BARON VS LORD AND KNIGHT VS SIR
Allen John Mallory
Query 2: Are the terms Knight and Sir equivalent, and if not, how do you determine appropriate use of each?
Allen John Mallory
Danbury, Connecticut
allen....@snet.net
Renia
are barons, for there are various various titles held by the peerage. In order of precedence, these are:
Duke (royal dukes take precedence over non-royal dukes)
Marquess
Earl
Viscount
Baron
Within these titles, the order of precedence depends on when the title was conferred.
People on whom a knighthood has been conferred are styled "Sir" and their wives are styled "Lady". Occasionally, the Queen has conferred an honourary
knighthood upon a foreigner (or non-Briton), for example, Bob Geldof (Irish) and Rudi Giuliani (American ex-mayor of New York). As honourary
knighthoods, they are not entitled to style themselves "Sir" however.
It was not the same in medieval times. The lord of a manor was and is not a member of the peerage, for lords of the manor still exist.
Renia
Tim Powys-Lybbe
allen....@snet.net (Allen John Mallory) wrote:
> Query 1: Are the terms Baron and Lord equivalent, and if not, how do
> they differ? In other words, are all Barons a Lord, and all Lords a
> Baron?
No. But it differs from country to country. This is what I know of
England.
A baron was a holder of a feudal barony, a tenant-in-chief of the
sovereign. He was not referred to as "Lord", though he might have been
"Lord of".
A "Lord" is any peer, the people who used to have a right to sit in he
house of Lords. Lord Norfolk is the duke of Norfolk, earl marshal. Lord
Laing is a baron Laing, a life peer.
There still are "lords of the manor"; they are just "lord of" and have
no right to sit anywhere.
> Query 2: Are the terms Knight and Sir equivalent, and if not, how do
> you determine appropriate use of each?
No. "Sir" was used in mediaeval times at least for both knights and
priests; that is why knights usually have "knt" after their names.
Subsequent to 1611 we also have baronets who are "Sir" but these are
inherited titles; orignally the eldest son of a baronet was entitled to
be knighted but that was dropped later on. Baronets have "bart" or "bt"
after their names.
Probably a copy of Debrett's or Burke's Peerages would explain this much
better.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
John Steele Gordon
"Allen John Mallory" <allen....@snet.net> wrote in message
news:002501c1b6fc$60af7590$4f47fea9@ccqn801...
> Query 1: Are the terms Baron and Lord equivalent, and if not, how do they
differ? In other words, are all Barons a Lord, and all Lords a Baron?
Today, baron is the lowest degree of the peerage (although, technically,
Scottish peers of that degree are Lords of Parliament, not barons). "Lord"
is a loose synonym for "peer," and all peers can be referred to as Lord
So-and-so (using the peerage title). Thus the Marquess of Salisbury is often
called Lord Salisbury. Except dukes. They are always the Duke of So-and-so,
never Lord So-and-so. And Barons are never referred to as Baron So-and-so,
but always as Lord So-and-so. It gets complicated.
There are lots of other sorts of lords, however. Lords of the manor (which
means nothing these days, but that doesn't stop people from shelling out
thousands to buy them), law lords (equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court),
Lord Privy Seal (cabinet member who is "neither a lord nor a privy nor a
seal"), First Sea Lord (equivalent to Chief of Naval Operations), etc. etc.
> Query 2: Are the terms Knight and Sir equivalent, and if not, how do you
determine appropriate use of each?
Sir is used before the Christian name of anyone who is a knight (and a
British subject) or a baronet (a sort of hereditary knighthood, cooked up in
the time of James I to raise ready cash). Sir Winston Churchill, for
example. But the words are not equivalent. "He is a knight" is good English.
"He is a sir" is not. Except in a jocular sense, it is only used before the
name, like mister.
As for non British subjects who are given knighthhods not being allowed to
use Sir before their names, I think it most unfair. I don't want the doo-dad
the Queen hands out (when would I wear it, anyway?), I want that title!
> Allen John Mallory
> Danbury, Connecticut
> allen....@snet.net
Greetings from your neighbor in North Salem.
JSG
Chris Dickinson
instantly makes your wife into a Lady ...
Chris
canberra
Leo van de Pas
Reedpcgen
>determine appropriate use of each?
One might also note that though a knight was always a 'Sir'
for a period of time, clerics were also called 'sir' [usually lower case] or
dom. [lord]. Check the archives for a more detailed explanation.
So if you meet with someone who appears to be religious in position, your man
might not be a knight.
Paul
Bryant Smith
> You mean to say she isn't already? :-)
> Leo van de Pas
>
"cleaning lady," "ladies of the night," etc.
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
Blair Southerden
I have recently discovered a record in Yorkshire Archaeological Journal Vol
XVI p100 (Yorkshire deeds) which says:
"June 20, 1368 Grant 2 by William, son of John de Keueton to William
Scintepoule of Totwick, of a garden in the vill of Totwick called Grinchard,
as it is enclosed by ditches (per fossas) and of half an acre of land in the
same vill, one rood and a half of which lie at the end of said villand abut
on le Cokscotes towards the westand on the high roads towards the east, and
another half rood lies at le Westcroftes among the land of the same William
Seintpoule and abuts at one end on the land of the Abbot of Roche towards
the west and at the other on the garden of the said William towards the
east. Witnesses Sir Edmund de Pirpount, Sir William de Melton knights Sir
John de Keueton, Gocelin de Eyville, John de Wasteneis, Thomas de Wortley
and others. Torwick June 20 42 Edw III"
I noted that the first two witnesses, Sir Edmund and Sir William appear to
be knights, but the same reference is not made after the name of Sir John de
Keueton. Yet he appears to be the father of William the grantee. I
understand that people ofen entered monsteries later in life. Might it be
reasonable to conclude in this instance:
1. That Sir John de Keueton was not a knight but a monk; and
2. He entered holy orders after being married and raising children?
I have always assumed that the monsatic life, while maybe not celibate, did
not permit marriage and the raising of children whilst in holy orders?
Comments, observations would be welcome. I have assumed Burke's won't cover
this situation <g>
Best regards,
Blair
S.B. Southerden from Winchester, Hampshire
Researching Kearton; Kirton; Kyrton; de Querton
blai...@globalnet.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: BARON VS LORD AND KNIGHT VS SIR
> In message <002501c1b6fc$60af7590$4f47fea9@ccqn801>
> allen....@snet.net (Allen John Mallory) wrote:
>
<snip>
> > Query 2: Are the terms Knight and Sir equivalent, and if not, how do
> > you determine appropriate use of each?
>
> No. "Sir" was used in mediaeval times at least for both knights and
> priests; that is why knights usually have "knt" after their names.
> snip
>
> Probably a copy of Debrett's or Burke's Peerages would explain this much
> better.
>
> --
> Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
> For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
>
>
> ______________________________
Paul C. Reed
Reedpcgen wrote:
Query 2: Are the terms Knight and Sir equivalent, and if not, how do you
determine appropriate use of each?
One might also note that though a knight was always a 'Sir'
for a period of time, clerics were also called 'sir' [usually lower case] or
dom. [lord]. Check the archives for a more detailed explanation.
It is more plain in Latin, where mil. [militis] or chev.[chevalier] means mounted horseman, or knight.
Chris Dickinson
>for a period of time, clerics were also called 'sir' [usually
>lower case] or dom. [lord]. Check the archives for a
>more detailed explanation.
Here is a post-medieval example from the parish registers of
Lamplugh in Cumberland:
1654 May 3
Elizabeth d. of Matthew Fearon, bapt. by Sir Anthony Bragg
PDel...@aol.com
until it is proved otherwise....conversely my mother was chased across a
street in NY after she had mistakenly left her shopping in Saxe 5th some
years ago ...shouting 'Ms...Ms.... she rounded on the woman in the middle of
the street saying '"I am not a manuscript, that is most offensive!"
Peter de Loriol
PDel...@aol.com
his children who call him Uncle!
peter de Loriol
Bryant Smith
> It is more plain in Latin, where mil. [militis] or chev.[chevalier]
> means mounted horseman, or knight.
>
Not to me it isn't so plain. "militis" is the genetive of miles,
soldier, with no implication of horses. "Chevalier" is not a
Latin word at all, but French.
Reedpcgen
>soldier, with no implication of horses. "Chevalier" is not a
>Latin word at all, but French.
>
>Saludos
>Bryant Smith
'Miles/militis' is 'soldier' in the Classical sense, but it is 'knight' in the
English sense. If you are going through English records in Latin, that is what
you will usually see. Most who are not familiar with the word will see it
either abbreviated as "mil.' or sometimes spelled out, usually as 'militis'.
For a period of time before the Early Modern period in England, the term
'chevalier' was also used as a descriptive term in Latin records (in England)
for knight. Sometimes is only meant someone who fought on horseback, but
frequently it referred to knights, also in documents recorded in Latin
(possibly creeping in from French records, but then, much of English of that
period crept in from French too).
So, hopefully it is a little more plain to you now. The letter of the law may
be a wonderful thing to some, but what actual practice was sometimes defies
strict logic.
Paul
Blair Southerden
You indicated in a previous mail on this thread that there was further
information in the Rootsweb archives. My initial attempts at finding the
references have been unsuccessful. Can you recall the year or subject, or
suggest appropriate search terms. I am keen to find specifics about priests
being called Sir ------------.
Many thanks,
Blair
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: BARON VS LORD AND KNIGHT VS SIR
> ______________________________
Reedpcgen
Subject: Re: One or two Sir John Holand's
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
View: Complete Thread (19 articles) | Original Format
Date: 1999/09/19
Priests merited the honorific Latin "dominus," which can be translated as
either "Lord" or "Sir." From vernacular writings, e.g. Chaucer, we know that
the English used "Sir" for both knights and priests. But in the case of a
priest, this of course did not imply secular knighthood--rather, the dignity of
the ecclesiastical state.
John P.
[Adrian wrote:]
> > is it only knights who are entitled to use
> >"Sir"? I have seen two or three examples of "Sir" used as a title for
> >priests.
> >
On 19 Sep 1999, Reedpcgen wrote:
> It was standard that priests used the courtesy title 'sir,' which fact is
well evidenced in wills, etc. But actual knights would usually be styled
knight in records, e. g., "Sir John Holand, knight" (militis). Members of
Parliament were knights of the shire while they served. I've seen them
temporarily styled 'Sir,' though not properly so after their term of service.
>
> pcr
>
Paul Moynagh
ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith) wrote:
> In US Amereican usage, "lady" has come into disrepute, as in
> "cleaning lady," "ladies of the night," etc.
Egad, Sir, is that so? We always suspected it would be downhill all the way
since 1776.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Moynagh
pmoy...@argonet.co.uk
Bryant Smith
> In article <a9b2ce02.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith) wrote:
> > In US Amereican usage, "lady" has come into disrepute, as in
> > "cleaning lady," "ladies of the night," etc.
>
> Egad, Sir, is that so? We always suspected it would be downhill all the way
> since 1776.
Now you can tell us all about Joan, illegitimate daughter
of King John who got caught with her pants down while her
hunband Llywellyn the Great was out foraging or whatever,
the subsequent execution of her bimbo, a gentleman of
course, and the political consequences of that little
dalliance cum execution, and how very far downhill the
colonials have gone from there, huh? (We won't mention the
current royals if you promise not to mention Clinton.)
Paul Moynagh
ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith) wrote:
>
> Paul Moynagh <pmoy...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<na.2689f74b0b....@argonet.co.uk>...
> > In article <a9b2ce02.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> > ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith) wrote:
> > > In US Amereican usage, "lady" has come into disrepute, as in
> > > "cleaning lady," "ladies of the night," etc.
> >
> > Egad, Sir, is that so? We always suspected it would be downhill all the
> way
> > since 1776.
>
> Now you can tell us all about Joan, illegitimate daughter
> of King John who got caught with her pants down while her
> hunband Llywellyn the Great was out foraging or whatever,
> the subsequent execution of her bimbo, a gentleman of
> course, and the political consequences of that little
> dalliance cum execution, and how very far downhill the
> colonials have gone from there, huh? (We won't mention the
> current royals if you promise not to mention Clinton.)
Sir, its all a matter of the class, british english definition, to which
Joan belonged. In this country, once a Lady, always a Lady, however she
might misbehave. But no Lady, not even our current royals, would ever even
dream of taking up a broom, let alone of peddling their wares as ladies 'of
the night'. Morals have nothing to do with it. Now, this may still bemuse
some colonials, but we brits, even those like me who do not like it,
understand it all too well.