Foreigners and Titles (correction)

[Milz]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., pengolodh_sc at y... wrote:
> > > The same goes for bowing or courtsying (sp?) to a foreign 
> > > sovereign.  American citizens aren't supposed too. I remember
> > > when the Prince and Princess of Wales paid a state visit here.
> > > Several etiquette mavens warned that US citizens do not bow or
> > > courtsy to the Royals because bowing or courtsying is a sign
> > > of subservience. Since the US is no longer a part of the
> > > British Empire and is a sovereign nation itself, US citizens
> > > aren't subservient to any foreign goevernments or heads of
> > > state. The etiquette mavens advised that when introduced to
> > > the Royal couple a handshake was appropriate.
> 
> To me this sounds very strange, and if I (a Norwegian citizen) were 
> to meet the American president and not bow to him, that would be an 
> implied insult directed at both the President as a person and the 
> country which he represents. 
> 
> Note that when speaking about bowing, I do not mean the 45degree bow 
> from the waist up; I am speaking of bowing the head.  
> 

It might sound strange, but if you did meet the President of the 
United States, whether you are a US Citizen or not, you don't have to 
do the head-bow thing because the President is no different than any 
other US citizen: he isn't in a higher social class. That's based on 
the notion of equality: the philosophy used by the Founders was one 
which expoused a "caste-less" society in the eyes of the 
law/government. So the President has the same legal rights as a 
factory worker. I see the head-bow used, but I think its more of an 
attempt to copy the more formal continental etiquette.


> > That's supposed to be "It boils down to that an American citizen 
is 
> > not a subject of a foreign citizen".
> > 
> > Also, a number of Americans have recieved orders from the Queen, 
> > Ronald Reagan being one of them. Again, he isn't supposed to
> > use the title "Sir", nor is his wife allowed to call herself
> > "Lady Reagan" (and definitely not Lady Nancy Reagan, because
> > that implies she's the daughter of a Duke, Marquess, Earl,
> > Viscount or Baron)
> > 

> 
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., foxmoth at q... wrote:
> > 	On a (vaguely) related note, it bugs me when Star Wars
> > fiction refers to Lord Darth Vader. Though there's no reason why
> > the SW universe can't have its own etiquette, it just sounds
> > incorrect to me.  Lord Darth Vader would indicate the son or
> > brother of the title holder, I think.  
> > Pippin, who learned this from reading Dorothy Sayers and hopes
> > she is right
> 

That irks me too (I guess I'm too nit-picky). 

> To get on the topic of Lord/Lady and hereditary titles in England 
and 
> in Scotland (the systems are not the same).  The titles, and the 
> institution of nobility that these titles form, that until recently 
> conferred an automatic right to a seat in to House of Lords, are 
> commonly termed peerage.  The persons holding those titles are 
> referred to as peers and peeresses.  
> 
> Disclaimer:  The following are an amateur's thoughts, and while I do 
> not believe I am wrong in any of my opinions, there is always the 
> possibility that I have got some facts wrong.  There is a CD-ROM on 
> the subject I want dearly, but £40 is a bit much right now.  In a 
> couple of months, though....
> 
> In England, the peerage refers to the titles of Duke/Duchess, 
> Marquess/Marchioness, Earl/Countess, Viscount/Viscountess and 
> Baron/Baroness, in descending order of precedence.  In Scotland, 
> Baron/Baroness is not a peerage-title, the title equivalent of 
> English Baron/Baroness being Lord/Lady of the Parliament.  Scottish 
> Barons/Baronesses are a story by themselves, but I'll get back to 
> that.  
> 
> In general, all peers are Lords/Ladies - not all of their children 
> are so; only the oldest child of a peer is a Lord/Lady (he/she will 
> by courtesy hold one of the lesser titles of one parent), the other 
> children do not inherit titles.  Let us (tongue-in-cheek-ly) 
> disregard reality for a moment, and assume that Simon Branford is 
the 
> Duke of Oxford and Marquess of Cambridge, having with his wife 
Hedwig 
> an oldest child named Hermione and a son named Ronald, and that Dai 
> Evans is the Earl of Pembroke and Baron of Ebbw, With one son named 
> Harry.  
> 
> (Disclaimer:  Any similarity between the above and any living person 
> is purely coincidental.  No shipping-preference should be inferred 
> from any of the above!).
> 
> Simon would then be "His Grace, the Duke of Oxford", Hermione would 
> be "The Most Honourable Lady Hermione, Marchioness of Cambridge" and 
> Ronald would be "The Honourable Ronald Branford".  The Duke may on 
> occasion be referred to as "Lord Simon" or "Lord Branford".  
Ronald's 
> children would not be termed "honourable", or anything else, as they 
> would not be children of a peer.  Lady Hermione's children would not 
> be termed anything, as they are not formally children of a peer 
until 
> His Grace, the Duke dies.  The Duke's wife would be termed "Her 
> Grace, the Duchess of Oxford", barring the event of a divorce.  
> 
> Dai would, on his side, be "Lord Dai, Earl of Pembroke", wile Harry 
> would be "Lord Harry, Baron of Ebbw".  Dai would sign his letters 
> as "Pembroke".
> 

Wouldn't the title of Marquess of Cambridge go to Ronald rather than 
Hermione? Because Ronald is a male and males get the titles (I can't 
remember this minute what that is called....) But you are correct that 
Lady Hermione's children wouldn't get any courtesy titles from her, 
unless she marries a peer.

> Apart from peerage-titles there are some other hereditary titles in 
> Britain, including that of "baronet", "lord/lady of the manor" 
> and "feudal baron" (in the baronage of Scotland).  For a very 
> complete article on the topic of the two latter titles, see 
> http://www.heraldicmedia.com/site/info/manor.html
> 
> *   The title baronet is all-British, and as I recall it, it was 
> originally created as a fund-raising project for the king 
(presumably 
> named George); you could at the time get such a title for a certain 
> amount of money - the sum could even be broken down into several 
> smaller down-payments.  Holding the title of baronet allows you the 
> prefix Sir/Lady, coupled with the suffix bart./brt., as 
> follows:  "Sir Robert Chiltern, bart." and "Lady Mabel Chiltern, 
> bart."  AFAIK, there are no rules regarding whether to use "bart." 
> or "brt."  The title is hereditary, and may be seen as a form of 
> hereditary knighthood.
> 
> *   In England, there is also the title "lord/lady of the manor".  
> These are the infamous titles that can be sold and bought, and today 
> they have rather less meaning than they used to.  I believe the 
> decision to allow the sale of such titles was made around 150-200 
> years ago, as a measure to allow peers with failing finances an 
> opportunity to raise money without separating themselves with 
> anything important.  The holding of a lordship of the manor is 
> separate from the holding of the manor itself, and can therefore be 
> sold separately (so one person can own the manor, while another owns 
> the title of lordship of that manor).
> 
> The lordships of manors are a form of title deeply rooted in 
> feudalism, and the last element of feudalism in England ended around 
> 1925.  For more complete information see the above website.  
> 
> At least one Norwegian holds such a title, one Dr. Sigmund Røkke 
> Johnsen.  He may under no circumstance style himself "Lord Newton", 
> the correct styling is "Dr. Sigmund Røkke Johnsen, lord of the manor 
> Newton", and if he introduces himself in that manner to a real lord, 
> said lord would probably think "upstart" in the most derisive 
manner, 
> and attempt to forget him.  If Sigmund Røkke Johnsen attempted to 
> introduce himself as Lord Newton, he might in the worst case be 
> reported to the police for attempted fraud.
> 
> *   Scotland does not have the title "lord/lady of the manor".  The 
> titles Baron/Baroness fulfilled the same spot in the hierarchy.  
> These titles have had a somewhat different development, however, and 
> carry rather more weight and importance in British society.  
> 
> Among points of interest, a Scottish baron is permitted two pipers; 
> and he is permitted to display a chapeau in his coat of arms, and 
> also supporters, a barred helm garnished with gold, a robe and 
unique 
> flags with his coat of arms (note:  I am referring to elements in 
the 
> coat of arms, not actual items (the pipers are real, however)).  
> Present style of address is e.g. "Charles Gairdner of Lethendy, 
Baron 
> of Lethendy", and for Baronesses, e.g., "Joan Cranfield Moneypenny 
of 
> Pitmilly, Lady Pitmilly, Baroness of Pitmilly". 
> 
> Again, see above-mentioned website for more complete information.
> 
> Best regards
> Christian Stubø
> who is endlessly fascinated by nobility and knighthoods, and yet 
> understands the reasons that Norway abolished nobility altogether in 
> 1824 (we only had two titles of count (on one hand) and one of 
baron, 
> anyway).

I understand your fascination with nobility because I am too (probably 
due to the nobility-less of the US). Oh sure the US media call certain 
US families (*cough* the Kennedys*cough*) "American Royality", but I 
see the term as oxymoronic because the US by definition of our form of 
government can't have "royality".

:-)Milz