Use of a character's title outside character dialogue

[Toby Frost]

Say I have a character called John Smith, Lord of Smalltown (which is in England, around 1700). He's inherited this title and has never been widely known as John Smith. Other characters will presumably refer to him as "Lord Smalltown" as a 3rd person and "my lord" to his face (or possibly "your lordship"?).

What would be the best way for the author to refer to him? Normally I'd use either the Christian or surname of a character and keep it consistent. Would it sound reasonable (for the author, not any of the characters) to refer to him as "Smalltown" in the text?

 

[tinkerdan]

I think we go back to POV here and wherever the POV is a character that calls him John it should be John and where the POV might call him Lord Smalltown then Lord Smalltown.

Though I have seen in some books, for effect, where under specific circumstance a POV might change the John to Lord Smalltown to express specific emotion that hopefully the dialogue already expressed.

 

[The Judge]

Would it sound reasonable (for the author, not any of the characters) to refer to him as "Smalltown" in the text?

Yes, perfectly reasonable.

However, are you going for omniscient POV? If not, then I'd agree with tinkerdan that you could use whatever the particular POV character would call him and not worry about being consistent between voices.

 

[paranoid marvin]

When referring to Lord Arthur Wellesley, 'Wellington' (as in Duke of Wellington) would make most sense. Before he was made Duke, then 'Wellesley'. Obviously in speech, how one is addressed will depend on rank and status.

On the other hand, Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte could have any usage.

King Henry VIII could be referred to as King, Henry, 'Hal', the monarch

What is most important is making sure that the reader knows how you are talking about.

A commonly used literary device is never to have two characters with the same first name (unless it serves a purpose, such as in a farce). Totally unrealistic, but the objective is for the reader to be able to easily understand which character is being referred to.

 

[Pyan]

Good advice there, Toby.
Good advice there, Mr Frost.
Good advice there, Frost.

All reasonable, but as already said, depends on your POV.

 

[Toby Frost]

Thanks guys. Because part of this story is at least nominally set in the real-world, it feels necessary to get the details correct. I recently heard an American podcast about old crimes. It was good, but the presenters kept referring to Sir John Smith as "Sir Smith", which was strangely grating. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Thanks guys. Because part of this story is at least nominally set in the real-world, it feels necessary to get the details correct. I recently heard an American podcast about old crimes. It was good, but the presenters kept referring to Sir John Smith as "Sir Smith", which was strangely grating. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid.

It's 'John', 'Sir', 'Sir John', 'Sir John Smith', but never 'Sir Smith'. For practical purposes, if nothing else.

 

[Toby Frost]

Exactly.

 

[The Judge]

If you're aiming for accuracy, best not to describe him as "Lord of Smalltown" which actually makes him sound like a simple Lord of the Manor, which isn't an aristocratic title, only a confirmation of a relationship to the land.

We have Duke/Earl/Marquess of [place name] though they're not addressed with the "of" (eg it's the Earl of March, but he's called "Lord March") but I'm pretty sure hereditary barons usually don't get that. Instead, they can use their surname as in eg Alfred Tennyson, who became first Baron Tennyson (and it's "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" not "Lord Alfred Tennyson") or eg "Lord Hailsham" who was Baron Hailsham, though his surname was Hogg (perhaps that's why!) and then later he became Viscount Hailsham, not Viscount of Hailsham. (Quintin Hogg, his son, disclaimed the title, in order to get into the Commons, then later was granted a life peerage as Baron Hailsham of Marylebone, presumably in order to distinguish him from whoever inherited the other title, but he was still only "Lord Hailsham".)

Having said that, I'm not sure whether things have changed at all since 1700, so perhaps best check once you know exactly what rank of nobility your character has inherited.

 

[Pyan]

And the hereditary UK aristocracy can be referred to by the name of the place that they are lord of, as well, so you get just Edinburgh for the Duke of Edinburgh, Beaulieu for Lord Montague of Beaulieu, etc.
This is often found in Elizabethan plays, where Shakespeare has stage directions like: Flourish. Exeunt Lear, Burgundy, Cornwall, Albany, Gloucester, and Attendants. (from King Lear), and Enter King Henry V, Gloucester, Bedford, Exeter, Warwick, Westmoreland and Attendants, (from Henry V).

Incidentally, I once worked for James Lowther, the 7th Earl of Lonsdale, and everyone just referred to him as 'Lordy'...

 

[Toby Frost]

That reminds me of the Shakespeare parody in Beyond the Fringe, where characters say (in an "actorly" nasal voice) things like "And I shall to Leicester, for to fight with Cornwall in Bedford's ranks 'gainst Norfolk's unseemly horde, and yet not to Sheffield for want of shoe leather. What say you, Essex?"

 

[Pyan]

That reminds me of the Shakespeare parody in Beyond the Fringe, where characters say (in an "actorly" nasal voice) things like "And I shall to Leicester, for to fight with Cornwall in Bedford's ranks 'gainst Norfolk's unseemly horde, and yet not to Sheffield for want of shoe leather. What say you, Essex?"

Can't see an original, but here's Alex Scott Fairley's rendition of the original Peter Cook script:

 

[feralreason]

When referring to Lord Arthur Wellesley, 'Wellington' (as in Duke of Wellington) would make most sense. Before he was made Duke, then 'Wellesley'. Obviously in speech, how one is addressed will depend on rank and status.

On the other hand, Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte could have any usage.

King Henry VIII could be referred to as King, Henry, 'Hal', the monarch

What is most important is making sure that the reader knows how you are talking about.

A commonly used literary device is never to have two characters with the same first name (unless it serves a purpose, such as in a farce). Totally unrealistic, but the objective is for the reader to be able to easily understand which character is being referred to.

Yes - interesting point. As I recall, Wellington also had a nickname, the "Iron Duke" (if my memory from 20 or 30 years ago is still any good). So nicknames should perhaps be added into the discussion. Especially remembering characters like Neal Stephenson's "Half-cocked Jack" in the Baroque Cycle series ("Quicksilver").

 

[Pyan]

As I recall, Wellington also had a nickname, the "Iron Duke"

Yes: and HMS Iron Duke was Admiral Jellicoe's flagship at Jutland, and the name carries on in today's Royal Navy...

 

[paranoid marvin]

The Iron Duke makes him sound like he was a formidable character.

Well, it was a nickname given him by the press. So unpopular a Prime Minister, he had to have metal shutters fitted to protect the windows of his London home from vandalism. Hence the Iron Duke.

 

[feralreason]

The Iron Duke makes him sound like he was a formidable character.

Well, it was a nickname given him by the press. So unpopular a Prime Minister, he had to have metal shutters fitted to protect the windows of his London home from vandalism. Hence the Iron Duke.

Haha - never heard that

 

[Ursa major]

he had to have metal shutters fitted to protect the windows of his London home from vandalism

But before that, didn't he play a blinder on the Continent...?

 

[paranoid marvin]

But before that, didn't he play a blinder on the Continent...?

Great general, but by all accounts a terrible PM. Apparently he couldn't understand why people wouldn't do what they'd been ordered to.

A bit like Winston Churchill in many ways.