Peerage: Nobility, Titles, and Address

Here's a question I'm struggling to answer: how would you traditionally refer to a Lord Mayor by name?

Would it be:

1. Lord Mayor [first name]
2. Lord Mayor [surname]
3. [name], Lord Mayor of [place]?)

Or, none of the above?

I've tried searching for references to existing Lord Mayors, but in each instance, the person is named, and "Lord Mayor" is not used as a title in direct conjunction with a proper name.
 
I'd plump for none of the above, as it's more likely to be something like, "This is the Lord Mayor, Alderman Bloggs." or "Here is Mr Bloggs, he's the Lord Mayor." 1 and 2 are out, because it isn't a title as such eg like Lord Peter Wimsey or Baron Hardacre, and the only time I think you'd get number 3 is if it were something like a formal gathering eg at court, with names being announced as people were about to go down the stairs/into the ballroom.

By the way, do be careful over the "Lord" bit which in England is only given in relation to cities, and big/culturally important ones. Most places simply have plain "Mayor" and I suspect this was more the case in the past than now (ie fewer Lord Mayors then) -- a quick look at Wikipedia suggests only one proper LM before 1400, with the City of London position coming along by custom and usage, not letters patent as the much later LMs.
 
Cheers for the reply. I've seen references before where a titled baron can hold the position of mayor. In my instance, I'm looking to use Lord Mayor in lieu of Baron, while retaining the name.

I know it's a fantasy world, I can do what I like etc, and I've already customised my use of peerage. I was just wondering if there were any useful real world examples I could draw on, where Lord Mayor might be used as a title with a name, ie, Lord Mayor [name], etc, as above.
 
Personally I'd fight shy of using it, as it looks like a mistake rather than a deliberate non-standard use. I'd find another title to use or invent one.
 
I'm finding addressing characters by titles continues to frustrate.

Namely because it's so much easier on the reader to refer to a character by a single name (usually their first) along with any title, as necessary. It's a single pronoun for the reader to remember and refer to. It allows for a fundamental consistency throughout the narrative. This is especially important where a number of characters may be named.

But technically titles should be assigned by family name or region, which immediately results in multiple pronouns being assigned to the character, and different frames of reference being used. Which is all fine and expected in historical fiction where the characters and pronouns will be more familiar.

For example: Andrew Windsor, Duke of York.

Who can variably be referred to as Andrew, Andrew Windsor, Windsor, The Duke, Duke of York, York, (and, of course, Prince Andrew) - according to who is addressing him. In most instances, the pronouns are familiar enough to (at least a British) reader that confusion will be minimal - even though there are 3 pronouns and 6 different potential ways of referring to them.

But this becomes problematic in fantasy where the first name, family name, and region, will be all completely new and unfamiliar pronouns. Keeping to just one form of reference/address just isn't realistic.

For example: Brandan, Brandan Barrickson, Barrickson, The Duke, Duke of Framley, Framley - are all these the same person, or different people being referred to? Any sane reader will be forced to stop and think about it, and face potential confusion - especially if there are multiple male members in the same family, let alone other characters with the same first name (Andrew is hardly uncommon, either).

In which case, I'm now thinking I should break all convention when it comes to issues of peerage - and lose a degree of historical realism - simply to have a compromise that works for the best interests of the reader.

That means all characters referred to by their first name, or title + first name, with any reference to family names or regions pushed into the background - referred to when necessary, but never used in such a way as to cause confusion as to which character is being referred to.

[EDIT - A check check suggests this may be the approach GRRM took, but I'd have to re-read with an eye on that. EDIT 2: In fact, a quick search of the ebook suggests he avoid common titles entirely, ie, duke, earl, viscount, baron, etc]
 
Last edited:
To my mind, anything with more than two titles used for a character will become confusing. Apologies if I'm wrong about this, but from the excerpts I've seen of your novel I got the impression that your setting was pre-gunpowder medieval and wasn't reminiscent of an exact point in history the way ASOIAF is reminiscent of the Wars of the Roses (at least to start with). In that situation, I think you can get away with a lot.
 
And here's a link to a good piece on titles, which underlines the point that it's all about land:
A Quick And Dirty Guide To Feudal Nobility - Dan Koboldt

So in my above example, Andrew Windsor would never be referred to as "Duke Andrew". But this is the sort of compromise that makes everything easy for the reader. (Whereas writing "the duke, Andrew" all the time will just look wrong, plus adds extra words.)

I guess there's an argument I can break rules - we already do with kings, for example.

EDIT: Cheers, Toby - I just don't want to be ignorant!
 
This is just my opinion, Brian, but unless you’ve written something glaringly ignorant, I think you’re ok. Maybe in your setting, they just do that. After all, if they call the king “Your Majesty” instead of “Your Grace”, they’re not really wrong, they’re just one step away from what’s technically accurate for a medieval society and one step closer to the pop-culture opinion of the medieval world. To me, the change doesn’t grate enough: it’s just substituting one word for another and doesn’t muck the setting up in a deeper way that, say, introducing guns would. I’m getting away from the original topic here, but a lot of fantasy introduces changes that don’t really seem to change the medieval world they’re based on as much as they should. Many fantasies are effectively medieval Europe without the religion, which would have been hugely different, or have magic everywhere but no corresponding rise in standards of living (or in mental health problems from being on the receiving end!).
 
To be honest, I think you're over-thinking things here, Brian. It's perfectly possible for you to introduce a character called Brandon, Duke of Framley, and thereafter have different people -- depending on their own rank and familiarity with him -- call him Brandon (though that would be very few people indeed in reality, limited to very close family and even wives might not assume that familiarity, so you might as well forget it), the Duke (where there is only the one relevant duke in discussion so there's no confusion), Duke Brandon (for those ignorant of correct usage) and Framley (for his peers and superiors). As long as no one else has a similar forename or title, I really can't see the problem, as long as he's introduced correctly either at the beginning or very soon thereafter, and occasionally his complete title is given for him by way of reminder.

I think very few people would ever have used his surname once he became duke -- so simply forget all about the Barrickson possibilities.

Of course, the real problem comes when a son succeeds to the title and the previous Frederic, Earl of Dovereal becomes Duke of Framley. So avoid sons inheriting in the story is my advice!


By the way, Prince Andrew is never simply called Windsor or Andrew Windsor. Strictly, as the son of the monarch he has no surname at all, since the Order in Council applies only to those of HMQ's male descendants who don't have a royal title. I think he and some others have signed marriage registers as Mountbatten-Windsor when they didn't need to, but I rather suspect that comes from wanting to honour their father than anything else. (Of course, usage abroad, where matters aren't understood or there are legal issues requiring the giving of a surname it might be different, but not here.)
 
Last edited:
Brian Turner said:
For example: Brandan, Brandan Barrickson, Barrickson, The Duke, Duke of Framley, Framley - are all these the same person, or different people being referred to? Any sane reader will be forced to stop and think about it, and face potential confusion - especially if there are multiple male members in the same family, let alone other characters with the same first name (Andrew is hardly uncommon, either).
Click to expand...

I think people are used to this sort of thing. None of us has just one name.

I am variously "Mr Baldwin", "Liam", "Liam Baldwin", "Daddy", - to the kids in my son's class at school I am "Eben's Dad" (to my face. they actually say. "Hello, Eben's Dad!", My mother calls me "Son", my wife calls me "Husband". This is not just restricted to the titled classes.
 
As a matter of interest, Brian, has a beta reader complained about the plethora of names for your characters, or is it just something that's niggling you? Unless someone actually does find it confusing, I'd not worry about it. Even then, I suspect the confusion can be overcome if you make a point of bringing in the complete title at some point. If you do think you still need to drop a name or two, then I'd drop the surname and forename, in that order, as being the least important for the narrative. (So even in his own POV, Framley would think of himself as such.)

And don't forget you can have a dramatis personae list at the beginning with titles give in full there.
 
Take a look at Austen. Not fantasy, but lots of people with names similar and the same. So in P&P eldest daughter is Miss Bennett. But when second eldest is away without older sister, she is Miss Bennett. You have Mr Darcy, Miss Darcy, Col.Darcy etc. And married people in Austen switch names and life continues. As long as you define as their introduction their name and title, people can keep up. Even if you have sons and brothers with the same name (see S&S I think for that). As always the context will help. If we know son Buckwith is at Brighton then the Buckwith being spoken to in London will be dad etc.
 
The Judge said:
To be honest, I think you're over-thinking things here, Brian. It's perfectly possible for you to introduce a character called Brandon, Duke of Framley
Click to expand...
The Judge said:
As a matter of interest, Brian, has a beta reader complained about the plethora of names for your characters, or is it just something that's niggling you?
Click to expand...

It bugs me because I'm worried about being seen to do something so obviously "wrong" as [title]+[first name] - ie, Duke Brandon. Especially because it comes up very quickly in the prologue.

But I'm trying to keep everything reasonable clear and simple and consistent for general readers. I see it as a necessary compromise. Heck, I've already written my own custom rules for peerage, not least with how they apply to women.

But I still dislike doing it this way.

[EDIT: I searched through the Game of Thrones ebook, and there are hundreds of standalone references to "Lord Eddard" or "Lord Tywin". I guess it's more acceptable in fantasy - and that I am over-thinking!]
 
One thing that might be amusing and actually does correspond to real-life usage: High nobles, and especially royalty, tend to have formal names which are extremely complicated, with all manner of subsidiary titles hanging off them. I've seen this in fantasy stories on occasion, also in SF ones where monarchies have come back.
 
Brian Turner said:
I'm worried about being seen to do something so obviously "wrong" as [title]+[first name] - ie, Duke Brandon.
Click to expand...
If it's not definitely Europe, it doesn't matter. Some other planet or reality may have different rules.
After all King Richard etc is correct even here.
I think there are two important aspects:
1) Readers Expectations
2) Applying your own rules, if different from Mediaeval Britain (Or Continent), should be consistent unless there is a clear reason in the story why they are broken.

Historic British rules really only absolutely apply to fiction set in a more or less Britain. Even then, Scotland and Ireland have slight variations to England + Wales.

Perhaps you are worrying too much.

Brian Turner said:
I searched through the Game of Thrones
Click to expand...
I'd only use that as a guide to writing GRR Martin fan Fic. The thing he's most expert at is GOT, and it's heading WOT wards! :D
 
This is not really peerage-related, as it is to do with honorifics of the clergy:

I've been researching the proper term for one of my characters to say, essentially, 'Hi, I've been sent by the Abbess'.

The web tells me the correct honorifics are: The Reverend (Rev.) Mother Superior Mary, The Very Reverend (V. Rev.) Abbess Mary, Reverend Mother Mary, Mother Mary.

So, just to check, the name used would be the first name, not her surname, right? It's annoying as I want her to be termed 'The Very Reverend Liprot' or 'Abbess Liprot' which is a last name. But I suppose I'll have to work on a first name, now.

pH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A Fantasy novels with nobility/Rulers wearing gold masks Book Search 2

Similar threads


Back
Top