# What Title does the Younger Son Have?



## Lafayette (Feb 2, 2017)

In my story, taking place in 14th century pseudo France, I have a character that is a fifth son of a Duke and I have been calling him Duke. I have experiment with titling him dukette or duque, but these sound silly or inaccurate.

I have tried googling, but haven't come up with any good results.

I am left with the question what were the younger sons of a duke (not a king) called? Or were they simply called Louie or Charles or Hey You?


----------



## Hex (Feb 2, 2017)

er... dunno. But Wikipedia says:

The children of a French nobleman (whether a peer or not), unlike those of a British peer, were not considered commoners but untitled nobles.

And:

A nobleman son and grandson of nobles was called a *noble de race* or *gentilhomme* (although the term of gentilhomme is often used for any noble by birth). If all 4 of his grandparents were noble he was a *gentilhomme des 4 lignes* (nobility of all lines, and not just the paternal line, was usually of little importance in France, though a prestigious lineage in female line could be a source of pride; the emphasis on nobility in all lines may be due to the particular requirements for admission into the Order of Malta from the 16th century). If his pedigree went further and no commoners could be found in the male lign, he was deemed a *gentilhomme de nom et d'armes*. These definitions vary from author to author, and are not very important. In general, the status depends primarily on the length of the pedigree, and everyone agrees that a gentilhomme is a born noble: not even the king can make a man into a gentilhomme. Adoption did not transmit nobility.

Nobility and Titles in France

Also from that:

French titles are thus born _by one person at a time_, because only one person can own the property. The equivalent of Northern European and German titles born by all members of a family or unattached to a land does not exist (with rare exceptions in provinces annexed in the East). However, a family might possess several titles, and the head of the family might distribute them among his heirs, as he would share his inheritance between his children. Indeed, titles were a form of property, and could be bought and sold freely before the abolition of the feudal regime in 1789.

So (I think) he doesn't get a specific title from being the fifth son of a duke, but if his father has multiple titles -- or wants to buy an extra-- he could have a title conferred on him. How that works in direct speech probably depends on what the title is and who is addressing him (I expect).


----------



## The Judge (Feb 2, 2017)

He certainly wouldn't be called Duke Whatever, not unless he acceded to the Dukedom in due course, ie if everyone else died.  In French nobility his father would be eg the Duc de Berry, so if might aid a Frenchified atmosphere if you used the French title, rather than the English one.  But a younger son would have no title of his own in the usual course of events, but in direct speech might well be accorded respect by the use of "Sir", or "Sieur" if you wanted to make it more French (but not "Sir [first name], which is a different title altogether).

If it's of help, in England, the sons of Dukes don't have titles in their own right either, but they are accorded courtesy titles.  So the eldest son would usually take one of his father's lesser/subsidiary titles, eg the eldest son of the Duke of Richmond is known as the Earl of March (and the Earl's wife is the Countess of March).  A younger son may style himself "lord" with his first and surname eg Lord Peter Wimsey (and his wife would be Lady Peter).


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 2, 2017)

In England at least, a younger son would not be a duke, but would be addressed as a lord. Titles are based on social class, and the son of a duke is absolutely a lord. Additionally, even a youngest son might be granted lands that come with their own honorifics. However, only the owner of a dukedom is going to carry the title of "duke".


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 2, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> In England at least, a younger son would not be a duke, but would be addressed as a lord. Titles are based on social class, and the son of a duke is absolutely a lord.



But because his is a courtesy title that younger son -- and even the son and heir, for that matter, even if he's using one of his father's lesser titles and styles himself the Marquess of this or the Earl of that (depending what that particular duke's next highest title would be)-- remains technically a commoner.  That's why any of the sons could run for Parliament and win a seat in the House of Commons.


----------



## The Ace (Feb 2, 2017)

In Scotland, all sons would probably be, "Sir [name]," as their father would knight them when they came of age.  In England, where only the King could create a knight, they'd probably be lords.


----------



## Lafayette (Feb 3, 2017)

"but in direct speech might well be accorded respect by the use of "Sir", or "Sieur" if you wanted to make it more French (but not "Sir [first name], which is a different title altogether)."

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying, if the Duc's son (who has no titles) is first name Andre you would not address him as Sieur Andre? But if his last name is Benoit you would call him, Sieur Benoit?

By the way, I appreciate the information the rest of you provided.


----------



## Hex (Feb 3, 2017)

If it works like England, and he was a younger son, he'd be called by his first name. So the younger son of an English duke would be Lord Firstname Surname, and addressed as Surname or as Lord Firstname (I think).


----------



## Lafayette (Feb 3, 2017)

I wish I thought of this question a year or more ago, but I guess I thought I could make something up that was suitable. Wrong! Now I'm going to have to go through 46 chapters and correct this. Arrggg!


----------



## Hex (Feb 3, 2017)

The alternative is that you could have a reason for it in your story. It doesn't have to be historically accurate if there's a reason your history is different.


----------



## Lafayette (Feb 3, 2017)

Hex said:


> The alternative is that you could have a reason for it in your story. It doesn't have to be historically accurate if there's a reason your history is different.



Now that's idea that may work.

In my story (which is after all a fantasy) I am aiming at atmosphere more than accuracy.

Well I'm at it I have another question. In olden France were the fathers allowed to confer knighthood upon their sons when they became of age? Even if they had no titles or land?


----------



## Montero (Feb 3, 2017)

I _think_ in general that you had to be a knight in order to knight someone else - but I don't know if all knights could do it.  In more recent times in the UK, only the monarch or their representative could knight someone.


----------



## Lafayette (Feb 3, 2017)

Montero said:


> I _think_ in general that you had to be a knight in order to knight someone else - but I don't know if all knights could do it.  In more recent times in the UK, only the monarch or their representative could knight someone.



Wasn't it a given (in Europe) if you were a noble you were automatically a knight?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 3, 2017)

The thing about peerage is that it all used to be pretty messy, and the rules could be very different according to which period you were talking about, and especially the country. Things are simplified now, but often the rules could be made-up pretty much on the fly, and there could be different ways in which someone could be titled.

The bottom line is that it's all about land, and the more powerful the landowner, the more likely he'll have parcels of land all over the place, and titles to boot - which can then be gifted out to sons accordingly.

However, from this thread and the other thread, it sounds like it would seriously help you to read up more historical fiction and non-fiction based around the period you're basing your fantasy on, so you can get to better grips with the basics. Otherwise you're in danger of committing howlers that readers won't stand for. Else you may find yourself lacking confidence in your work when you most need it to spur you on.

2c.


----------



## Hex (Feb 3, 2017)

Chevaliers (knights) were a subset of the nobility, which included all titled nobility, members of the orders of knighthood of the king, but also members of families of ancient nobility, even untitled.  The legal definition of a chevalier was very unclear, whether it was a matter of ancestry or a matter of eminence. In legal documents, those whose nobility traced to 1410 or earlier were called _haut et puissant seigneur_, while those whose families were connected by marriage to the royal house were _très haut et très puissant seigneur_. Foreign princes and princes of the blood were entitled to similar variations on the rank of prince. 

It should be noted that "chevalier" was also used to refer to a member of an order such as the Knights of Saint John (a.k.a. Order of Malta) as well as members of royal orders: the use of the term makes it similar to a title (the chevalier d'Ancenis) but it was not; it simply indicated membership in such an order, a very common occupation for younger sons of the nobility.

So I wouldn't think so -- as in, I wouldn't think his father would knight him. If you want him to be a chevalier, maybe have him join one of the orders? From what The Ace said, it sounds like power was a lot more distributed in Scotland than it was elsewhere.


----------



## The Judge (Feb 3, 2017)

Lafayette said:


> "but in direct speech might well be accorded respect by the use of "Sir", or "Sieur" if you wanted to make it more French (but not "Sir [first name], which is a different title altogether)."
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying, if the Duc's son (who has no titles) is first name Andre you would not address him as Sieur Andre? But if his last name is Benoit you would call him, Sieur Benoit?


No.

In England and Wales, monarchs could and can create knights which (now at any rate) are titles for life only, and since the 1600s there are also baronetages, which are hereditary titles.  If David Smith is knighted or is granted the dignity of baronet, he becomes Sir David Smith, and is addressed as Sir David, never as Sir Smith.  (His wife, Dorothy, is Lady Smith, never Lady Dorothy, nor Lady Dorothy Smith.)

As far as I'm aware, although the French had chevalier as their equivalent title of knight and a holder might be called Chevalier Andre Benoit, he would be addressed simply as "Chevalier".  That is, I might say "Here comes Chevalier Benoit" but in talking to him I would say "Well, Chevalier, what do you think of all these titles?" 

A nobleman was not automatically a knight in England or France, and I doubt it was the case anywhere else, either, nor could fathers confer the dignity on sons here or in France.

In English, "Sir" has been used as a general mark of respect for those without specific titles since the C14th (but not "Sir Robert" unless that person was a knight or baronet, as above).  I'm no expert on the French nobility, but I'm quite prepared to believe they used the equivalent of "Sieur" in the same way for those who were gentlemen of noble lineage but with no actual titles, just as a matter of respect and courtesy.  However, I'm pretty sure they would not use either "Sieur Andre" or "Sieur Benoit" when speaking of or addressing Andre Benoit, but it would just be "Well, Sieur, what do you think?".  NB: "Sieur" properly translates as "lord" ("monsieur" as a term of respect for any French man is literally derived from "my lord") but it certainly doesn't have the same connotation as  "lord" does over here.  Here you would only address the nobility as "my lord" -- a duke, by the by, would nowadays at least be properly "your grace".


If you're writing fantasy which is only loosely based on medieval Europe, then you can do what you want.  In fact in my French-based fantasy I use "Sieur" in exactly the way I've said the real French didn't, with Sieur Roparzh de Pichon being addressed as "Sieur Roparzh".  However, if you want your work to be close to the real medieval France, you really need to get to grips with life at that time and place in great detail, and with all due respect, I don't think at present you've done nearly enough research to make it sound convincing. So if you want to give your work a semblance of authenticity, I'd echo Brian's advice and suggest you do a lot of reading around the era so that horrors such as "dukette" are not even contemplated in future.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 3, 2017)

Speaking of which, @Lafayette - see if this dedicated thread on peerage in the Writer Resources section is of any help: Peerage: Nobility, Titles, and Address


----------



## Lafayette (Feb 8, 2017)

I have read all the messages here and most of the ones relating to them on another thread and really appreciate the input. While I find some of this interesting and amusing it makes my head spin.

Since my story is a fantasy and I have already introduced some anachronisms I'm going to make up my own rules on peerage. I think I rather confuse myself with my rules than somebody else's. However, I will endeavor to avoid horrors such as dukette and calling the duc's son duc. You all have given me a foundation to work from and from it I will build my castle. 

Thanks.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Feb 11, 2017)

Lafayette said:


> In my story, taking place in 14th century pseudo France, I have a character that is a fifth son of a Duke and I have been calling him Duke. I have experiment with titling him dukette or duque, but these sound silly or inaccurate.


"Duketti" (plural) was actual 14th century word. It was silly - deliberately so. It was a term of derision in England used for dukes who, in the opinion of speaker, did not deserve the title (under Richard II).
In actual 14th century France, there was one dukedom that existed through the century - the duchy of Brittany. And the dukes of Brittany did have a number of younger sons.


----------



## Lafayette (Feb 12, 2017)

"Duketti" (plural) was actual 14th century word. It was silly - deliberately so. It was a term of derision in England used for dukes who, in the opinion of speaker, did not deserve the title (under Richard II).
In actual 14th century France, there was one dukedom that existed through the century - the duchy of Brittany. And the dukes of Brittany did have a number of younger sons.

That is very interesting and amusing.

This gives me an idea. I think I'll use the phrase I invented dukette as an insult. My young nobleman has a few persons that are not in love with him.

This goes to prove that not all bad ideas are bad ideas.

Thanks for sharing and the idea.

By the way, what were the Duke's sons called?


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Feb 12, 2017)

The Ace said:


> In Scotland, all sons would probably be, "Sir [name]," as their father would knight them when they came of age.  In England, where only the King could create a knight, they'd probably be lords.



Not even in late 14th century.
Before one of the campaigns of Hundred Years War, John of Gaunt contracted to recruit an army to include a specified numbers of archers, etc. and of knights.
He came up a few knights short of the promised number (100 knights IIRC).
No problem. He personally knighted 7 esquires. Problem solved, contract satisfied. And the esquires he knighted were ever after knights for all intents and purposes.
Edit: tracked down the specific campaign. 1370, to serve in Gascony. Contract was for 80 knights, 216 esquires, 500 archers. As mentioned, 7 of the 80 knights were dubbed specifically to meet the contracted number of 80.


----------

