[HPforGrownups] Royalty?

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 104110

On 2 Jul 2004 at 10:42, Metylda wrote:

> I was wondering if any of the more British people
> could enlighten me on if a 'Baron' would be of a royal
> bloodline or not?  We have The Bloody Baron, the
> bloody being from his mysterious death, but is the
> title of Baron ONLY a royalty thing?

No, in fact, it's commonly not Royalty but rather Nobility.

How titles are used differs from country to country across Europe, 
but assuming the Bloody Baron is British, this is how the British 
system works. Roughly speaking.

At the top you have the Royal Family - the Queen (or the King) and 
their close relatives. These are Royalty.

A step below these you have the Nobility, the Peers, the Lords 
(different terms used almost interchangably). While these families, 
especially the most senior ones, and oldest ones, often have 
connections to the Royal family, they are not royalty.

Historically, noble titles were hereditary - today, new peerages 
are typically Life Peerages (introduced in 1958) - they are not 
passed on to descendents, although the old hereditary peerages 
remain hereditary (and new ones could be created).

The thing is, there are 'ranks' of nobility. At the top are the 
Dukes, then the Marquesses, then the Earls, then the Viscounts, and 
finally the Barons.

So Baron is well down the scale.

It's complicated a bit though by *when* the Bloody Baron became a 
Baron - if you go back to, say, the year 1215 (Magna Carta and all 
that) Britain didn't have Dukes, Marquesses, or Viscounts. Back 
then it was much more possible for a Baron to be closely related to 
the King - although still not a member of the Royal Family.

[Special note: just to be complete, there are Barons in the Royal 
Family - it's just that they are never likely to be referred to 
primarily as such, because they have superior titles - HRH Charles, 
Prince of Wales is Baron of Renfrew - but because he's also Earl of 
Carrick, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, and Duke of Rothesay, 
as well as Prince of Wales, it's not that likely it's going to come 
up very often).

If the Bloody Baron's primary title was Baron, as seems likely, 
then unless he's very old, the odds are that any royal blood he has 
is very diluted.
 
> Also, we have Sir Nearly Headless Nick.  My understand
> was, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that being
> called Sir was an indication of knighthood.  I'm not
> up on British History, but was being a knight
> something that was bewtowed or was it hereditary?

Generally a Knighthood is bestowed on an individual - but there is 
an excpetion, the Baronetcy - a Baronet is addressed as Sir, but 
does pass the title onto their eldest son. It's not a noble title, 
it's a step below that. Nearly Headless Nick is too old to be a 
Baronet, though - the title wasn't introduced until 1611 and he 
died in 1492.
 
> I'm also very curious as to if there were ever any
> 'Magical' Royalty, or do we think that the WW swore
> oaths to a Muggle King and Queen?

We really don't know.

Personally I've always taken the view that Wizarding Britain 
probably does acknowledge the Queen, but there's no real evidence 
for or against that that I can see.




Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia