Printer-friendly version
Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
I am writing a story that includes the first born son of an earl:
1. When he goes on a witness stand and gives his name to the judge does he say, "My lord" after as in "Cornel Richard Lystra, my lord?" or does he leave out the "my lord?"
2. Would a sevant talking to him use "sir" or "my lord?"
I'm a Yankee, so don't know much about nobility.
shalimar
Comments
I'm a low born commoner ...
... so, like most of we low born commoners, I rarely meet or speak to my betters :)
However, a judge is always addressed as 'My lord' (usually contracted to m'lud). An earl is rather low down in the aristocratic pecking order and his son would only be called the Honourable Joe Soap and probably addressed as 'sir' by his staff. He would name himself only as Joe Soap in the scene you depict or his military rank if he had one, so your first suggestion would be correct ... I think.
I'm also pleased to say that my only contact with a judge has been as foreman of a jury and never, so far, in the dock.
Don't worry about a lack of knowledge of the British peerage. It's an ignorance shared by most Britons outside the peerage itself and the compliers of Debrett's, including me, until I googled it. Bit surer about the judge thing though.
Geoff
Eldest sons
The eldest son of a noble or peer in England was by courtesy and tradition referred to by the highest ranking subsidiary title held by his father. So an earl's heir might have a courtesy title of viscount or baron or might not. This is a custom that is dying out, though, and never consistently applied throughout the British Isles. And usually was not applied to female heirs, even in the cases where a female was entitled to inherit the title.
Even when in use, this tradition applied more to very formal occasions and in writing. Nowadays, even the peerage is uncertain about this sort of thing.
I read a lot of historical romances. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Peers
I believe, in the situation you describe, he'd be spoken to as My Lord, and introduce himself by his name. The fancier terms are mostly written on envelopes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl
This has British Earls mixed in with others, but it seems clear enough.
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
An even lower-born commoner
Hopefully your story is a historical one; if not, don't make the mistake that Elizabeth George continually makes, and create the fantasy world that she lives in. Hereditary Lords or Dukes are rarely seen in real life by most people in Britain, and even if one does meet them, they are given no more respect than anyone else. Earls are fairly common, although most are life peerages, rather than herditary. Most Earls would not make a big thing about it, and certainly wouldn't get special treatment, even if they demanded it. Son of an Earl? So what! The days of the Sherrif of Nottingham have long since departed!
The vast majority of Lords have now been thrown out of the House of Lords, to be replaced by ordinary commoners who have been given the non-hereditary title of Lord or Baroness. But to the peerage, that's a bit like putting a Ferrari name badge on a Ford.
Many hereditary peers are no longer rich, because inheritance tax takes a lot of the wealth, and then they have to maintain the large stately homes that go with the territory. Most give them to the state, although a few turn them into theme parks, which in Britain, is one-up on being a fairground owner!
To us commoners, who cares a damn about whether someone is a peer of the realm? We might address them as "Oi, you!" or, if they don't push their peerage down your throat, as "Tom, Bill or Harry." I guess as a result, many hereditary peers simply keep quiet about it, which is why we rarely do see them in real life.
Sherrif of Nottingham.
Does still exist as a legal entity though exactly what his duties are I don't know. One of the functions of the firm of solicitors who acted for us when we bought our first house in 1967 was Sherrif of Nottingham and I assume the post is still extant. The only Robin Hood I know is the statue below the walls of Nottingham Castle though the remnants Sherwood Forest are still quite extensive.
Our local Duke (of Devonshire but actually living in Derbyshire at Chatsworth House) still owns huge swathes of the country but does, at least allow we plebs to roam over much of it fairly freely. The aristocracy doesn't wield quite as much power as it once did but its members still own much of the country as they have for over 1000 years.
Geoff
That
just demonstrates why the Founging Fathers didn't want an aristocracy. Even they can't keep it in memory and usage. As for us plain old Americanss it's either 'Hey you', 'Sir', 'Ma'am' or 'A__Hole'. It's just down right easier.
It Is Historical
The story occurs three months before to two months after Napoleon's 100 days.
just a note: I am decendant of a few royal famlies and at least one noble one. The only time I used that information was when one girl I knew in college claimed to be a decendant of Mary, Queen of Scotts. Besides, it don't mean s***.
shalimar
a few royal famlies and at least one noble one...
May I take that to imply that the royals are not?
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
I suspect most of us are.
I know my maternal grandmother was delighted when she told me that her grandmother was pregnant with her father before she married. Implying she'd been impregnated by her aristocratic employer as happened in those days. She was always a bit of a snob. I suspect very few people in Britain don't have any blue blood in their veins. It just takes 16 generations before you have 65,536 direct ancestors (assuming no cousin marriages) and the population was quite low in those days so there's likely to be some Roman blood there too :)
I've never bothered to trace my ancestors. My sister-in-law has a bit and as the patriarch (gulp!) of our branch of the family I've helped her with relatives I remember but it only interests me slightly.
... and you're right it don't mean s*** LOL
Geoff
Interesting Subject.
This is. My own family name is very old Irish. The second n in the middle was dropped when the family came to the Americas in the 1600s. (From Finnson to Finson) Whether they were Lords or not, I don't know or really care, but still this subject is very interesting.