Peerage: Nobility, Titles, and Address

[The Ace]

I think "my liege" was a form of address to a liege-lord under the feudal system. This did not have to be the King.

Prior to "your majesty" I believe the English King was addressed as "your grace" (as George Martin uses in his Song of Ice and Fire), an address still used for bishops.

The first Scottish monarch to be, 'Your Majesty,' was James VI, after he went South.

Technically, the correct form of address for the King (or Queen) of Scots is, 'Your Grace,' even now, but they've grown used to being majestic.

'My Leige,' - is exactly that, the address of one noble to a superior, which is why a duke or earl would use it to his king.

Nobles could also address one another as 'My Lord/Lady,' (of)[title].

While correct matters of etiquette are often highly complex, a commoner would get away with, 'My Lord,' or, 'Your Honour,' because they wouldn't be expected to know any better (although - depending on your character - they may receive swift instruction), but a Noble would be instructed in the forms from an early age, and they would be second nature.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Even if you are doing Fantasy, the links above are a sensible starting point.

ESPECIALLY the distinction between Title, Addressing and Envelope and Conversation.

Other Ranks (Mainland Europe & China):

Rulers
Emperor is a above a King. The Chinese regarded other countries Emperors as Kings
Emperor / Empress (Chinese: huangdi / nü-Huang)
King (The British at time of Raj regarded every rank above 'prince' as Prince. ) Chinese is perhaps 'wang'
Prince (ruler of a principality, rather than Heir apparent)

Possibly "princely ranks" (In Speech Lord or Your Highness or your Grace or even my Liege, depending on country and period):
Wildgrave : Possibly only Hungary (Next Chinese rank below King or Emperor might be 'guohou' or 'guo hou')
Archduke Between the Duke and King/Emperor (Chinese maybe 'guogong' or 'guo gong')
Duke / Duchess (Chinese maybe 'min gong') Ruler of a Province
Margrave /Margravine (or Landgrave) (Chinese maybe 'fan hou' sometimes regarded as alternate name for Marquis) (Perhaps a Border Province)
Marquis (UK Marquess), Marquise (UK Marchioness) = (Chinese perhaps is 'hou') (originally border protection, the Marches, or ruler of a Mark)

Lesser Lords (your Lordship, Lord so and so)
The UK Earl/Countess = Continental Count (ruler of a county) (Chinese a 'bo')
Viscount / Viscountess (Chinese 'zi' is ruler of a town or city in some periods)
Baron / Baroness (Chinese 'nan' rules Village or small town)

Not Peers or Lords in UK (Honourable , in speech = Sir)
Baronet (Chinese 'jiangjun')
Knights

In China between 200BC and 1912 (Mandarin era 1912 - 1948) there was never the European or India style of Feudalism. The number of ranks varied in different periods. Often you could "rise" by merit or exam and children often automatically dropped a rank until they "earned" an elevation. The Emperor could demote or promote. A Emperor by conquest automatically was regarded as "rightful" Emperor, unlike the problems some English Kings had.
I haven't put every kind of European Rank and Chinese Rank. There were different kinds of prince in different periods, some of whom the descendants stayed the same rank.

Viscount is regarded as a sort of Empire period 'import' to UK system.
Ireland & Scotland tend to French usage for Marquis (UK Marquess), Marquise (UK Marchioness).

 

[Mary Hoffman]

"Ser" is medieval Italian for "Signor." I use it in The Falconer's Knot.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Is Signor, Signore / Signora a particular range of rank or anyone who isn't a commoner?

How do people feel about my split of 4 levels above Commoner? In UK of course, really only the Dukes and Princes /Princess of the Monarch are "princely rank".

1. Rulers (Presumably Popes too, there are 3 at this level recognised by each other today, apart from the retired one).
   
2. Princely Rank (not rulers, in UK history would have been addressed My Liege) Arch Dukes, Dukes and Margraves/Marquis do seem to be referred to as 'princes' and addressed your Highness in some countries. Are Cardinals at this level? (Princes of Roman Church?)
   
3. Other Lords (Peers in UK, i.e. can sit in House of Lords) Includes CofE Bishops.
   
4. Nobles that are not Peers in UK Ranks, Baronets, Knights ( honourable, Right Honourable etc are 'Sir' ?)

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility
They have three kinds of prince called prince. There are slightly more variations than two kinds of knight in UK, but broadly Hereditary and not is the simplest division.

 

[Brian G Turner]

So I started this thread a while back, and thought I knew what I was doing.

But...then I read this from a link @Juliana provided in another thread:
http://dankoboldt.com/feudal-nobility-guide/

and I realised that I'd fallen into the trap of using titles with first names. While I perhaps not every reader would notice the faux pas, now that I'm aware of it, I'm annoyed at myself. I could try and get away with it - but then even my own basic rules on peerage would end up violated!

Am going to have to work through with this, and make a little more effort on titles and forms of address.

 

[The Judge]

Well, the chap's wrong about the "mi" bit of "my lord" -- it's much easier to say "milord" when in court!

And you can use titles with first names. Both knights and baronets used the "Sir" with their first names, so it's Sir Henry, not Sir Smith. His wife, however, is Lady Smith. And Lord Peter Wimsey is called Lord Peter, not Lord Wimsey, and his wife is Lady Peter -- I'm pretty sure that's because he's the younger son of a Duke. The eldest son of a Duke would take a courtesy title, eg the Earl of March.

Moreover, when talking of a noble, especially before things got very formalised, it wouldn't be unheard of for people to speak of Duke Henry instead of the Duke of Buckingham, or Earl Robert, rather than the Earl of Gloucester. Context is always king!

If you're worried about the titles in your WIP, I'm happy to look them over for you and give my opinion for what it's worth.

 

[Brian G Turner]

And Lord Peter Wimsey is called Lord Peter, not Lord Wimsey, and his wife is Lady Peter

Ah! That's fine, then.

Moreover, when talking of a noble, especially before things got very formalised, it wouldn't be unheard of for people to speak of Duke Henry instead of the Duke of Buckingham, or Earl Robert, rather than the Earl of Gloucester. Context is always king!

That's a very good point - knowing and understanding the exact forms of address might not be expected among the lower class characters. Good call!

 

[The Ace]

Oh, and Earl and Count are the same thing (both married to a Countess, and rank above a Viscount) a given court will have one or the other, but not both - there are no Counts in the British nobility, but a fair smattering of Earls.

 

[The Judge]

That's a very good point - knowing and understanding the exact forms of address might not be expected among the lower class characters. Good call!

Even if they know, it's easier and quicker to say "Earl Robert" than "the Duke of Gloucester". Of course, among his peers, he'd simply be called "Gloucester" but lesser beings would rarely feel able to speak of him in that way.

 

[Nerds_feather]

So I started this thread a while back, and thought I knew what I was doing.

But...then I read this from a link @Juliana provided in another thread:
http://dankoboldt.com/feudal-nobility-guide/

and I realised that I'd fallen into the trap of using titles with first names. While I perhaps not every reader would notice the faux pas, now that I'm aware of it, I'm annoyed at myself. I could try and get away with it - but then even my own basic rules on peerage would end up violated!

Am going to have to work through with this, and make a little more effort on titles and forms of address.

Downton Abbey is a good guide for this, actually. The main character is referred to as:

Lord Grantham
The Earl of Grantham
The Viscount Downton
Robert Crawley

 

[Nerds_feather]

Oh, and Earl and Count are the same thing (both married to a Countess, and rank above a Viscount) a given court will have one or the other, but not both - there are no Counts in the British nobility, but a fair smattering of Earls.

You may already know this, but it's fun to nerd out, so here goes...

Earl an Anglo-Saxon adaptation of "Jarl" in Old Norse (prior to the Danelaw, they were called ealderman), and in both Scandinavia and pre-Norman England it was the only noble rank below royalty. After the Norman conquest and introduction of continental feudalism to England (and, in more limited fashion, to Scotland), it came into use as an analogue to Count. But prior to 1066 there were no dukes, viscounts, etc. in the British isles--and actually, if I remember correctly, there weren't any dukes until much later in the Middle Ages.

 

[The Ace]

The First Scottish Duke was David, Duke of Rothesay (elder surviving son of Robert III in 1399) he was murdered by the second duke, his uncle the Duke of Albany.

The current Duke of Rothesay is Prince Charles, while Her Grace is Countess of Carrick. The Albany title is vacant and held by the crown.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland do these things slightly differently.

 

[Nerds_feather]

The First Scottish Duke was David, Duke of Rothesay (elder surviving son of Robert III in 1399) he was murdered by the second duke, his uncle the Duke of Albany.

The current Duke of Rothesay is Prince Charles, while Her Grace is Countess of Carrick. The Albany title is vacant and held by the crown.

Excellent, thanks! Just looked it up for England and found this:

Edward III of England created the first three English dukedoms (Cornwall, Lancaster, and Clarence) by naming his eldest son Edward, the Black Prince, as Duke of Cornwall in 1337. Upon the death of the Black Prince the duchy of Cornwall passed to his nine-year-old son, who would eventually succeed his grandfather as Richard II.

The duchy of Lancaster was created by Edward III in 1351 for Henry of Grosmont, but became extinct upon the duke's death in 1361. The following year, Edward III bestowed the title (2nd creation) on his fourth son, John of Gaunt, who was also married to the first duke's daughter.[5] On the same day Edward III also created his second son, Lionel of Antwerp, as Duke of Clarence.

All five of Edward III's surviving sons eventually became dukes. In 1385, ten years after their father's death, his heir Richard II created dukedoms for his last two uncles on the same day. Thomas of Woodstock was named Duke of Gloucester and Edmund of Langley became Duke of York, thereby founding the House of York, which later fought for the throne with John of Gaunt's Lancastrian descendants during the Wars of the Roses.

 

[The Ace]

An interesting point, but some Scots (the ones who care about these things) are waiting for the Countess of Strathearn to drop a brother or sister for George.

 

[Mirannan]

IMHO a sufficiently early-style (horrible phrase but I can't think of better) society might have rather ill-defined criteria for some honorifics. This probably applies particularly to fantasy societies. For example, if an archmage who can probably turn the entire court into frogs (or level the castle they sit in) wants to be called Lord, are you going to tell him no?

A historical example (IIRC) is the rank of colonel. Historically, a colonel was someone who had raised a regiment - and in early to late mediaeval times had probably paid for it.

 

[M Harold Page]

IMHO a sufficiently early-style (horrible phrase but I can't think of better) society might have rather ill-defined criteria for some honorifics. This probably applies particularly to fantasy societies. For example, if an archmage who can probably turn the entire court into frogs (or level the castle they sit in) wants to be called Lord, are you going to tell him no?

A historical example (IIRC) is the rank of colonel. Historically, a colonel was someone who had raised a regiment - and in early to late mediaeval times had probably paid for it.

Good point. When I was writing my crusader yarn, I checked the History of William Marshal. Though the modern translation used a variety of terms, in the original Anglo Norman French, everybody was "sir" including the king!

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Knighthoods are the lowest level, I think not generally ever Peers / Lords, maybe just Sir or Honourable.
I think at one stage in history no-one below a Knight was entitled to be called "Sir"
Yes Minister:
(talking about honours and the abbreviations of the Order of St Michael and St George: CMG, KCMG and GCMG)

Bernard Woolley: Of course in the service, CMG stands for Call Me God. And KCMG for Kindly Call Me God.
James Hacker: What does GCMG stand for?
Bernard Woolley: God Calls Me God.

More on Honours : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751808/quotes

Fun stuff

 

[Piousflea84]

This is a really good thread for discussing historical peerages and titles; if you're setting a story within a historically accurate society, it's very important to use the proper historical titles. That said - as someone who writes completely imaginary societies - I think it's fun to play around with systems of titles. They don't all have to be as complicated as the British Peerage.

Most civilizations in world history didn't go to nearly the extremes of Britain + Western Europe in giving dozens of titles to their nobility. If you look at modern-day sovereign autocrats, they generally have much fewer titles than the ceremonial figurehead monarchs. Compare - Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Sovereign Head of the Most Venerable Order of the etc etc - versus Sheikh Khalifa, Emir of Abu Dhabi and President of the United Arab Emirates. The latter wields considerably more power, despite showing up on TV far less often.

It's possible that an autocrat may very rarely use his/her royal style, preferring a more generic title such as "President", "Chairman", "Sheikh", "Sir/Ma'am". Or maybe the all-powerful tyrant always goes by "His Excellence the Sultan" on his own planet, but goes by "Sir" when traveling abroad, so as not to draw attention to his tyranny when negotiating with a liberal democratic star system.

The fundamental constant between all "peerages" is that they are based on control of property. In the "medieval" setting this is purely land. In a sci-fi setting one could imagine a Lord of a planet, asteroid belt, star system, starlane, wormhole, etc. One could even be a Lord of a particularly important computer system or online community. "Moderator of the Arrideaux Home Consensus" doesn't sound like much until you realize that said consensus is a cyberneural hive mind with tens of millions of networked humans...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Moreover, when talking of a noble, especially before things got very formalised, it wouldn't be unheard of for people to speak of Duke Henry instead of the Duke of Buckingham, or Earl Robert, rather than the Earl of Gloucester. Context is always king!

I think that would be more a thing for people who lived in the county or the duchy, especially ordinary people who never travelled far from home. To them, "the Duke" would always be the Duke of Buckingham, or "the Earl" the Earl of Gloucester, and so to differentiate between the generations they would speak of the Duke or the Earl by first name. Speaking of the current Duke's grandfather they might say, "I remember back in the time of Duke Henry, when . . ." Or speaking of a Duke who inherited after his brother died, "Duke William isn't half the man Duke Edward was, rest his soul."

At court, though, where the place is crawling with nobles (many with the same first name) then it would be the Duke of Buckingham, the Duke of Lancaster, the Duke of York (or more familiarly, Buckingham, Lancaster, and York).

As you say, context is important.