Titles Of Nobility And Aristocracy


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

PrincessKaimi

Serene Highness
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
1,353
City
Hilo, Malibu
Country
United States
I'm having trouble understanding the history and etymology of various titles, such as earl, count, duke, marquis, etc. I seem to have a jumble of English and French titles in my mind.

I'm back to 1066 and the Norman conquest, and I can't tell (yet) what titles William the Conqueror bestowed upon the Norman overlords when he carved up England. Did he import the term "duke" or was it already in use in Anglo-Saxon England? Were there dukes at that time? When I read about the 1100's and 1200's, I see mostly Earls in England (and duchies seem to be in France - Kings Richard and John are Dukes of Normandy, etc.)

I guess I'm asking several questions. When did the title "duke" (from the Latin) appear in England and which dukedoms were earliest? Where does the word "earl" come from, is it Saxon? Are there counts in England or no (ever)? I know marquis is mainly in France, but Italy and Spain have cognate terms - so I'm guessing that's from days when Latin was prevelant - and that term never made it to England.

The word that the Welsh use for their highest lords is translated into English as Prince (anyone know what the etymology of Prince is?) I think I understand why, although any illumination on that point would be welcome.

As I lay awake pondering all this, I decided that it would be silly not to avail myself of the venerable expertise that is The Royal Forums. Some of you will understand what I'm trying to get at (a history of royal terminology in England, I guess) and I just know that some of you already know this, extensively.

Thanks in advance for your help. I figure I'm not the only one who could use a refresher in these matters. I also feel like I'm leaving out some titles altogether. (Squire?) I know "knight" is at the bottom of the titles, right?
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Warren. If I were a gambling woman, I'd have bet you knew the resources! I'm going to have a great afternoon and evening - it's all so interesting.
 
Nobility in European monarchies

Can anyone help me understand what the rules are for European monarchies on granting noble titles? I know each country is different, and that usually it is a royal perogative, but I'd like to know what the rules are for each country, since some (like the Scandinavian countries) give them only to royals while others like Britain seem to have given them away like cheap gum.
 
I think only the UK, Spain and Belgium still create new peerages outside of the royal family.
In the UK new peerages are for the life of the holder and are not hereditary (except those for the RF). Life peerages are recommended by the government. Not sure what the mechanism is in Spain or Belgium.
 
I wish they would start bestowing them in Canada again. Canadians can't have titles, apparently.
 
The Peerage (and other non-Royal hereditary titles in monarchies)

I'm a fan of having a King or Queen, but:

What's the benefit to a country's population in general of having a Peerage (in the UK) or the like: when hereditary titles are given to people who aren't members of a Royal Family?

Do all European monarchies have such a thing, or only the UK?

And why do democratic governments go along with giving hereditary titles to people who aren't Royals?

Thanks.
 
The British no longer give hereditary peerages out to non-royals. Instead they give out life peerages to individuals who've achieved some sort of greatness.

In the old days it was in the interest of the government to give out hereditary peerages because those individuals sat in the House of Lords. It was also in the interest of the monarch because it was a way to bestow honours on friends and those who had done a service to them.
 
PM Thatcher created hereditary peers during her time in office, these peerages were the last hereditary peerages created by a PM.

Peerages are not created by a PM, they are created by the monarch (often at the advice of the PM, but it's still not them doing the creating).
 
In the UK we now only confer life peerages who are entitled to sit in the House of Lords. Almost all of the hereditary peers have been removed from the House of Lords.
Both Belgium and Spain continue to award peerages, both life and hereditary. Norway has never had its own peerage. Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands have a titled nobility but new titles are not awarded outside of their royal families. The Vatican used to award titles of nobility but I believe that ended with Paul VI.
 
I believe - although I could be wrong - that the only hereditary peers who now sit in the House of Lords are people who were created hereditary peers themselves (they didn't inherit it), and then had a life peerage bestowed upon them when the House was reformed.

Or is that completely wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really, why don't you move to where they have these. Our forefathers knew how destructive this was. But, perhaps, you were born in a different nation. What Republics give "Heredity Titles"?

I stated that "democratic governments" give hereditary titles.

Are you stating that only republics-not monarchies-are "democratic governments"? I didn't state that. Northern European monarchies in many respects rank higher in democratic-ness than many republics do.

To everyone else, thanks- very useful info.
 
Last edited:
Many constitutional monarchies are categorized as the most democratic countries in the world - above the US. However that doesn't stop Countess from attacking monarchies and those who support them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you wish to live in a monarchy, so be it. I have no problem. Canada is not a monarchy. If you live here an enjoy the benefits thereof, and respect how we got here, so be it. I have no problem with either. It is not an attack. It is a statement. Millions of people have come to this country to live otherwise. Our founding fathers saw the difficulty and the waste. As this is a "free country", if you want to live under a monarchy, go and do that. There are many wonderful nations you can do that in.
 
Where did you ever get the idea that Canada is not a monarchy? The last time I checked the Canadian head of State is HM Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. The armed forces include the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. Several army regiments include the term Royal and many have members of the royal family as Colonels in Chief. To become a citizen of Canada one must swear an oath of Allegiance to HM The Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors. It all seems very monarchic to me. Indeed Canadians often point to the monarchy as one of the differentiating factors between Canada and the US.
 
You are correct in essence. I have many Canadian friends who see this as an aberration of their freedom and that it is only a formality. One recently said that to me. On that portion I have no argument, as you are correct. Perhaps, when the queen dies it will be different.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps Countess but there is no real Republican movement in Canada, and constitutional chnage in Canada is incredibly difficuly and even moreso when it involves the monarchy. I am not sure what freedoms your friends feel denied of since Canada generally ranks amongst the most democratic and free nations in the world.
One of the outstanding points of the monarchy in Canada is that the monarchs representatives are actually more representative of societies diversity than the elected representatives...women, blacks, Asians, native Canadians, visible minorities having held the top job federally or in the provinces as the monarchs representatives long before any would be elected to such offices.
 
Laszlo Szechenyi was a Hungarian count (Grof) by birth.

Natascha O'Neill, the sister of Christopher O'Neill {the husband of Princess Madeleine of Sweden} is the wife of Graf Ernst von Abensberg und Traun.
Graf is a title of Nobility.
Graf means Count.

The Treaty of Chatillon had promised a duchy for James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Aran. He becme the Duke of Chatellerault.
How is it possible that this title could go to a non-Frenchman?

Ish, You declared the key statement: at the time titles of nobility weren't restricted to those who were of that nationality.
With the passing of time, there were certainly hundreds of nobility titles to keep track of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi everyone, first time poster

I hope this is the correct place to discuss this. I've been reading a lot about French peerages and titles and I came across the Ducal title of Polignac, which is of course now associated with Monaco. At some point, I see that it went from Duke de Polignac to Count de Poliganc. Was it demoted, so to speak, or was there both a Duke and Count de Poliganc? Can there be a Duke and Count of the same place?
 
Hi everyone, first time poster

I hope this is the correct place to discuss this. I've been reading a lot about French peerages and titles and I came across the Ducal title of Polignac, which is of course now associated with Monaco. At some point, I see that it went from Duke de Polignac to Count de Poliganc. Was it demoted, so to speak, or was there both a Duke and Count de Poliganc? Can there be a Duke and Count of the same place?

The title was made heritable in 1783. The Duke's sons would have the title Comte/Count de Polignac. Upon the Dukes's death his first born son would inherit the title. There can only be one Duke at a time.
 
:previous:
Descendants of the first Duc de Polignac bear the title of Comte de Polignac. Comte Pierre de Polignac, a great-great-grandson of the first duke, was the father of Rainier III, Prince of Monaco.

The third Duc de Polignac was created a Prince of the Papal States in 1820. The title passed to his male-line descendants as Prince(s) de Polignac. The current head of the ducal and princely branch is Charles-Armand, 8th Duc de Polignac and 6th Prince et Vicomte de Polignac, born in 1946. Other members of this branch are titled Prince or Princess [first name] de Polignac.

The head of another comital branch of the family is the Marquis de Polignac.
 
In the past particularly and now, I was wondering if being the monarch's in-law's, are they given any title just because your related? Is this how a commoner becomes upper class/entitled/Royal? When William becomes King, could he bestow a title on his in-laws just because? What about when King Henry VIII married he had lots of in-laws. Did he bestow titles to them? One wife was made his sister? Was that a great honor back then? What did she get as a sister that as an ex wife she would not have gotten? What about other Royal Families?
 
Last edited:
I love this question. I'm going to break it down a bit.

Is being the monarch's in-law's, are they given any title just because your related? Is this how a commoner becomes upper class/entitled/Royal?

This just depends on the monarch, really. There's never really been established rules of who gets a peerage and who doesn't, at least when it extends to people who themselves aren't royals.

This isn't necessarily how someone, or a family, became aristocratic/noble, and certainly wasn't (in the British system at least) how they became royal. For the most part, until rather recently people who married into the English/British royal families have always been from at least upper class, if not aristocratic or royal backgrounds, prior to their marriages. In a few cases, women whose fathers, or families, didn't hold any titles married into the family, sometimes resulting in their families being given titles. It just depended on the monarch.

How commoners became nobles wasn't simply that they married into the royal family. Typically, honours were bestowed on people who had done a service to the monarch, monarchy, or government. Often it seems like these were granted in succession - typically, for awhile a number of fathers and sons would be knighted, then later one might be created a baronet, later on a descendant might be created an earl, then later another might become a duke.... It didn't always follow a set order and it seems like when the younger sons or grandsons of men who were peers were created peers themselves they didn't start back at zero.

So, consider the Spencer family. The first John Spencer was created a knight during the reign of Henry VIII, and a few generations of sons and grandsons were similarly knighted, before one such was created Baron Spencer of Wormleighton. Later a Baron Spencer was created Earl of Sunderland. When the grandson of an Earl of Sunderland was given a peerage it reflected the fact that he was descended from peers - first he was created Viscount Spencer, then later Earl Spencer (as well as secondary titles with both peerages).

When William becomes King, could he bestow a title on his in-laws just because?

This is a subject that can be debated a bit. As King, William will be the fount of all honours. Technically speaking, he could bestow a title on his father-in-law, or even brother-in-law, if he so wished (he could give his mother- or sister-in-law a title as well, but titles for women are considerably less common), but it would be going against the trend towards titles of the day (assuming that this continues). Currently, the only people to be granted hereditary peerages are royals, and life peerages are only granted on the advice of the government, typically after achieving something noteworthy. As such, I would debate whether or not William could create a peerage for any of the Middletons "just because." Even if he could, I think it would risk seriously offending some of his subjects.

What about when King Henry VIII married he had lots of in-laws. Did he bestow titles to them? One wife was made his sister? Was that a great honor back then? What did she get as a sister that as an ex wife she would not have gotten?

Henry VIII married six times. His first wife, Catherine of Aragon, was a princess in her own right and came from a family with their own titles. Henry didn't, to the best of my knowledge, bestow any English titles upon them.

His second wife was Anne Boleyn. Anne's father didn't inherit titles and it's very likely that the titles that he received were largely related to his daughter's relationship, but Thomas Boleyn was also involved in politics so at least some of the honours he received may have been because of his own merits. Anne's brother wasn't given his own peerage, being expected to inherit his father's titles, but he did use the title Viscount Rochford by courtesy, but his titles were forfeited when he was executed. Anne was also granted her own peerage, a Marquessate, prior to, but because of, her marriage.

His third wife was Jane Seymour. Jane's father, John, was knighted by Henry VII, initially for his involvement in the Cornish Rebellion of 1497. John died within a year of Jane's marriage and was never granted a peerage. Two of Jane's brothers, Edward and Thomas, were created peers, but I believe this was more because they were the uncles (and regents) of the King than because they were the brothers-in-law of the King - in the case of Edward, he was created Duke of Somerset in 1547, 10 years after his sister's death and the year his nephew became king. I believe Thomas became a Baron around the same time. Around the same time, Jane's youngest brother, Henry, was created a knight, but he never received any further titles (and unlike his elder brothers, was never executed when his ambition backfired, so he didn't necessarily lose out).

His fourth wife was Anne of Cleves. Anne was from a Continental Ruling family, and as such her family had no need of English titles. Anne was the wife who was created an honourary member of the family after the annulment of her marriage, and it did make a difference. Henry had only divorced one other wife at this point - Catherine - and she didn't exactly have a great post-marriage situation. His two other wives, at this point, didn't survive their marriages. In saying that she was to be treated as the King's sister, Henry basically assured that Anne was to be treated well during his reign, and even afterwards. She was essentially taken care of and remained connected to the court.

Wife five was Catherine Howard, whose father died in the year before she got married. Both of her brothers were courtiers during her marriage, but neither were created peers. Catherine's youngest brother was eventually knighted because of his services on the battle field, after Henry's death. Interestingly, this knighthood was granted by the Duke of Somerset, the eldest brother of wife number 3.

The last wife was Catherine Parr. Catherine's father was knighted in 1509 and died in 1517, well before his daughter's marriage to the King. Catherine's brother, William, was first created a Baron a few years before her marriage, then created an Earl after the marriage, then finally created a Marquess after Henry's death. I would assume that the initial peerage had nothing to do with Catherine, the second one was because of his position as the brother-in-law of the king, and the third one was because he was the King's uncle (in a round-about way). At the same time, though, William Parr was also involved in politics and the court.

What about other Royal Families?

I honestly don't know about other Royal Families, but I can comment a bit more on other British monarchs. Henry VIII may be the most famous in terms of his marriages, but he's not the only one to marry women from more common means.

Edward IV's wife, Elizabeth Woodville, was born to a commoner, Richard Woodville, later 1st Earl Rivers. Richard's peerage was very likely due to his daughter's marriage, as it was granted during Edward's reign and after the wedding.

James II's first wife, Anne Hyde, was also born to a commoner-turned-peer, Edward Hyde. Edward's rise to the peerage, however, wasn't really connected to his daughter's royal marriage so much as it was to Edward's continued support of the King through the Civil War, Exile, and later Restoration. All of Edward's peerages were granted to him by Charles II with a year of both the restoration and Anne's marriage, at a time when it was still considered likely that Charles would father legitimate children (Charles wasn't yet married at the time).

As for the Scots, David II married a woman whose father was just a knight, but I couldn't tell you why he wasn't granted further peerages (be it a deliberate omission on the part of David, or owing to the father's death, although I suspect the latter as it wasn't either's first marriage). Robert II's first father-in-law was only a knight, but Robert's first wife died before he became king. Mary of Scots' second husband, Henry Stuart, only held his titles by courtesy, but he predeceased his father, who did have his own, pre-existing peerage. All other Scottish monarchs married women whose fathers had titles of their own.
 
:previous:
Very thorough and enjoyable reading Ish. :flowers:

A present-day example of ennoblement (or raise in status) due to marital proximity is the family of the current Queen of the Belgians.
Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz was born into an untitled noble family of baronial descent. Her father bore the honorific of Jonkheer, which in English translates to somewhere between "The Honourable" and "Lord". Mathilde bore the honorific of Jonkvrouw.

When she married the Duke of Brabant (ie Crown Prince) in 1999, King Albert elevated the family of d'Udekem d'Acoz from the baronial to the comital rank, hereditary in the male line. Her father and brother thus gained a title, that of count, and her surviving sisters that of countess (her mother was uneffected, already being a countess in her own right).

Thus the daughter's marriage into the upper level of the Belgian Royal House directly led to her own family's rise in title, rank and status.
 
I What about other Royal Families?

This bit will be about the Danish Royal family.
Through history most Danish Kings' spouses have come from royal or princely houses of Europe. The in-laws had titles of their own.
In recent years 3 commoners have married into the DRF; Miss Alexandra Manley, Miss Mary Donaldson and Miss Marie Cavallier. Their fathers were all awarded the Grand Cross of the order of the Dannebrog. This order has 6 classes; the Grand Cross os the second highest and the higest class for non-royals.
So there is no precedence for bestowing titles to the in-laws of the DRF and it would be problematic to do so. Most titles (if not all) I can think of are in some way connected to a geographical area, and it would be a problem to bestow titles connected to a Danish area upon people who are not Danish citizens and who do not live in denmark.
 
Wasn't it the case that when Princess Louise, daughter of King Edward VII married, her husband was created Duke of Fife. However as he was the eldest on of the Earl of Fife, this was more an upgrade of a noble rather than the creation of a noble.
 
Wasn't it the case that when Princess Louise, daughter of King Edward VII married, her husband was created Duke of Fife. However as he was the eldest on of the Earl of Fife, this was more an upgrade of a noble rather than the creation of a noble.

I was going to tackle this side of the equation next, but didn't have time when I posted my last one.

I didn't look at the families of the wives of younger sons of the monarch, as the wives themselves would have taken their husbands' titles and thus I don't think it likely that their fathers would have been given titles if they didn't have any already, particularly if they weren't politically engaged. I also haven't really looked at the illegitimate children of monarchs, although I know that in many cases the sons were given peerages of their own, and the daughters often made good marriages. I believe that at least one of the husbands of one of William IV's illegitimate daughters was given a peerage during his father-in-law's reign, which I would assume was at least semi-connected to his royal relation.

Prior to the Hanovers, there were few occassions when royal daughters married men who hadn't inherited their peerages, but I'm finding that most of them seem to have been created a peer prior to their marriage (or prior to the connection that their marriage created having been established) and generally for different reasons. For example, one of the (full blood) sisters of Henry IV married the First Duke of Exeter, but he was also the half-brother of Richard II, and was granted his peerage during his brother's reign. Another example is Charles Brandon, who was created the 1st Duke of Suffolk some 10 years before he married the sister of the then-reigning Henry VIII. It seems that Henry's sisters liked making "lesser" marriages after their first, royal husbands died. Margaret Tudor married first James IV of Scotland, secondly the 6th Earl of Angus, and thirdly a man named Henry Stewart. Henry was the younger son of a Scottish lord who was created a Lord himself after his marriage, by his new stepson, James V.

Alexander Duff was, at the time of his marriage, the 6th Earl of Fife, and his new bride was the daughter of the then-Prince of Wales. His wife's grandmother, Queen Victoria, decided to create him the Duke of Fife, as she saw the title Duke to be more fitting for the son-in-law of a future King than the title Earl. Later, his title would be recreated for him, with a special remainder to allow his daughter and her heirs male to inherit the title, as he had no surviving sons. Further, when his father-in-law created his wife the Princess Royal his daughters were also created Princesses of Great Britain and Ireland, this being before the 1917 LPs.

Duff's brother-in-law, George V, didn't seem to share Victoria's concerns. When George's daughter, Mary, married the then Viscount Lascelles he didn't create any titles to elevate his son-in-law, who was the heir-apparent to the Earl of Harewood. George didn't see it a problem that the daughter of the King be married to a man who was "just" an Earl.

George VI did see fit to create the husband of his eldest daughter and heir presumptive a Duke, but he didn't think it necessary to make the DoE a Prince of the United Kingdom, that didn't happen until during HM's reign. And when Princess Margaret married, the Queen thought that an Earldom was enough for her new brother-in-law, Antony Armstrong-Jones - who I believe was at that point the only man to marry the child or sister of an English/British monarch without any familial connections to the nobility. This was followed by the husbands of Princess Anne, neither of whom received any titles at all.

Back on the issue of other royal families, I do think it is important to note that in many Continental European houses it was practice until very recently that individuals who didn't make dynastic marriages would lose whatever inheritence rights they had. Often, the eldest son of a king couldn't marry a woman who came from nothing because then he would lose out on getting the throne. This is a big reason why it was so common for royal men to make dynastic, love-less marriages then take on mistresses.
 
Got asked a question to which I bow to those with far great knowledge than I in the hope it can be answered.

From my daughter "Can a prince give up being a prince and decide to be non royal?"

The reason for her asking this is that at school they have been covering the Abdication Crisis (very loosely from what I've heard from her).

I know peers can surrender their peerage because that is what the late Tony Benn did so he could sit in the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords.

So could someone of Royal birth walk away from what they are, without having to "abdicate"

Hope folks can help, so I can at least give her something to think over and surprise her teacher with next week.
 
Back
Top Bottom