks or months of each other.
    As for Mr. Collins’s olive branch, I never assumed there was an actual rift–just the Bennett’s natural resentment of the fact that their patrimony was entailed away from them. I believe that Mrs. Bennett was particularly vociferous about this.
    I actually had to study quite a bit about the laws of entail when I took a course in English Constitutional and Legal History to 1485 in college, but I remember very little about it, except the rather amusing term “tail male.”
    Speaking of which, attribute any errors in this post to the tail female (and feline) between me and the monitor as I type.

    Reply
  112. Ingrid, that’s what I was thinking of. It is possible to break an entail, at least nowadays; but I think both the heir and the heir’s heir have to agree to it. Sometimes breaking the entail in order to sell the family Rembrandts is the only way they can pay the death duties and hang on to the rest of the estate. This was particularly fierce during the World Wars, when several successive heirs might die within weeks or months of each other.
    As for Mr. Collins’s olive branch, I never assumed there was an actual rift–just the Bennett’s natural resentment of the fact that their patrimony was entailed away from them. I believe that Mrs. Bennett was particularly vociferous about this.
    I actually had to study quite a bit about the laws of entail when I took a course in English Constitutional and Legal History to 1485 in college, but I remember very little about it, except the rather amusing term “tail male.”
    Speaking of which, attribute any errors in this post to the tail female (and feline) between me and the monitor as I type.

    Reply
  113. Ingrid, that’s what I was thinking of. It is possible to break an entail, at least nowadays; but I think both the heir and the heir’s heir have to agree to it. Sometimes breaking the entail in order to sell the family Rembrandts is the only way they can pay the death duties and hang on to the rest of the estate. This was particularly fierce during the World Wars, when several successive heirs might die within weeks or months of each other.
    As for Mr. Collins’s olive branch, I never assumed there was an actual rift–just the Bennett’s natural resentment of the fact that their patrimony was entailed away from them. I believe that Mrs. Bennett was particularly vociferous about this.
    I actually had to study quite a bit about the laws of entail when I took a course in English Constitutional and Legal History to 1485 in college, but I remember very little about it, except the rather amusing term “tail male.”
    Speaking of which, attribute any errors in this post to the tail female (and feline) between me and the monitor as I type.

    Reply
  114. Ingrid, that’s what I was thinking of. It is possible to break an entail, at least nowadays; but I think both the heir and the heir’s heir have to agree to it. Sometimes breaking the entail in order to sell the family Rembrandts is the only way they can pay the death duties and hang on to the rest of the estate. This was particularly fierce during the World Wars, when several successive heirs might die within weeks or months of each other.
    As for Mr. Collins’s olive branch, I never assumed there was an actual rift–just the Bennett’s natural resentment of the fact that their patrimony was entailed away from them. I believe that Mrs. Bennett was particularly vociferous about this.
    I actually had to study quite a bit about the laws of entail when I took a course in English Constitutional and Legal History to 1485 in college, but I remember very little about it, except the rather amusing term “tail male.”
    Speaking of which, attribute any errors in this post to the tail female (and feline) between me and the monitor as I type.

    Reply
  115. Ingrid, that’s what I was thinking of. It is possible to break an entail, at least nowadays; but I think both the heir and the heir’s heir have to agree to it. Sometimes breaking the entail in order to sell the family Rembrandts is the only way they can pay the death duties and hang on to the rest of the estate. This was particularly fierce during the World Wars, when several successive heirs might die within weeks or months of each other.
    As for Mr. Collins’s olive branch, I never assumed there was an actual rift–just the Bennett’s natural resentment of the fact that their patrimony was entailed away from them. I believe that Mrs. Bennett was particularly vociferous about this.
    I actually had to study quite a bit about the laws of entail when I took a course in English Constitutional and Legal History to 1485 in college, but I remember very little about it, except the rather amusing term “tail male.”
    Speaking of which, attribute any errors in this post to the tail female (and feline) between me and the monitor as I type.

    Reply
  116. That sent me scurrying to P&P. Here follows an extract from chapter 13, with the start of the olive branch letter.
    “No, that I am sure I shall not; and I think it was very impertinent of him to write to you at all, and very hypocritical. I hate such false friends. Why could not he keep on quarrelling with you, as his father did before him?”
    “Why, indeed; he does seem to have had some filial scruples on that head, as you will hear.”
    “Hunsford, near Westerham, Kent,
    15th October.
    “DEAR SIR, — The disagreement subsisting between yourself and my late honoured father always gave me much uneasiness, and since I have had the misfortune to lose him, I have frequently wished to heal the breach; but for some time I was kept back by my own doubts, fearing lest it might seem disrespectful to his memory for me to be on good terms with any one, with whom it had always pleased him to be at variance. — “There, Mrs. Bennet.”
    Mrs. Bennet’s resentment is voiced at the start of this fragment, but that seems quite separate from the disagreement that has apparently existed for as long as Mr. Collins can remember. And he must be older than the Bennet girls, being already a clergyman. Besides, for years the Bennets were confident of having a son, who would naturally inherit Longbourn and look after his sisters. And five daughters is a rather unusual same-sex run. So when Collins sr. and Mr. Bennet first quarrelled, it was not at all obvious that Collins or his son would inherit. The quarrel must have been over something else.

    Reply
  117. That sent me scurrying to P&P. Here follows an extract from chapter 13, with the start of the olive branch letter.
    “No, that I am sure I shall not; and I think it was very impertinent of him to write to you at all, and very hypocritical. I hate such false friends. Why could not he keep on quarrelling with you, as his father did before him?”
    “Why, indeed; he does seem to have had some filial scruples on that head, as you will hear.”
    “Hunsford, near Westerham, Kent,
    15th October.
    “DEAR SIR, — The disagreement subsisting between yourself and my late honoured father always gave me much uneasiness, and since I have had the misfortune to lose him, I have frequently wished to heal the breach; but for some time I was kept back by my own doubts, fearing lest it might seem disrespectful to his memory for me to be on good terms with any one, with whom it had always pleased him to be at variance. — “There, Mrs. Bennet.”
    Mrs. Bennet’s resentment is voiced at the start of this fragment, but that seems quite separate from the disagreement that has apparently existed for as long as Mr. Collins can remember. And he must be older than the Bennet girls, being already a clergyman. Besides, for years the Bennets were confident of having a son, who would naturally inherit Longbourn and look after his sisters. And five daughters is a rather unusual same-sex run. So when Collins sr. and Mr. Bennet first quarrelled, it was not at all obvious that Collins or his son would inherit. The quarrel must have been over something else.

    Reply
  118. That sent me scurrying to P&P. Here follows an extract from chapter 13, with the start of the olive branch letter.
    “No, that I am sure I shall not; and I think it was very impertinent of him to write to you at all, and very hypocritical. I hate such false friends. Why could not he keep on quarrelling with you, as his father did before him?”
    “Why, indeed; he does seem to have had some filial scruples on that head, as you will hear.”
    “Hunsford, near Westerham, Kent,
    15th October.
    “DEAR SIR, — The disagreement subsisting between yourself and my late honoured father always gave me much uneasiness, and since I have had the misfortune to lose him, I have frequently wished to heal the breach; but for some time I was kept back by my own doubts, fearing lest it might seem disrespectful to his memory for me to be on good terms with any one, with whom it had always pleased him to be at variance. — “There, Mrs. Bennet.”
    Mrs. Bennet’s resentment is voiced at the start of this fragment, but that seems quite separate from the disagreement that has apparently existed for as long as Mr. Collins can remember. And he must be older than the Bennet girls, being already a clergyman. Besides, for years the Bennets were confident of having a son, who would naturally inherit Longbourn and look after his sisters. And five daughters is a rather unusual same-sex run. So when Collins sr. and Mr. Bennet first quarrelled, it was not at all obvious that Collins or his son would inherit. The quarrel must have been over something else.

    Reply
  119. That sent me scurrying to P&P. Here follows an extract from chapter 13, with the start of the olive branch letter.
    “No, that I am sure I shall not; and I think it was very impertinent of him to write to you at all, and very hypocritical. I hate such false friends. Why could not he keep on quarrelling with you, as his father did before him?”
    “Why, indeed; he does seem to have had some filial scruples on that head, as you will hear.”
    “Hunsford, near Westerham, Kent,
    15th October.
    “DEAR SIR, — The disagreement subsisting between yourself and my late honoured father always gave me much uneasiness, and since I have had the misfortune to lose him, I have frequently wished to heal the breach; but for some time I was kept back by my own doubts, fearing lest it might seem disrespectful to his memory for me to be on good terms with any one, with whom it had always pleased him to be at variance. — “There, Mrs. Bennet.”
    Mrs. Bennet’s resentment is voiced at the start of this fragment, but that seems quite separate from the disagreement that has apparently existed for as long as Mr. Collins can remember. And he must be older than the Bennet girls, being already a clergyman. Besides, for years the Bennets were confident of having a son, who would naturally inherit Longbourn and look after his sisters. And five daughters is a rather unusual same-sex run. So when Collins sr. and Mr. Bennet first quarrelled, it was not at all obvious that Collins or his son would inherit. The quarrel must have been over something else.

    Reply
  120. That sent me scurrying to P&P. Here follows an extract from chapter 13, with the start of the olive branch letter.
    “No, that I am sure I shall not; and I think it was very impertinent of him to write to you at all, and very hypocritical. I hate such false friends. Why could not he keep on quarrelling with you, as his father did before him?”
    “Why, indeed; he does seem to have had some filial scruples on that head, as you will hear.”
    “Hunsford, near Westerham, Kent,
    15th October.
    “DEAR SIR, — The disagreement subsisting between yourself and my late honoured father always gave me much uneasiness, and since I have had the misfortune to lose him, I have frequently wished to heal the breach; but for some time I was kept back by my own doubts, fearing lest it might seem disrespectful to his memory for me to be on good terms with any one, with whom it had always pleased him to be at variance. — “There, Mrs. Bennet.”
    Mrs. Bennet’s resentment is voiced at the start of this fragment, but that seems quite separate from the disagreement that has apparently existed for as long as Mr. Collins can remember. And he must be older than the Bennet girls, being already a clergyman. Besides, for years the Bennets were confident of having a son, who would naturally inherit Longbourn and look after his sisters. And five daughters is a rather unusual same-sex run. So when Collins sr. and Mr. Bennet first quarrelled, it was not at all obvious that Collins or his son would inherit. The quarrel must have been over something else.

    Reply
  121. I’ll contribute to the issue of continental titles, for which, of course, the important question is “when was this happening?” Generally, there’s a lot of good information on the Holy Roman Empire at Francois Velde’s Heraldica site:
    http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm
    Mark Odegard has a skimpy introduction to the entire continental system here:
    http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm
    There’s a great difficulty in translating the forms of address into English for purposes of fiction. Readers are accustomed to the passing “Your Grace” or “Your Eminence,” or even, “Your Serene Highness,” and not think about what the terms actually mean — but they tend to boggle when confronted with “Your Transparently Illustriousness” for “Durchlaucht.”
    As for inheritance, in the Germanies (prior to 1871 unification), there might or might not be primogeniture, with the inheritance going to the oldest son. In earlier periods, up through the 17th century, it was far more common that it did not — the inheritance was split among the male heirs (which gave you Saxe-Gotha, Saxe-Coburg, Saxe-Eisenach, Saxe-Altenburg, and many other mini-sections of Saxony with their own rulers. The general assumption was that the English system of excluding younger sons was “cruel.”
    A good book for understanding it is Paul Sutter Fichtner, Protestantism and Primogeniture in Early Modern Germany (Yale University Press, 1989).
    Because of the frequent requirement (nonexistent in English law) that the mother of the child had to be “ebenbuertig” (of equal rank) for the son to inherit, the German nobility did have the “out” of the morganatic marriage (legal, but to a woman of lesser rank), which controlled the splintering process to some extent.

    Reply
  122. I’ll contribute to the issue of continental titles, for which, of course, the important question is “when was this happening?” Generally, there’s a lot of good information on the Holy Roman Empire at Francois Velde’s Heraldica site:
    http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm
    Mark Odegard has a skimpy introduction to the entire continental system here:
    http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm
    There’s a great difficulty in translating the forms of address into English for purposes of fiction. Readers are accustomed to the passing “Your Grace” or “Your Eminence,” or even, “Your Serene Highness,” and not think about what the terms actually mean — but they tend to boggle when confronted with “Your Transparently Illustriousness” for “Durchlaucht.”
    As for inheritance, in the Germanies (prior to 1871 unification), there might or might not be primogeniture, with the inheritance going to the oldest son. In earlier periods, up through the 17th century, it was far more common that it did not — the inheritance was split among the male heirs (which gave you Saxe-Gotha, Saxe-Coburg, Saxe-Eisenach, Saxe-Altenburg, and many other mini-sections of Saxony with their own rulers. The general assumption was that the English system of excluding younger sons was “cruel.”
    A good book for understanding it is Paul Sutter Fichtner, Protestantism and Primogeniture in Early Modern Germany (Yale University Press, 1989).
    Because of the frequent requirement (nonexistent in English law) that the mother of the child had to be “ebenbuertig” (of equal rank) for the son to inherit, the German nobility did have the “out” of the morganatic marriage (legal, but to a woman of lesser rank), which controlled the splintering process to some extent.

    Reply
  123. I’ll contribute to the issue of continental titles, for which, of course, the important question is “when was this happening?” Generally, there’s a lot of good information on the Holy Roman Empire at Francois Velde’s Heraldica site:
    http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm
    Mark Odegard has a skimpy introduction to the entire continental system here:
    http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm
    There’s a great difficulty in translating the forms of address into English for purposes of fiction. Readers are accustomed to the passing “Your Grace” or “Your Eminence,” or even, “Your Serene Highness,” and not think about what the terms actually mean — but they tend to boggle when confronted with “Your Transparently Illustriousness” for “Durchlaucht.”
    As for inheritance, in the Germanies (prior to 1871 unification), there might or might not be primogeniture, with the inheritance going to the oldest son. In earlier periods, up through the 17th century, it was far more common that it did not — the inheritance was split among the male heirs (which gave you Saxe-Gotha, Saxe-Coburg, Saxe-Eisenach, Saxe-Altenburg, and many other mini-sections of Saxony with their own rulers. The general assumption was that the English system of excluding younger sons was “cruel.”
    A good book for understanding it is Paul Sutter Fichtner, Protestantism and Primogeniture in Early Modern Germany (Yale University Press, 1989).
    Because of the frequent requirement (nonexistent in English law) that the mother of the child had to be “ebenbuertig” (of equal rank) for the son to inherit, the German nobility did have the “out” of the morganatic marriage (legal, but to a woman of lesser rank), which controlled the splintering process to some extent.

    Reply
  124. I’ll contribute to the issue of continental titles, for which, of course, the important question is “when was this happening?” Generally, there’s a lot of good information on the Holy Roman Empire at Francois Velde’s Heraldica site:
    http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm
    Mark Odegard has a skimpy introduction to the entire continental system here:
    http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm
    There’s a great difficulty in translating the forms of address into English for purposes of fiction. Readers are accustomed to the passing “Your Grace” or “Your Eminence,” or even, “Your Serene Highness,” and not think about what the terms actually mean — but they tend to boggle when confronted with “Your Transparently Illustriousness” for “Durchlaucht.”
    As for inheritance, in the Germanies (prior to 1871 unification), there might or might not be primogeniture, with the inheritance going to the oldest son. In earlier periods, up through the 17th century, it was far more common that it did not — the inheritance was split among the male heirs (which gave you Saxe-Gotha, Saxe-Coburg, Saxe-Eisenach, Saxe-Altenburg, and many other mini-sections of Saxony with their own rulers. The general assumption was that the English system of excluding younger sons was “cruel.”
    A good book for understanding it is Paul Sutter Fichtner, Protestantism and Primogeniture in Early Modern Germany (Yale University Press, 1989).
    Because of the frequent requirement (nonexistent in English law) that the mother of the child had to be “ebenbuertig” (of equal rank) for the son to inherit, the German nobility did have the “out” of the morganatic marriage (legal, but to a woman of lesser rank), which controlled the splintering process to some extent.

    Reply
  125. I’ll contribute to the issue of continental titles, for which, of course, the important question is “when was this happening?” Generally, there’s a lot of good information on the Holy Roman Empire at Francois Velde’s Heraldica site:
    http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm
    Mark Odegard has a skimpy introduction to the entire continental system here:
    http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm
    There’s a great difficulty in translating the forms of address into English for purposes of fiction. Readers are accustomed to the passing “Your Grace” or “Your Eminence,” or even, “Your Serene Highness,” and not think about what the terms actually mean — but they tend to boggle when confronted with “Your Transparently Illustriousness” for “Durchlaucht.”
    As for inheritance, in the Germanies (prior to 1871 unification), there might or might not be primogeniture, with the inheritance going to the oldest son. In earlier periods, up through the 17th century, it was far more common that it did not — the inheritance was split among the male heirs (which gave you Saxe-Gotha, Saxe-Coburg, Saxe-Eisenach, Saxe-Altenburg, and many other mini-sections of Saxony with their own rulers. The general assumption was that the English system of excluding younger sons was “cruel.”
    A good book for understanding it is Paul Sutter Fichtner, Protestantism and Primogeniture in Early Modern Germany (Yale University Press, 1989).
    Because of the frequent requirement (nonexistent in English law) that the mother of the child had to be “ebenbuertig” (of equal rank) for the son to inherit, the German nobility did have the “out” of the morganatic marriage (legal, but to a woman of lesser rank), which controlled the splintering process to some extent.

    Reply
  126. This site has some useful information, with translations:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_(manner_of_address)
    If forms are address are still in use today (“Your Excellency” for an ambassador or “Your Holiness” for the pope), they usually don’t bother readers. If they have become wholly obsolete, or don’t translate well, I’ll have to admit for the 1632 series, Eric and I simply made the determination that “Your Majesty,” “Your Highness,” “Your Grace,” and “My Lord” and “My Lady” were going to have to cover just about all contingencies.
    As for the Holy Roman Emperor’s eggs, the question might have been addressed to “Your Imperial Majesty.” However, it would have been far more likely that the question would have been phrased impersonally — “How would His Imperial Majesty like his eggs today?” Similarly, rather than a direct order, “Serve the tea now, Johann,” in the pre-modern era, it would be more likely that the nobleman or noblewoman in the early modern era would have looked at a wall, rather than at the servant, and have said, “Let him serve the tea now.”

    Reply
  127. This site has some useful information, with translations:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_(manner_of_address)
    If forms are address are still in use today (“Your Excellency” for an ambassador or “Your Holiness” for the pope), they usually don’t bother readers. If they have become wholly obsolete, or don’t translate well, I’ll have to admit for the 1632 series, Eric and I simply made the determination that “Your Majesty,” “Your Highness,” “Your Grace,” and “My Lord” and “My Lady” were going to have to cover just about all contingencies.
    As for the Holy Roman Emperor’s eggs, the question might have been addressed to “Your Imperial Majesty.” However, it would have been far more likely that the question would have been phrased impersonally — “How would His Imperial Majesty like his eggs today?” Similarly, rather than a direct order, “Serve the tea now, Johann,” in the pre-modern era, it would be more likely that the nobleman or noblewoman in the early modern era would have looked at a wall, rather than at the servant, and have said, “Let him serve the tea now.”

    Reply
  128. This site has some useful information, with translations:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_(manner_of_address)
    If forms are address are still in use today (“Your Excellency” for an ambassador or “Your Holiness” for the pope), they usually don’t bother readers. If they have become wholly obsolete, or don’t translate well, I’ll have to admit for the 1632 series, Eric and I simply made the determination that “Your Majesty,” “Your Highness,” “Your Grace,” and “My Lord” and “My Lady” were going to have to cover just about all contingencies.
    As for the Holy Roman Emperor’s eggs, the question might have been addressed to “Your Imperial Majesty.” However, it would have been far more likely that the question would have been phrased impersonally — “How would His Imperial Majesty like his eggs today?” Similarly, rather than a direct order, “Serve the tea now, Johann,” in the pre-modern era, it would be more likely that the nobleman or noblewoman in the early modern era would have looked at a wall, rather than at the servant, and have said, “Let him serve the tea now.”

    Reply
  129. This site has some useful information, with translations:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_(manner_of_address)
    If forms are address are still in use today (“Your Excellency” for an ambassador or “Your Holiness” for the pope), they usually don’t bother readers. If they have become wholly obsolete, or don’t translate well, I’ll have to admit for the 1632 series, Eric and I simply made the determination that “Your Majesty,” “Your Highness,” “Your Grace,” and “My Lord” and “My Lady” were going to have to cover just about all contingencies.
    As for the Holy Roman Emperor’s eggs, the question might have been addressed to “Your Imperial Majesty.” However, it would have been far more likely that the question would have been phrased impersonally — “How would His Imperial Majesty like his eggs today?” Similarly, rather than a direct order, “Serve the tea now, Johann,” in the pre-modern era, it would be more likely that the nobleman or noblewoman in the early modern era would have looked at a wall, rather than at the servant, and have said, “Let him serve the tea now.”

    Reply
  130. This site has some useful information, with translations:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_(manner_of_address)
    If forms are address are still in use today (“Your Excellency” for an ambassador or “Your Holiness” for the pope), they usually don’t bother readers. If they have become wholly obsolete, or don’t translate well, I’ll have to admit for the 1632 series, Eric and I simply made the determination that “Your Majesty,” “Your Highness,” “Your Grace,” and “My Lord” and “My Lady” were going to have to cover just about all contingencies.
    As for the Holy Roman Emperor’s eggs, the question might have been addressed to “Your Imperial Majesty.” However, it would have been far more likely that the question would have been phrased impersonally — “How would His Imperial Majesty like his eggs today?” Similarly, rather than a direct order, “Serve the tea now, Johann,” in the pre-modern era, it would be more likely that the nobleman or noblewoman in the early modern era would have looked at a wall, rather than at the servant, and have said, “Let him serve the tea now.”

    Reply
  131. Back to continental/German titles: I think inheritance depended on a lot of factors – it could be anything really. Sometimes the principalities were split, and sometimes one son inherited everything.
    I’d say “squire” in English had more significance than a “von”. I can only speak for Austria for sure, of course, but a lot of families were awarded a von for various reasons. I am not saying it was worth nothing, as people were proud of it, but the seperation between the real aristocracy and the “newly created” von somethings was and is fierce. I met a count one (trust me, it was not glamourous. He was the most idiotic person I ever met!) and he would go on and on about his brother-in-law (a lowely von something) inheriting a set of china with little princly crowns on it – how it was not right because of his lack of rank, how he should not have accepted it (the china was a memento from a old lady, a thankful patient who happened to be of even higher rank of the count) and so forth.
    Having to be “of equal rank”
    (ebenbürtig) was particularly important for the Hapsburgs. There were several love stories where members of the archhouse wanted to marry outside their rank. Frank Ferdinand (whose being shot started WW1) married a countess morganatically. The marriage was very happy, apparently. Not even after her death by the same shooter was Sophie Chotek accepted by the Hapsburg family.
    Archduke Johann married Anna Plochl, a postmaster’s daughter, in the early 19th century. The most touching of those morganatic marriages happened earlier, though: that of Philippine Welser and Archduke Ferdinand II in the 16th century. The marriage had to be kept secret for a long time, but was apparently successful. At the time of her marriage Philippine, daughter of a merchant family, was 30, two years older than her husband. Nobody understood why he married her at all – it must have been love! When Ferdinand became ruler of the Tyrol, he bought Ambras Castle for his wife. She was very popular and to this day stories about her are being told… the link to Ambras Castle is in German only, but the pictures are very nice too..
    http://www.khm.at/ambras/01geschichte/index.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Welser
    Sorry for the long post! Got carried away…

    Reply
  132. Back to continental/German titles: I think inheritance depended on a lot of factors – it could be anything really. Sometimes the principalities were split, and sometimes one son inherited everything.
    I’d say “squire” in English had more significance than a “von”. I can only speak for Austria for sure, of course, but a lot of families were awarded a von for various reasons. I am not saying it was worth nothing, as people were proud of it, but the seperation between the real aristocracy and the “newly created” von somethings was and is fierce. I met a count one (trust me, it was not glamourous. He was the most idiotic person I ever met!) and he would go on and on about his brother-in-law (a lowely von something) inheriting a set of china with little princly crowns on it – how it was not right because of his lack of rank, how he should not have accepted it (the china was a memento from a old lady, a thankful patient who happened to be of even higher rank of the count) and so forth.
    Having to be “of equal rank”
    (ebenbürtig) was particularly important for the Hapsburgs. There were several love stories where members of the archhouse wanted to marry outside their rank. Frank Ferdinand (whose being shot started WW1) married a countess morganatically. The marriage was very happy, apparently. Not even after her death by the same shooter was Sophie Chotek accepted by the Hapsburg family.
    Archduke Johann married Anna Plochl, a postmaster’s daughter, in the early 19th century. The most touching of those morganatic marriages happened earlier, though: that of Philippine Welser and Archduke Ferdinand II in the 16th century. The marriage had to be kept secret for a long time, but was apparently successful. At the time of her marriage Philippine, daughter of a merchant family, was 30, two years older than her husband. Nobody understood why he married her at all – it must have been love! When Ferdinand became ruler of the Tyrol, he bought Ambras Castle for his wife. She was very popular and to this day stories about her are being told… the link to Ambras Castle is in German only, but the pictures are very nice too..
    http://www.khm.at/ambras/01geschichte/index.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Welser
    Sorry for the long post! Got carried away…

    Reply
  133. Back to continental/German titles: I think inheritance depended on a lot of factors – it could be anything really. Sometimes the principalities were split, and sometimes one son inherited everything.
    I’d say “squire” in English had more significance than a “von”. I can only speak for Austria for sure, of course, but a lot of families were awarded a von for various reasons. I am not saying it was worth nothing, as people were proud of it, but the seperation between the real aristocracy and the “newly created” von somethings was and is fierce. I met a count one (trust me, it was not glamourous. He was the most idiotic person I ever met!) and he would go on and on about his brother-in-law (a lowely von something) inheriting a set of china with little princly crowns on it – how it was not right because of his lack of rank, how he should not have accepted it (the china was a memento from a old lady, a thankful patient who happened to be of even higher rank of the count) and so forth.
    Having to be “of equal rank”
    (ebenbürtig) was particularly important for the Hapsburgs. There were several love stories where members of the archhouse wanted to marry outside their rank. Frank Ferdinand (whose being shot started WW1) married a countess morganatically. The marriage was very happy, apparently. Not even after her death by the same shooter was Sophie Chotek accepted by the Hapsburg family.
    Archduke Johann married Anna Plochl, a postmaster’s daughter, in the early 19th century. The most touching of those morganatic marriages happened earlier, though: that of Philippine Welser and Archduke Ferdinand II in the 16th century. The marriage had to be kept secret for a long time, but was apparently successful. At the time of her marriage Philippine, daughter of a merchant family, was 30, two years older than her husband. Nobody understood why he married her at all – it must have been love! When Ferdinand became ruler of the Tyrol, he bought Ambras Castle for his wife. She was very popular and to this day stories about her are being told… the link to Ambras Castle is in German only, but the pictures are very nice too..
    http://www.khm.at/ambras/01geschichte/index.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Welser
    Sorry for the long post! Got carried away…

    Reply
  134. Back to continental/German titles: I think inheritance depended on a lot of factors – it could be anything really. Sometimes the principalities were split, and sometimes one son inherited everything.
    I’d say “squire” in English had more significance than a “von”. I can only speak for Austria for sure, of course, but a lot of families were awarded a von for various reasons. I am not saying it was worth nothing, as people were proud of it, but the seperation between the real aristocracy and the “newly created” von somethings was and is fierce. I met a count one (trust me, it was not glamourous. He was the most idiotic person I ever met!) and he would go on and on about his brother-in-law (a lowely von something) inheriting a set of china with little princly crowns on it – how it was not right because of his lack of rank, how he should not have accepted it (the china was a memento from a old lady, a thankful patient who happened to be of even higher rank of the count) and so forth.
    Having to be “of equal rank”
    (ebenbürtig) was particularly important for the Hapsburgs. There were several love stories where members of the archhouse wanted to marry outside their rank. Frank Ferdinand (whose being shot started WW1) married a countess morganatically. The marriage was very happy, apparently. Not even after her death by the same shooter was Sophie Chotek accepted by the Hapsburg family.
    Archduke Johann married Anna Plochl, a postmaster’s daughter, in the early 19th century. The most touching of those morganatic marriages happened earlier, though: that of Philippine Welser and Archduke Ferdinand II in the 16th century. The marriage had to be kept secret for a long time, but was apparently successful. At the time of her marriage Philippine, daughter of a merchant family, was 30, two years older than her husband. Nobody understood why he married her at all – it must have been love! When Ferdinand became ruler of the Tyrol, he bought Ambras Castle for his wife. She was very popular and to this day stories about her are being told… the link to Ambras Castle is in German only, but the pictures are very nice too..
    http://www.khm.at/ambras/01geschichte/index.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Welser
    Sorry for the long post! Got carried away…

    Reply
  135. Back to continental/German titles: I think inheritance depended on a lot of factors – it could be anything really. Sometimes the principalities were split, and sometimes one son inherited everything.
    I’d say “squire” in English had more significance than a “von”. I can only speak for Austria for sure, of course, but a lot of families were awarded a von for various reasons. I am not saying it was worth nothing, as people were proud of it, but the seperation between the real aristocracy and the “newly created” von somethings was and is fierce. I met a count one (trust me, it was not glamourous. He was the most idiotic person I ever met!) and he would go on and on about his brother-in-law (a lowely von something) inheriting a set of china with little princly crowns on it – how it was not right because of his lack of rank, how he should not have accepted it (the china was a memento from a old lady, a thankful patient who happened to be of even higher rank of the count) and so forth.
    Having to be “of equal rank”
    (ebenbürtig) was particularly important for the Hapsburgs. There were several love stories where members of the archhouse wanted to marry outside their rank. Frank Ferdinand (whose being shot started WW1) married a countess morganatically. The marriage was very happy, apparently. Not even after her death by the same shooter was Sophie Chotek accepted by the Hapsburg family.
    Archduke Johann married Anna Plochl, a postmaster’s daughter, in the early 19th century. The most touching of those morganatic marriages happened earlier, though: that of Philippine Welser and Archduke Ferdinand II in the 16th century. The marriage had to be kept secret for a long time, but was apparently successful. At the time of her marriage Philippine, daughter of a merchant family, was 30, two years older than her husband. Nobody understood why he married her at all – it must have been love! When Ferdinand became ruler of the Tyrol, he bought Ambras Castle for his wife. She was very popular and to this day stories about her are being told… the link to Ambras Castle is in German only, but the pictures are very nice too..
    http://www.khm.at/ambras/01geschichte/index.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Welser
    Sorry for the long post! Got carried away…

    Reply
  136. And then there’s “agnatic inheritance,” a word completely new to me:
    Agnatic (or patrilineal) descent is established by tracing descent exclusively through males from a founding male ancestor. In hereditary monarchies, particularly in more ancient times, seniority was a much-used principle of order of succession. Under agnatic seniority or patrilineal seniority, succession to the throne passes to the monarch’s next-eldest brother (even if the monarch has his own sons), and then only to the monarch’s children (the next generation) after males of the eldest generation have all been exhausted. Agnatic succession essentially excludes females of the dynasty and their descendants from the succession. (Wikipedia)
    Sounds like a recipe for assassination and civil war to me. More at the Wiki site.

    Reply
  137. And then there’s “agnatic inheritance,” a word completely new to me:
    Agnatic (or patrilineal) descent is established by tracing descent exclusively through males from a founding male ancestor. In hereditary monarchies, particularly in more ancient times, seniority was a much-used principle of order of succession. Under agnatic seniority or patrilineal seniority, succession to the throne passes to the monarch’s next-eldest brother (even if the monarch has his own sons), and then only to the monarch’s children (the next generation) after males of the eldest generation have all been exhausted. Agnatic succession essentially excludes females of the dynasty and their descendants from the succession. (Wikipedia)
    Sounds like a recipe for assassination and civil war to me. More at the Wiki site.

    Reply
  138. And then there’s “agnatic inheritance,” a word completely new to me:
    Agnatic (or patrilineal) descent is established by tracing descent exclusively through males from a founding male ancestor. In hereditary monarchies, particularly in more ancient times, seniority was a much-used principle of order of succession. Under agnatic seniority or patrilineal seniority, succession to the throne passes to the monarch’s next-eldest brother (even if the monarch has his own sons), and then only to the monarch’s children (the next generation) after males of the eldest generation have all been exhausted. Agnatic succession essentially excludes females of the dynasty and their descendants from the succession. (Wikipedia)
    Sounds like a recipe for assassination and civil war to me. More at the Wiki site.

    Reply
  139. And then there’s “agnatic inheritance,” a word completely new to me:
    Agnatic (or patrilineal) descent is established by tracing descent exclusively through males from a founding male ancestor. In hereditary monarchies, particularly in more ancient times, seniority was a much-used principle of order of succession. Under agnatic seniority or patrilineal seniority, succession to the throne passes to the monarch’s next-eldest brother (even if the monarch has his own sons), and then only to the monarch’s children (the next generation) after males of the eldest generation have all been exhausted. Agnatic succession essentially excludes females of the dynasty and their descendants from the succession. (Wikipedia)
    Sounds like a recipe for assassination and civil war to me. More at the Wiki site.

    Reply
  140. And then there’s “agnatic inheritance,” a word completely new to me:
    Agnatic (or patrilineal) descent is established by tracing descent exclusively through males from a founding male ancestor. In hereditary monarchies, particularly in more ancient times, seniority was a much-used principle of order of succession. Under agnatic seniority or patrilineal seniority, succession to the throne passes to the monarch’s next-eldest brother (even if the monarch has his own sons), and then only to the monarch’s children (the next generation) after males of the eldest generation have all been exhausted. Agnatic succession essentially excludes females of the dynasty and their descendants from the succession. (Wikipedia)
    Sounds like a recipe for assassination and civil war to me. More at the Wiki site.

    Reply
  141. The Whittaker Peerage, Baronetage, etc. has an excellent introductory chapter on modes of address and the peerages that don’t have an “of.” It lists the ones lacking it. There are quite a few earldoms without an ‘of’ as well as about four marquessates without the preposition.
    There is no logical reason for these dfferences. Most of such peerages are older ones as well.
    Re: a man who is never called anything except Lord Title– he is usually a baron. While one can speak of a man as a viscount, earl, marquess, and duke one doesn’t speak of a man as a baron. One only calls a woman a baroness if she is one in her own right.
    The Almanach de Gotha has information on continental titles. Continental systems did not use Lord and Lady.

    Reply
  142. The Whittaker Peerage, Baronetage, etc. has an excellent introductory chapter on modes of address and the peerages that don’t have an “of.” It lists the ones lacking it. There are quite a few earldoms without an ‘of’ as well as about four marquessates without the preposition.
    There is no logical reason for these dfferences. Most of such peerages are older ones as well.
    Re: a man who is never called anything except Lord Title– he is usually a baron. While one can speak of a man as a viscount, earl, marquess, and duke one doesn’t speak of a man as a baron. One only calls a woman a baroness if she is one in her own right.
    The Almanach de Gotha has information on continental titles. Continental systems did not use Lord and Lady.

    Reply
  143. The Whittaker Peerage, Baronetage, etc. has an excellent introductory chapter on modes of address and the peerages that don’t have an “of.” It lists the ones lacking it. There are quite a few earldoms without an ‘of’ as well as about four marquessates without the preposition.
    There is no logical reason for these dfferences. Most of such peerages are older ones as well.
    Re: a man who is never called anything except Lord Title– he is usually a baron. While one can speak of a man as a viscount, earl, marquess, and duke one doesn’t speak of a man as a baron. One only calls a woman a baroness if she is one in her own right.
    The Almanach de Gotha has information on continental titles. Continental systems did not use Lord and Lady.

    Reply
  144. The Whittaker Peerage, Baronetage, etc. has an excellent introductory chapter on modes of address and the peerages that don’t have an “of.” It lists the ones lacking it. There are quite a few earldoms without an ‘of’ as well as about four marquessates without the preposition.
    There is no logical reason for these dfferences. Most of such peerages are older ones as well.
    Re: a man who is never called anything except Lord Title– he is usually a baron. While one can speak of a man as a viscount, earl, marquess, and duke one doesn’t speak of a man as a baron. One only calls a woman a baroness if she is one in her own right.
    The Almanach de Gotha has information on continental titles. Continental systems did not use Lord and Lady.

    Reply
  145. The Whittaker Peerage, Baronetage, etc. has an excellent introductory chapter on modes of address and the peerages that don’t have an “of.” It lists the ones lacking it. There are quite a few earldoms without an ‘of’ as well as about four marquessates without the preposition.
    There is no logical reason for these dfferences. Most of such peerages are older ones as well.
    Re: a man who is never called anything except Lord Title– he is usually a baron. While one can speak of a man as a viscount, earl, marquess, and duke one doesn’t speak of a man as a baron. One only calls a woman a baroness if she is one in her own right.
    The Almanach de Gotha has information on continental titles. Continental systems did not use Lord and Lady.

    Reply
  146. Coming rather late to this.
    I have some sympathy with Americans who get muddled by knighthoods and earldoms and so forth, because you don’t have them yourselves, although of course, anyone writing a novel set in a time and place where these things exist(ed) should take care to get them right.
    The thing that makes me grind my teeth is the American usage surrounding a title that is still commonly used in both our countries, namely ‘Reverend’. I assume (because it is so common) that it is okay in the USA to speak of ‘the Reverend Smith’, replacing the cleric’s social title (Mr, Mrs., Dr., Professor etc.) with ‘Rev’. It is NOT okay in British English, and never was, so it can be a real concentration-breaker if that style is inserted into a book set in the UK, past or present.
    The Reverend Dr. John Smith is referred to as ‘the Rev. Dr. Smith’, or just ‘Dr. Smith’, never ‘Rev.Smith’, in British English.

    Reply
  147. Coming rather late to this.
    I have some sympathy with Americans who get muddled by knighthoods and earldoms and so forth, because you don’t have them yourselves, although of course, anyone writing a novel set in a time and place where these things exist(ed) should take care to get them right.
    The thing that makes me grind my teeth is the American usage surrounding a title that is still commonly used in both our countries, namely ‘Reverend’. I assume (because it is so common) that it is okay in the USA to speak of ‘the Reverend Smith’, replacing the cleric’s social title (Mr, Mrs., Dr., Professor etc.) with ‘Rev’. It is NOT okay in British English, and never was, so it can be a real concentration-breaker if that style is inserted into a book set in the UK, past or present.
    The Reverend Dr. John Smith is referred to as ‘the Rev. Dr. Smith’, or just ‘Dr. Smith’, never ‘Rev.Smith’, in British English.

    Reply
  148. Coming rather late to this.
    I have some sympathy with Americans who get muddled by knighthoods and earldoms and so forth, because you don’t have them yourselves, although of course, anyone writing a novel set in a time and place where these things exist(ed) should take care to get them right.
    The thing that makes me grind my teeth is the American usage surrounding a title that is still commonly used in both our countries, namely ‘Reverend’. I assume (because it is so common) that it is okay in the USA to speak of ‘the Reverend Smith’, replacing the cleric’s social title (Mr, Mrs., Dr., Professor etc.) with ‘Rev’. It is NOT okay in British English, and never was, so it can be a real concentration-breaker if that style is inserted into a book set in the UK, past or present.
    The Reverend Dr. John Smith is referred to as ‘the Rev. Dr. Smith’, or just ‘Dr. Smith’, never ‘Rev.Smith’, in British English.

    Reply
  149. Coming rather late to this.
    I have some sympathy with Americans who get muddled by knighthoods and earldoms and so forth, because you don’t have them yourselves, although of course, anyone writing a novel set in a time and place where these things exist(ed) should take care to get them right.
    The thing that makes me grind my teeth is the American usage surrounding a title that is still commonly used in both our countries, namely ‘Reverend’. I assume (because it is so common) that it is okay in the USA to speak of ‘the Reverend Smith’, replacing the cleric’s social title (Mr, Mrs., Dr., Professor etc.) with ‘Rev’. It is NOT okay in British English, and never was, so it can be a real concentration-breaker if that style is inserted into a book set in the UK, past or present.
    The Reverend Dr. John Smith is referred to as ‘the Rev. Dr. Smith’, or just ‘Dr. Smith’, never ‘Rev.Smith’, in British English.

    Reply
  150. Coming rather late to this.
    I have some sympathy with Americans who get muddled by knighthoods and earldoms and so forth, because you don’t have them yourselves, although of course, anyone writing a novel set in a time and place where these things exist(ed) should take care to get them right.
    The thing that makes me grind my teeth is the American usage surrounding a title that is still commonly used in both our countries, namely ‘Reverend’. I assume (because it is so common) that it is okay in the USA to speak of ‘the Reverend Smith’, replacing the cleric’s social title (Mr, Mrs., Dr., Professor etc.) with ‘Rev’. It is NOT okay in British English, and never was, so it can be a real concentration-breaker if that style is inserted into a book set in the UK, past or present.
    The Reverend Dr. John Smith is referred to as ‘the Rev. Dr. Smith’, or just ‘Dr. Smith’, never ‘Rev.Smith’, in British English.

    Reply
  151. It’s not of any use, systematically, for styles or forms of address, but for an introduction for English-speakers to how the various continental nobilities differed, I recommend:
    H.M. Scott, ed., The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.
    Volume One: Western Europe
    Volume Two: Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe
    London and New York: Longman, 1995
    There are more specialized titles in English. For instance,
    H.K.F. van Nierop, The nobility of Holland: From knights to regents, 1500-1650 (Cambridge University Press, 1984)
    Older than Scott, but still handy if you run across it:
    A. Goodwin, ed., The European Nobility in the Eighteenth Century: Studies of the Nobilities of the major European States in the pre-Reform Era
    London: Adam and Charles Black, 1953; 2nd edition 1967
    Adam Zmora’s State and nobility in early modern Germany really has a misleading title. The subtitle is more accurate: The knightly feud in Franconia 1440-1567.
    For an emphasis on art and patronage, try Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly, Court Culture in Dresden from Renaissance to Baroque (Palgrave, 2002).

    Reply
  152. It’s not of any use, systematically, for styles or forms of address, but for an introduction for English-speakers to how the various continental nobilities differed, I recommend:
    H.M. Scott, ed., The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.
    Volume One: Western Europe
    Volume Two: Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe
    London and New York: Longman, 1995
    There are more specialized titles in English. For instance,
    H.K.F. van Nierop, The nobility of Holland: From knights to regents, 1500-1650 (Cambridge University Press, 1984)
    Older than Scott, but still handy if you run across it:
    A. Goodwin, ed., The European Nobility in the Eighteenth Century: Studies of the Nobilities of the major European States in the pre-Reform Era
    London: Adam and Charles Black, 1953; 2nd edition 1967
    Adam Zmora’s State and nobility in early modern Germany really has a misleading title. The subtitle is more accurate: The knightly feud in Franconia 1440-1567.
    For an emphasis on art and patronage, try Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly, Court Culture in Dresden from Renaissance to Baroque (Palgrave, 2002).

    Reply
  153. It’s not of any use, systematically, for styles or forms of address, but for an introduction for English-speakers to how the various continental nobilities differed, I recommend:
    H.M. Scott, ed., The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.
    Volume One: Western Europe
    Volume Two: Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe
    London and New York: Longman, 1995
    There are more specialized titles in English. For instance,
    H.K.F. van Nierop, The nobility of Holland: From knights to regents, 1500-1650 (Cambridge University Press, 1984)
    Older than Scott, but still handy if you run across it:
    A. Goodwin, ed., The European Nobility in the Eighteenth Century: Studies of the Nobilities of the major European States in the pre-Reform Era
    London: Adam and Charles Black, 1953; 2nd edition 1967
    Adam Zmora’s State and nobility in early modern Germany really has a misleading title. The subtitle is more accurate: The knightly feud in Franconia 1440-1567.
    For an emphasis on art and patronage, try Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly, Court Culture in Dresden from Renaissance to Baroque (Palgrave, 2002).

    Reply
  154. It’s not of any use, systematically, for styles or forms of address, but for an introduction for English-speakers to how the various continental nobilities differed, I recommend:
    H.M. Scott, ed., The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.
    Volume One: Western Europe
    Volume Two: Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe
    London and New York: Longman, 1995
    There are more specialized titles in English. For instance,
    H.K.F. van Nierop, The nobility of Holland: From knights to regents, 1500-1650 (Cambridge University Press, 1984)
    Older than Scott, but still handy if you run across it:
    A. Goodwin, ed., The European Nobility in the Eighteenth Century: Studies of the Nobilities of the major European States in the pre-Reform Era
    London: Adam and Charles Black, 1953; 2nd edition 1967
    Adam Zmora’s State and nobility in early modern Germany really has a misleading title. The subtitle is more accurate: The knightly feud in Franconia 1440-1567.
    For an emphasis on art and patronage, try Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly, Court Culture in Dresden from Renaissance to Baroque (Palgrave, 2002).

    Reply
  155. It’s not of any use, systematically, for styles or forms of address, but for an introduction for English-speakers to how the various continental nobilities differed, I recommend:
    H.M. Scott, ed., The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.
    Volume One: Western Europe
    Volume Two: Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe
    London and New York: Longman, 1995
    There are more specialized titles in English. For instance,
    H.K.F. van Nierop, The nobility of Holland: From knights to regents, 1500-1650 (Cambridge University Press, 1984)
    Older than Scott, but still handy if you run across it:
    A. Goodwin, ed., The European Nobility in the Eighteenth Century: Studies of the Nobilities of the major European States in the pre-Reform Era
    London: Adam and Charles Black, 1953; 2nd edition 1967
    Adam Zmora’s State and nobility in early modern Germany really has a misleading title. The subtitle is more accurate: The knightly feud in Franconia 1440-1567.
    For an emphasis on art and patronage, try Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly, Court Culture in Dresden from Renaissance to Baroque (Palgrave, 2002).

    Reply
  156. In Germany, the “von” usually designated a noble family, but not always. You can find lists on the internet of non-noble families with the predicate. Most of them are from northwestern Germany, the region of Plattdeutsch (Low German), where usage was blending into the Netherlands, where “van” has never designated nobility at all, but was just a part of many family names.
    The distinction between the German Hochadel (High Nobility) and Niederadel (Low Nobility) is very ancient. Many of the very old “Niederadel” families had their origins in the “ministeriales” of the Carolingian and immediately following time period. It tended to be remembered that the family’s origin was among the “serf-knights” of noble households and they had originally been unfree.
    The later ennoblements in the German-speaking areas, especially Austria, were closer to the French distinction between the “nobility of the sword” and the “nobility of the robe.” Most were a service nobility.

    Reply
  157. In Germany, the “von” usually designated a noble family, but not always. You can find lists on the internet of non-noble families with the predicate. Most of them are from northwestern Germany, the region of Plattdeutsch (Low German), where usage was blending into the Netherlands, where “van” has never designated nobility at all, but was just a part of many family names.
    The distinction between the German Hochadel (High Nobility) and Niederadel (Low Nobility) is very ancient. Many of the very old “Niederadel” families had their origins in the “ministeriales” of the Carolingian and immediately following time period. It tended to be remembered that the family’s origin was among the “serf-knights” of noble households and they had originally been unfree.
    The later ennoblements in the German-speaking areas, especially Austria, were closer to the French distinction between the “nobility of the sword” and the “nobility of the robe.” Most were a service nobility.

    Reply
  158. In Germany, the “von” usually designated a noble family, but not always. You can find lists on the internet of non-noble families with the predicate. Most of them are from northwestern Germany, the region of Plattdeutsch (Low German), where usage was blending into the Netherlands, where “van” has never designated nobility at all, but was just a part of many family names.
    The distinction between the German Hochadel (High Nobility) and Niederadel (Low Nobility) is very ancient. Many of the very old “Niederadel” families had their origins in the “ministeriales” of the Carolingian and immediately following time period. It tended to be remembered that the family’s origin was among the “serf-knights” of noble households and they had originally been unfree.
    The later ennoblements in the German-speaking areas, especially Austria, were closer to the French distinction between the “nobility of the sword” and the “nobility of the robe.” Most were a service nobility.

    Reply
  159. In Germany, the “von” usually designated a noble family, but not always. You can find lists on the internet of non-noble families with the predicate. Most of them are from northwestern Germany, the region of Plattdeutsch (Low German), where usage was blending into the Netherlands, where “van” has never designated nobility at all, but was just a part of many family names.
    The distinction between the German Hochadel (High Nobility) and Niederadel (Low Nobility) is very ancient. Many of the very old “Niederadel” families had their origins in the “ministeriales” of the Carolingian and immediately following time period. It tended to be remembered that the family’s origin was among the “serf-knights” of noble households and they had originally been unfree.
    The later ennoblements in the German-speaking areas, especially Austria, were closer to the French distinction between the “nobility of the sword” and the “nobility of the robe.” Most were a service nobility.

    Reply
  160. In Germany, the “von” usually designated a noble family, but not always. You can find lists on the internet of non-noble families with the predicate. Most of them are from northwestern Germany, the region of Plattdeutsch (Low German), where usage was blending into the Netherlands, where “van” has never designated nobility at all, but was just a part of many family names.
    The distinction between the German Hochadel (High Nobility) and Niederadel (Low Nobility) is very ancient. Many of the very old “Niederadel” families had their origins in the “ministeriales” of the Carolingian and immediately following time period. It tended to be remembered that the family’s origin was among the “serf-knights” of noble households and they had originally been unfree.
    The later ennoblements in the German-speaking areas, especially Austria, were closer to the French distinction between the “nobility of the sword” and the “nobility of the robe.” Most were a service nobility.

    Reply
  161. Charles W. Ingrao, ed., State and Society in Early Modern Austria (Purdue University Press, 1994) has an essay by Herbert Knittner on noble landholding in Lower Austria 1550-1750.
    There’s another useful essay in the above book by John P. Spielman, “Status as Commodity: The Habsburg Economy of Privilege) pp. 110-118. It’s largely on the growing importance of titles, styles and forms. Here’s one of his descriptions:
    “Simply keeping track of the titles and proper forms of address became a profession in itself. In 1487 Max Ayrer published in Nuremberg a Buechlein der titel aller Staende. It had twelve pages. By the early seventeenth century, it had become a hefty handbook, now called the Cantzleybuechlein, an indispensable reference book for every private secretary and public office in the empire.”

    Reply
  162. Charles W. Ingrao, ed., State and Society in Early Modern Austria (Purdue University Press, 1994) has an essay by Herbert Knittner on noble landholding in Lower Austria 1550-1750.
    There’s another useful essay in the above book by John P. Spielman, “Status as Commodity: The Habsburg Economy of Privilege) pp. 110-118. It’s largely on the growing importance of titles, styles and forms. Here’s one of his descriptions:
    “Simply keeping track of the titles and proper forms of address became a profession in itself. In 1487 Max Ayrer published in Nuremberg a Buechlein der titel aller Staende. It had twelve pages. By the early seventeenth century, it had become a hefty handbook, now called the Cantzleybuechlein, an indispensable reference book for every private secretary and public office in the empire.”

    Reply
  163. Charles W. Ingrao, ed., State and Society in Early Modern Austria (Purdue University Press, 1994) has an essay by Herbert Knittner on noble landholding in Lower Austria 1550-1750.
    There’s another useful essay in the above book by John P. Spielman, “Status as Commodity: The Habsburg Economy of Privilege) pp. 110-118. It’s largely on the growing importance of titles, styles and forms. Here’s one of his descriptions:
    “Simply keeping track of the titles and proper forms of address became a profession in itself. In 1487 Max Ayrer published in Nuremberg a Buechlein der titel aller Staende. It had twelve pages. By the early seventeenth century, it had become a hefty handbook, now called the Cantzleybuechlein, an indispensable reference book for every private secretary and public office in the empire.”

    Reply
  164. Charles W. Ingrao, ed., State and Society in Early Modern Austria (Purdue University Press, 1994) has an essay by Herbert Knittner on noble landholding in Lower Austria 1550-1750.
    There’s another useful essay in the above book by John P. Spielman, “Status as Commodity: The Habsburg Economy of Privilege) pp. 110-118. It’s largely on the growing importance of titles, styles and forms. Here’s one of his descriptions:
    “Simply keeping track of the titles and proper forms of address became a profession in itself. In 1487 Max Ayrer published in Nuremberg a Buechlein der titel aller Staende. It had twelve pages. By the early seventeenth century, it had become a hefty handbook, now called the Cantzleybuechlein, an indispensable reference book for every private secretary and public office in the empire.”

    Reply
  165. Charles W. Ingrao, ed., State and Society in Early Modern Austria (Purdue University Press, 1994) has an essay by Herbert Knittner on noble landholding in Lower Austria 1550-1750.
    There’s another useful essay in the above book by John P. Spielman, “Status as Commodity: The Habsburg Economy of Privilege) pp. 110-118. It’s largely on the growing importance of titles, styles and forms. Here’s one of his descriptions:
    “Simply keeping track of the titles and proper forms of address became a profession in itself. In 1487 Max Ayrer published in Nuremberg a Buechlein der titel aller Staende. It had twelve pages. By the early seventeenth century, it had become a hefty handbook, now called the Cantzleybuechlein, an indispensable reference book for every private secretary and public office in the empire.”

    Reply
  166. Incorrect usage drives me crazy — when I spot it. I figure if I am smart enough to spot it, then the author darn well ought to have been smart enough too. I have read soooo many regencies in which Sir Lance Thrust was referred to as Sir Thrust that I can’t count ’em — and that’s an easy one, it’s not even complicated. For the life of me I don’t understand why some authors think this is a minor point, when it yanks anybody with even a superficial knowledge of titles right out of the book. Then too, not fact checking a major item like your character’s name is inexcusable laziness and bespeaks a contempt for the reader (lazy slut lying around eating bonbons, I don’t have to look up anything for *her*). In short, I hate it. There are very few books good enough to survive this kind of sloppiness.

    Reply
  167. Incorrect usage drives me crazy — when I spot it. I figure if I am smart enough to spot it, then the author darn well ought to have been smart enough too. I have read soooo many regencies in which Sir Lance Thrust was referred to as Sir Thrust that I can’t count ’em — and that’s an easy one, it’s not even complicated. For the life of me I don’t understand why some authors think this is a minor point, when it yanks anybody with even a superficial knowledge of titles right out of the book. Then too, not fact checking a major item like your character’s name is inexcusable laziness and bespeaks a contempt for the reader (lazy slut lying around eating bonbons, I don’t have to look up anything for *her*). In short, I hate it. There are very few books good enough to survive this kind of sloppiness.

    Reply
  168. Incorrect usage drives me crazy — when I spot it. I figure if I am smart enough to spot it, then the author darn well ought to have been smart enough too. I have read soooo many regencies in which Sir Lance Thrust was referred to as Sir Thrust that I can’t count ’em — and that’s an easy one, it’s not even complicated. For the life of me I don’t understand why some authors think this is a minor point, when it yanks anybody with even a superficial knowledge of titles right out of the book. Then too, not fact checking a major item like your character’s name is inexcusable laziness and bespeaks a contempt for the reader (lazy slut lying around eating bonbons, I don’t have to look up anything for *her*). In short, I hate it. There are very few books good enough to survive this kind of sloppiness.

    Reply
  169. Incorrect usage drives me crazy — when I spot it. I figure if I am smart enough to spot it, then the author darn well ought to have been smart enough too. I have read soooo many regencies in which Sir Lance Thrust was referred to as Sir Thrust that I can’t count ’em — and that’s an easy one, it’s not even complicated. For the life of me I don’t understand why some authors think this is a minor point, when it yanks anybody with even a superficial knowledge of titles right out of the book. Then too, not fact checking a major item like your character’s name is inexcusable laziness and bespeaks a contempt for the reader (lazy slut lying around eating bonbons, I don’t have to look up anything for *her*). In short, I hate it. There are very few books good enough to survive this kind of sloppiness.

    Reply
  170. Incorrect usage drives me crazy — when I spot it. I figure if I am smart enough to spot it, then the author darn well ought to have been smart enough too. I have read soooo many regencies in which Sir Lance Thrust was referred to as Sir Thrust that I can’t count ’em — and that’s an easy one, it’s not even complicated. For the life of me I don’t understand why some authors think this is a minor point, when it yanks anybody with even a superficial knowledge of titles right out of the book. Then too, not fact checking a major item like your character’s name is inexcusable laziness and bespeaks a contempt for the reader (lazy slut lying around eating bonbons, I don’t have to look up anything for *her*). In short, I hate it. There are very few books good enough to survive this kind of sloppiness.

    Reply

Leave a Comment