I have a question of correct use of titles in historicals. I think the usage I’ve just read is wrong but since there are many experts of title usage here, I figure the Bitchery has a big slap of knowledge that can set me straight.
Would the younger brother and sister of an unmarried Viscount be addressed as “Mr.” and “Miss?” Or would they be “Lord John” and “Lady Jane?” The Viscount in question, Viscount Franklin, is called “Lord Franklin” several times. I know that’s right from Jo Beverly’s rather brilliant explanation of title usage. His mother is “Lady Franklin” and his grandmother is also “Lady Franklin” as well. But then, the younger brother and sister are “Mr. Franklin” and “Miss Franklin,” and I’m not sure that’s correct. According to Beverly’s description, there are no courtesy titles for heirs, but what about brothers and sisters of a Viscount? Are they Lord/Lady or Mr./Miss?
Secondly, would the viscount’s widowed mother be the “Viscountess” while his grandmother is the “Dowager Viscountess?”
Further, would his mother be introduced to a room filled with her family and guests by the butler’s using her Christian name, then by her title, e.g. “Mary, Viscountess Franklin?”
What’s your take?
His brother and sister would definitely be Mr/Miss. But I think they’d take the family surname rather than their brother’s title (if the Viscount is John Smith, Viscount Franklin, they’d be Mr/Miss Smith).
As to the other questions, I’m afraid I have no idea.
http://www.chinet.com/~laura/html/titles12.html
Go to the above website for Correct Forms of Address.
And Emily is exactly right in that younger children of a viscount are addressed as Mr./Miss Surname, rather than Mr./Miss Title.
As for the dowager viscount, announcing her as “Mary, Viscountess Franklin” is not wrong. But I would have preferred “The Right Honorable Mary, the Viscountess Franklin” or “The Right Honorable The Dowager Viscountess Newton.”
And BTW, SB Sarah, Your Grace,you are never Duchess Cuntington, you are the Duchess OF Cuntington.
Your humble servant,
Mrs. Thomas
Yes, as far as I know, only the children of dukes (for example SB Sarah, YOUR sisters and brothers) would receive a courtesy title. It is, oddly enough, applied to their first name. The sister of the Duke of Cuntington would be Lady Jane.
The oldest sister of a viscount would be Miss Smith, the younger would be Miss Mary Smith or Miss Mary. If the eldest Miss Smith gets married, then Mary becomes Miss Smith, and so on, until all the sisters are married.
Complicated much?
The children of marquesses received courtesy titles as well, and the *daughters* of earls were Lady Firstname also (not sons, though—they would be Mr. Lastname).
Oops! I shall correct my title and my title immediately.
And thanks for the info. I had no idea that the children of Dukes and siblings of Dukes were also titled, but not the siblings of lesser nobles.
It’s a bit more convoluted than that.
The siblings of dukes and marquesses and the sisters of earls only get the styles of Lord Firstname or Lady Firstname automatically if one of their parents was the previous titleholder. If their brother has inherited the title from an uncle or a grandfather or a distant cousin, they have to file a request with someone (the Lord Lieutenant?) before doing so.
These aren’t courtesy titles, they’re styles. Courtesy titles are something different. Many nobles carry more than one title; if they do, their oldest son can use the subsidiary title as a courtesy title. A real-life example: Earl Spencer has three titles. His oldest son may call himself by the Earl’s second title, Viscount Althorp. The viscount’s children (if he has any – the current Viscount Althorp is a little boy) would carry the style of viscount’s children. If Viscount Althorp had a son, that boy could use Earl Spencer’s third title if he wanted.
Sons of earls and children of viscounts and barons are called Mr. and Miss in conversation, but in written correspondence they receive the style of “The Honourable” firstname lastname (abbreviated to “The Hon.”).
All dukes are called “The Duke of ___”, and all marquesses are called “The Marquess of ___”. Earls can be “The Earl of ___” or “Earl ___”. Viscounts are “Viscount ___”, and barons are normally “Lord ___”, but you can use “Baron ___” in formal occasions. All but dukes can be called “Lord ___” in all but formal instances; dukes are always “The Duke of ___”.
More trivia: most titles given out in England before the union of England and Scotland, and those given out in the UK afterwards, can only be inherited by men. Scottish titles that date from before union can almost always be inherited by women (although sons get first crack, like with the Royal Family).
A viscount will have a title. He will be Frederick Smith, Viscount Field, commonly referred to as Lord Field. His wife will be Lady Field. His brother will be Mr. Cedric Smith and his sister, Miss Jean Smith.
It’s easy, it’s only the fiddly bits that make it sound complicated.
Basically, the eldest son of the title holder gets it all. Nobody else gets anything. Any other title is called a “courtesy title” and means nothing, except snob value.
Just to explain about Honourables as your earlier poster was slightly off.
You would use the Right Honourable in written communication to a earl, viscount, baron, eldest son with an inferior title or a member of the privy council. It is not used for any other purpose.
Honourable is used for members of parliament and for ALL children of the lower peers—viscounts, barons and younger sons of earls. Thus in Jane Erye, Mrs Fairfax, the housekeeper refers to Blanche Ingram as the Honourable Blanche (she is the daughter of a baronet). In Persuasion Sir William Elliot pursues acquaintence with the Honourable Miss Carteret.
However, once you were formally introduced to the Honourable Miss Mary Smith, in conversation you would simply call her Miss Smith if she was the eldest unmarried daughter or Miss Mary, if she was one of the younger daughters. Overly ostentatious use of formalities and titles was (and is) frowned on.
Then there is the whole minefield about Dr and Mr which confused me no end when I first moved over to Britain.
fwiw
And by the way, a Duke might be introduced formally as “His Grace the Duke of…” and would be called in conversation “Your grace.”
Thus, you would say “Hello, Lord Study,” to the Earl of Studly, but you would say “Hello, your grace” to the Duke of Sexiness.
And you can always say “Sir” or “Ma’am.”
Oh, and, just for fun, when, say, the Queen of England meets the Queen of Denmark, they would refer to each other as “Your grace” too.
I thought saying “Mary, Viscountess Franklin” would be incorrect? The only times I know of where a first name is used with a title is with, say, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, because there was more than one Lord Tennyson.
Oh! Your question!
The viscount’s widowed mother would be the Viscountess and the grandmother would be the dowager. I honestly don’t know what would happen if the viscount then married – I know the mother becomes dowager, but what happens to Grandma?
The butler would not use her first name at all. The mother would be introduced as either “[The] Viscountess (or Lady) Franklin” and the grandmother as “The Dowager Viscountess (or Lady) Franklin”. The style “Mary, Viscountess Franklin” is usually used by divorcees (remember “Diana, Princess of Wales”), so it’s unpopular among widows.
She may be referred to casually as Mary Viscountess Franklin, but anywhere you have a butler announcing names is generally not casual.
I recommend we just call them all “Bruce” to keep it clear.
My personal favorite titles bit o’ trivia, which I’ve never 100% confirmed, is that if the Queen of England meets the Duchess of Alba (a Spanish noble) the Queen should curtsy to the Duchess because the Duchess has more titles. But I’ve never seen that definitely written in more than one source.
I’m also still giggling over the Duke of Sexiness. Hee!
A few laughs here. First, the Queen bows to nobody except maybe God, and even then it’s a close-run thing. The Queen isn’t a noble of any kind, although she might hold several noble titles. She’s the Crown, the embodiment of Top. The laws of succession are different, the rules are different.
Okay, now the next one.
Nobody is going to say “Hello” to anyone before the invention of the telephone, because that particular greeting was invented for the telephone.
Not every child of a noble has the courtesy title “honourable,” but let that pass, because not many people bother with it. I shared a student house with a viscount’s daughter for 2 years before finding out she was an honourable!
And the “dowager” isn’t what you might call an official title. She will never be introduced as the dowager anybody, as it would be considered rude (go figure!) She won’t be announced as the dowager at Court or any official function. It’s just a way of differentiating two women with the same title. To take an example, there were two Lady Jerseys in the Regency period, mother in law and daughter in law. The mother in law was the mistress of the Prince of Wales, and would have strenuously objected to being referred to as dowager, and the daughter in law was a high stickler, a leader of society, and for a few seasons, one of the Patronesses of Almacks.
Please stop seeing things in black and white. Find out what correct and official title usage is, then add people to the mix. Figure out why the Duke of Devonshire was called “Hart” all his life, the nickname he had when he held the courtesy title Lord Hartington.
Find out the difference between a courtesy title and a nobleman.
Then add people to the mix. Real people, not the weird marquis-as-spies and duke-as-pirate oddities who never existed and couldn’t have in that era. To find out, study the reasons behind the titles.
I could probably put up with a few title errors if the characters in so many historicals actually resembled people in that era. Real live, breathing people, instead of the product of a sex-obsessed, fairy-tale-reading twenty year old. I’ve stopped buying all but a few of my favourite authors (yes, I do spell favourite like that, and colour has a u in it too), because the plots have become so far-fetched, and even worse, two dimensional. Boring.
Read the diaries and journals and inventories and account books and trial accounts. The Internet has made more available than ever before. Get under their skins and give me a real story.
Please?
I am about as far from an expert on this stuff as one can be, but I have to respond to Charlene’s suggestion that the style “Diana, Princess of Wales” was used because of the divorce. I was paying enough attention to the Charles & Di drama at the time of the big wedding that I distinctly remember “Diana, Princess of Wales” being the correct style for her title as soon as they married. She would never have been properly styled “Princess Diana” because she wasn’t born a princess. The American press never cared about getting it right and I think the British press gave up because of her immense popularity and the awkwardness of the proper styling. I wasn’t really paying much attention by the time of the divorce, but I believe the only thing that changed at that time was that she was no longer H.R.H.
What stuck in my brain from that bit of trivia is that a woman is styled “Lady/Princess First Name” only if she is born to it. E.g., if one is born Miss Ima Priss and marries Lord Fusspot, she would be Lady Fusspot, not Lady Ima.
Nobody is going to say “Hello†to anyone before the invention of the telephone, because that particular greeting was invented for the telephone.
Actually, I’ll plead to using this once in a book. It’s actually an Americanized form of “hullo” and was used in the US prior to the telephone. Not technically correct to use in a British historical, but darn close to hallo or hullo used since 1840 and holla used since the 16th century. If I were reading a Georgian and someone shouted “Holla!” to an approaching carriage, I would be completely thrown out of the story and straight into East L.A. So hello doesn’t bother me personally, in the same way that not using Old English doesn’t bother me.
I’m writing books set in England, but I don’t use colour or favour, etc. for accuracy’s sake, and I’m comfortable with that, just as I’d be happy with any range of greetings from Hullo! to Hallo! or Hello! or even Ho! But you have to know me really well to call me that.
Wow, Lynne…
If you’re addressing your comment about the inappropriateness of “Hello” to me, I wasn’t setting my fictional conversation in any particular period—I actually meant it to be a modern example. So thanks, but I didn’t need the correction.
By the way, “Honorable” and “honourable” both, along with “Her Majesty” “Her Grace” “Her Royal Highness” etc…aren’t titles.
They’re appellations.
“Wow, Lynne…
If you’re addressing your comment about the inappropriateness of “Hello†to me, I wasn’t setting my fictional conversation in any particular period—I actually meant it to be a modern example. So thanks, but I didn’t need the correction.”
No, not you, December, just one of my hot buttons. You see, on the first page of my first published book, I made my first historical error. “Hello,” he said. In 1754. You wouldn’t believe the letters I got! “Love your book, but did you know ‘hello’…..” etc.
It’s a “Did you know” for trivia quizzes.
“By the way, “Honorable†and “honourable†both, along with “Her Majesty†“Her Grace†“Her Royal Highness†etc…aren’t titles.
They’re appellations.”
Yep, you clever girl, you!
However, having just read yet another blurb that made me wince “Duke Fred Smith comes home” etc etc, there are far worse sins!
A little more seriously, there are lots of sites, offline and on, which tell writers how to get it right, all this title stuff. And it’s easy.
Men win every time
The oldest son gets it
Very little excuse for getting it wrong, except for laziness.
I have to say you never put a foot wrong in “The Black Dragon,” awesome read!
Men win every time
The oldest son gets it
Lol!
Especially true with entail, huh.
But then, if it weren’t for those laws, we wouldn’t have had Winston Churchill, because there wouldn’t have been so many rich American ladies marrying poor, titled English men. (Well, Randolph wasn’t titled, ut his brother was. If I remember correctly which I may well be too tired and stressed to do.)
Pet peeve explains it all. Sorry if I sounded a bit snippy.
“Duke Fred Smith” indeed.
Nobody is going to say “Hello†to anyone before the invention of the telephone, because that particular greeting was invented for the telephone.
This is, as far as I know, somewhat inaccurate. If nothing else, Wikipedia credits Twain as using it in a story a good 5 years or so before the telephone was invented. (The usual disclaimers about using Wikipedia as a primary information source apply, of course.) I do know that variations like “hullo” and “holloa” have been on the record and used in Britain for a long time. However, they weren’t used strictly as greetings, but attempts to grab attention. “Hello,” furthermore, is more of an Americanism, so its use in a Regency historical would be distinctly weird.
Actually, regarding this earlier comment—
And by the way, a Duke might be introduced formally as “His Grace the Duke of…†and would be called in conversation “Your grace.”
Thus, you would say “Hello, Lord Study,†to the Earl of Studly, but you would say “Hello, your grace†to the Duke of Sexiness.
This isn’t quite correct. People who consider themselves of the same class as the Duke of Sexiness would say, “Hey, Duke Sexiness”; only servants, non-aristos would say “Your Grace.”
I only know this because I was reading an etiquette book (published 1874) for American nobs the other day. Was massively surprised by this, actually!
Before the advent of the middle classes, when they got rich and influential enough to bother about, there were no etiquette books. Believe me, we’ve looked!
Because everybody who mattered just knew. They’d been brought up to know.
So these books have a kind of private joke in them. While they did intend to instruct, the aristocracy considered them amusing and an indication of how low society had fallen.
So people who knew were fine, but people who knew and stuck to rigid convention were amusing and looked down on in that particularly sickening way the British upper class can sometimes have.
So, a duke would be introduced formally, but after that, most preferred (and these days prefer) to be called “sir.” Too much “your grace”ing was a sign of jumped-up people who didn’t know any better, and a tad of kowtowing.
The more usual way is to refer to him by his title, so “What do you think, Rutland?” in the way British people have or had of keeping their first names private.
“Duke Sexiness” is a kind of Americanism, rarely heard. “Sexiness” would be more like it! It’s very non-u to stick to your title like glue!