Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [JaneAusten] Re: Question on P&P

Expand Messages
  • Jeanne Stapleton
    it is not correct that as the younger ... G - I m sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this - I squirrelled it away hastily and just now read it. I
    Message 1 of 21 , Jun 1, 2003
      it is not correct that as the younger
      > son of an earl,
      > Col Fitzwilliam is "Lord John - or whatever. His
      > title in "the
      > Honourable" which is not used in speech.. He is "Col
      > the Hon John
      > Fitzwilliam (wel'll call him John for conveninece.
      > and is addressed
      > simply as Col Fitzwilliam. if he were for exameple
      > an Earl, he
      > would be Col the Lord Blank -- nad would i think be
      > addressed simply
      > as Colonel or my lord by soldiers.
      > its not really a case of reverting ot his civilian
      > title, he holds
      > that at all times.
      > there would of course be no reason for him to resgin
      > his commission
      > on marriage, but if he marreid well, he might quit
      > the army since he
      > ahd no need of the money.
      >
      > G

      G -

      I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this
      - I squirrelled it away hastily and just now read it.

      I thank you for the insights about the army, but I
      must correct you on your correction - I thought about
      it but I simply can't let this one go by - it is *not*
      correct that Col. Fitzwilliam's civilian title is "the
      Honourable" (although you're absolutely correct in
      stating that that honorific would never be spoken, and
      I did know that already, but I appreciate your
      pointing that part out). He would be "Lord John" as
      the son of an Earl. I cite, for a modern example that
      people here are probably familiar with, the late
      Princess of Wales. In her childhood, as the daughter
      of Viscount Althorp, heir to the title of Earl of
      Spencer, she was "the Honourable Diana Spencer". When
      her father succeeded to the title in her early teens,
      she and her sisters then became "Lady Sarah, Lady
      [Cynthia] Jane and Lady Diana", while her brother,
      Charles, became Viscount Althorp.

      This titular system was in place as early as the
      Regency, although how much earlier it all got shaken
      into place I'm not 100% on - I have read a lot of
      Tudor history and I know that at the time there were
      quite often "junior titles" for the male heirs to a
      duchy or county - but I don't know what all the heirs
      were called.

      I have read a great deal about precedence, including
      at least two books specifically on the peerage which
      even showed the types of coronets they were entitled
      to wear depending upon their station. I don't wish to
      offend, but this bit of information is a bit off the
      mark. (It's the military stuff I'm at a total loss
      over.)

      Cordially,
      Jeanne

      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
      http://calendar.yahoo.com
    • sandy76339@aol.com
      In a message dated 6/1/03 4:33:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, apiskp@yahoo.com ... Hello, Just putting my opinion in here. Only the eldest son of an earl is a
      Message 2 of 21 , Jun 1, 2003
        In a message dated 6/1/03 4:33:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, apiskp@... writes:

        I cite, for a modern example that
        people here are probably familiar with, the late
        Princess of Wales.  In her childhood, as the daughter
        of Viscount Althorp, heir to the title of Earl of
        Spencer, she was "the Honourable Diana Spencer".  When
        her father succeeded to the title in her early teens,
        she and her sisters then became "Lady Sarah, Lady
        [Cynthia] Jane and Lady Diana", while her brother,
        Charles, became Viscount Althorp.


        Hello,
        Just putting my opinion in here.  Only the eldest son of an earl is a lord.  All younger sons are in fact 'honorables".  Of course Charles being the only son inherits his father's lesser title of Viscount Althorp.  I don't know where Col. Fitzwillian falls in his family, but if he is not the eldest he is Col the Hon John as the previous e-mailer pointed out.
        Sandy
      • Jeanne Stapleton
        ... Sandy, May I ask you for your source? My primary source (which I remembered while my computer was off line) was DeBrett s book on peerage. (Col.
        Message 3 of 21 , Jun 1, 2003
          > > I cite, for a modern example that
          > > people here are probably familiar with, the late
          > > Princess of Wales. In her childhood, as the
          > daughter
          > > of Viscount Althorp, heir to the title of Earl of
          > > Spencer, she was "the Honourable Diana Spencer".
          > When
          > > her father succeeded to the title in her early
          > teens,
          > > she and her sisters then became "Lady Sarah, Lady
          > > [Cynthia] Jane and Lady Diana", while her brother,
          > > Charles, became Viscount Althorp.
          > >
          >
          > Hello,
          > Just putting my opinion in here. Only the eldest
          > son of an earl is a lord.
          > All younger sons are in fact 'honorables". Of
          > course Charles being the only
          > son inherits his father's lesser title of Viscount
          > Althorp. I don't know where
          > Col. Fitzwillian falls in his family, but if he is
          > not the eldest he is Col
          > the Hon John as the previous e-mailer pointed out.
          > Sandy
          >
          Sandy,

          May I ask you for your source?

          My primary source (which I remembered while my
          computer was off line) was DeBrett's book on peerage.

          (Col. Fitzwilliam is the youngest son, which is
          mentioned in the text of P&P.)

          All of the children of an earl (and above) are
          entitled to bear the title "lord" or "lady" (which is
          why Diana, youngest daughter of the Earl of Spencer,
          was entitled Lady Diana); if there is a junior title
          held in the family, such as Viscount Althorp, that
          goes to the eldest son. The Spencers are not such a
          great example, because there was only one boy, for
          that purpose; but I still believe this to be fact, not
          opinion, with all due respect.

          If someone has an actual source, I'd love to know.

          Jeanne


          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
          http://calendar.yahoo.com
        • Kaleyna
          Hi everyone, I m a newbie. I found this discussion very interesting. I did a websearch and found numerous sites that all pretty much gave the following
          Message 4 of 21 , Jun 1, 2003

            Hi everyone,

            I'm a newbie. I found this discussion very interesting. I did a websearch and found numerous sites that all pretty much gave the following information. It seems the eldest son of an Earl gets a title but all the younger sons simply get the Honourable. The daughters all get Lady. Here's one example and below it a link to Burke's Peerage which also says the same thing. The younger son's are Honourables.

            Kathy

            ...............................................................................

            Below marquess is EARL.

            He will nearly always be earl of something. His wife is the COUNTESS. He is referred to as "the Earl of Cranthorpe" or "Lord Cranthorpe", or "Cranthorpe" to his familiars. Some earls do not use "of" as with Earl Spencer, but this is sufficiently unusual that I think it should be avoided unless it's a crucial plot point.

            His wife is the Countess of Cranthorpe or Lady Cranthorpe, and she will sign herself Desdemona Cranthorpe.

            As with a duke, the earl's heir will take the next lowest title as a courtesy title, and the heir's son, the next again.

            All daughters of an earl are given the courtesy title Lady "firstname"; -- see dukes. All details are the same. Younger sons of an earl, however, are merely "the honorable" which is not used in casual speech.

            ....................................................................

            http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-earl.asp

             

             

             

          • Jeanne Stapleton
            Okay, Kaleyna: That I ll bow to, although i think it s interesting that Burke and DeBrett disagree. :-) But thank you for looking it up. I will move forward
            Message 5 of 21 , Jun 1, 2003
              Okay, Kaleyna:

              That I'll bow to, although i think it's interesting
              that Burke and DeBrett disagree. :-)

              But thank you for looking it up. I will move forward
              thinking of Col. Fitzwilliam as "the Honourable". :-)

              In case anyone wonders why I'm thinking about this in
              such detail, I'm working on a P&P continuation, and
              one of the plot points involving Col. Fitzwilliam has
              it very necessary to know how he would style himself
              if he were to resign his commission.

              Jeanne

              --- Kaleyna <kaleyna@...> wrote:
              > Hi everyone,
              >
              > I'm a newbie. I found this discussion very
              > interesting. I did a websearch and found numerous
              > sites that all pretty much gave the following
              > information. It seems the eldest son of an Earl gets
              > a title but all the younger sons simply get the
              > Honourable. The daughters all get Lady. Here's one
              > example and below it a link to Burke's Peerage which
              > also says the same thing. The younger son's are
              > Honourables.
              >
              > Kathy
              >
              >
              ...............................................................................
              >
              > Below marquess is EARL.
              >
              > He will nearly always be earl of something. His wife
              > is the COUNTESS. He is referred to as "the Earl of
              > Cranthorpe" or "Lord Cranthorpe", or "Cranthorpe" to
              > his familiars. Some earls do not use "of" as with
              > Earl Spencer, but this is sufficiently unusual that
              > I think it should be avoided unless it's a crucial
              > plot point.
              >
              > His wife is the Countess of Cranthorpe or Lady
              > Cranthorpe, and she will sign herself Desdemona
              > Cranthorpe.
              >
              > As with a duke, the earl's heir will take the next
              > lowest title as a courtesy title, and the heir's
              > son, the next again.
              >
              > All daughters of an earl are given the courtesy
              > title Lady "firstname"; -- see dukes. All details
              > are the same. Younger sons of an earl, however, are
              > merely "the honorable" which is not used in casual
              > speech.
              >
              >
              ....................................................................
              >
              >
              http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-earl.asp
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >


              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
              http://calendar.yahoo.com
            • Kaleyna
              ... if he were to resign his commission. Wouldn t Fitzwilliam still go by Colonel if he resigned? I m not positive about that. Perhaps it would depend on his
              Message 6 of 21 , Jun 1, 2003
                >>>>>>>>involving Col. Fitzwilliam has it very
                necessary to know how he would style himself
                if he were to resign his commission.
                 
                 
                Wouldn't Fitzwilliam still go by Colonel if he resigned? I'm not positive about that. Perhaps it would depend on his status in nonmilitary life but I had thought the military commission title would be retained.
                 
                Kathy
              • Jeanne Stapleton
                ... Kathy: That was the initial question I asked about that started this thread. :-) I was thinking of Col. Brandon in _Sense and Sensibility_ when I wrote
                Message 7 of 21 , Jun 1, 2003
                  --- Kaleyna <kaleyna@...> wrote:
                  > >>>>>>>>involving Col. Fitzwilliam has it very
                  > necessary to know how he would style himself
                  > if he were to resign his commission.
                  >
                  >
                  > Wouldn't Fitzwilliam still go by Colonel if he
                  > resigned? I'm not positive about that. Perhaps it
                  > would depend on his status in nonmilitary life but I
                  > had thought the military commission title would be
                  > retained.
                  >
                  > Kathy
                  >
                  Kathy:

                  That was the initial question I asked about that
                  started this thread. :-) I was thinking of Col.
                  Brandon in _Sense and Sensibility_ when I wrote this,
                  and wondering about Col. Fitzwilliam.

                  What if he married a woman of either very great rank,
                  or very great wealth? Or both?

                  I really don't want to divulge too many details of my
                  continuation plot, especially as many Austen fans are
                  not interested in continuations or think they're
                  wrong; but I just got to wondering about this question
                  and what the accepted mode was.

                  Jeanne

                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
                  http://calendar.yahoo.com
                • gduch2001
                  ... son of an earl is an honourable ... which is not used in speech so h d simply be Mr Fitzwillam or Col. Fitzwillam... The eldeest son of an earl takes his
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jun 5, 2003
                    >in what way do Burke and Debrett disagree? sorry but the younger
                    son of an earl is an "honourable"... which is not used in speech so
                    h'd simply be Mr Fitzwillam or Col. Fitzwillam...

                    The eldeest son of an earl takes his fathers second titel, which is
                    uaully a viscoutncy, but its is merely a titel by courtesy and does
                    not enttile him to sit in the Lords... In hte few cases where an Earl
                    has no second title, the eldest son uses the family name as his
                    title, I think that he still ranks as a viscount.. by courtesty. but
                    if the earl of Hartley (a made up title) had no secondary title, adn
                    his family name was Jones his eldest son woudl be know as Lord
                    Jones....

                    but none of htis applies to JA as she rarely introudcues people with
                    titles of nobility, adn Col Fitzwilliam is a younger son,


                    G

                    That I'll bow to, although i think it's interesting
                    > that Burke and DeBrett disagree. :-)
                    >
                    > But thank you for looking it up. I will move forward
                    > thinking of Col. Fitzwilliam as "the Honourable". :-)
                    >
                    > .yahoo.com
                  • gduch2001
                    ... above the rank of Major to retain his title in civilian life, but I presueme it woudl be possible adn accpetabel for the Colonel to drop the military title
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jun 5, 2003
                      ---to rpely again to this, I think that it was usual for any officer
                      above the rank of Major to retain his title in civilian life, but I
                      presueme it woudl be possible adn accpetabel for the Colonel to drop
                      the military title if he so wihsed. about that
                      > started this thread.

                      nothign woudl happen if he married a woamn of great rank or wealth or
                      boht, excpet that he mgiht decide to sell out, if he had a rihc
                      wife. If you mean was there a bar on officers being married no
                      there wasn't.


                      G

                      :-) I was thinking of Col.
                      > Brandon in _Sense and Sensibility_ when I wrote this,
                      > and wondering about Col. Fitzwilliam.
                      >
                      > What if he married a woman of either very great rank,
                      > or very great wealth? Or both?
                      >
                      > I really don't want to divulge too many details of my
                      > continuation plot, especially as many Austen fans are
                      > not interested in continuations or think they're
                      > wrong; but I just got to wondering about this question
                      > and what the accepted mode was.
                      >
                      > Jeanne
                      >
                      > __________________________________
                      > Do you Yahoo!?
                      > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
                      > http://calendar.yahoo.com
                    • gduch2001
                      ... officer ... the military title if he so wihsed. wrt your query about what would happen if he married a woamn of great rank or wealth or ... sell out, if he
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jun 5, 2003
                        > ---to reply again to this, I think that it was usual for any
                        officer
                        > above the rank of Major to retain his title in civilian life, but I
                        > presume it woudl be possible adn accpetable for the Colonel to drop
                        the military title if he so wihsed.

                        wrt your query about what would happen if he married a woamn of great
                        rank or wealth or
                        > boht.. well nothing would happen, except that he mgiht decide to
                        sell out, if he had a rich
                        > wife. If you mean was there a bar on officers being married no
                        > there wasn't.
                        >
                        >
                        > G
                        >
                        > :-) I was thinking of Col.
                        > > Brandon in _Sense and Sensibility_ when I wrote this,
                        > > and wondering about Col. Fitzwilliam.
                        > >
                        > > What if he married a woman of either very great rank,
                        > > or very great wealth? Or both?
                        > >
                        > > I really don't want to divulge too many details of my
                        > > continuation plot, especially as many Austen fans are
                        > > not interested in continuations or think they're
                        > > wrong; but I just got to wondering about this question
                        > > and what the accepted mode was.
                        > >
                        > > Jeanne
                        > >
                        > > __________________________________
                        > > Do you Yahoo!?
                        > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
                        > > http://calendar.yahoo.com
                      • Jeanne Stapleton
                        ... No, that wasn t what I meant. I know there wasn t any such bar. Jeanne __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jun 5, 2003
                          > nothign woudl happen if he married a woamn of great
                          > rank or wealth or
                          > boht, excpet that he mgiht decide to sell out, if he
                          > had a rihc
                          > wife. If you mean was there a bar on officers
                          > being married no
                          > there wasn't.
                          >
                          No, that wasn't what I meant. I know there wasn't any
                          such bar.

                          Jeanne

                          __________________________________
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
                          http://calendar.yahoo.com
                        • gduch2001
                          ... you saying waht would happen if he married a woamn of rank or wealtlh? ... I have been tring to look up Debretss on line and cant find more than very
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jun 5, 2003
                            ---well sorry but Im not very clear waht you are asking... why are
                            you saying "waht would happen if he married a woamn of rank or
                            wealtlh?" ...
                            I have been tring to look up Debretss on line and cant find more than
                            very minimal infomration in the online parts aobut the titles used by
                            the children of earls. however, I am suprised that you say that they
                            disagree with Burke aobut hte titles of younger sons.. I will try to
                            have a look at a real book and find out this, since AFAIK, there is
                            no possible dispute aobut that particular question...

                            G
                            .
                            > >
                            > No, that wasn't what I meant. I know there wasn't any
                            > such bar.
                            >
                            > Jeanne
                            >
                            > __________________________________
                            > Do you Yahoo!?
                            > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
                            > http://calendar.yahoo.com
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.