British Peerage Puns

Oftentimes it seems that the grant or “promotion” to another title in the peerage is separate from land itself, e.g., when a king makes an earl into a marquess, they’re not necessarily giving them a special marquisate-sized tranche of lands to go along with it.

Was there any benefit to being a higher rank of nobility other than getting to demand others call you that rank and being technically higher in the order of precedence?

What really comes to mind is how the various Lord Protectors during the reign of Edward VI kept making themselves dukes (and then getting themselves executed) - why were they doing this at all? Wasn’t publicly “promoting” themselves much more blatant and even more likely to arouse the ire of other noblemen (as opposed to quietly granting themselves more land or straightforward embezzlement of state finances)?

Can someone please explain British peerage like I’m five years old? I just don’t understand the reasoning behind the aristocracy…why was that system created? Why are they rich and deserve to live the way they do? I remember someone in the show mentioned that Robert was one of the kings of the county or something.

From what I understand, the rules for inheriting a particular title in the British peerage system in the early 20th century could vary from title to title, but most of them followed similar logic. Let's say we have an Earldom that uses the standard rules of inheritance by primogeniture and consider the following scenario:

- The Earl has two sons and no other children. The elder son has a daughter but no other children. The younger son has a son of his own but no other children.

- The Earl's sons both die before him.

- By the time the Earl dies, his granddaughter (by his eldest son) has a son, but his grandson (by his younger son) is childless.

- My understanding is that the Earl's grandson would inherit the title, since he would be the closest male relative by direct male descent.

- Now, if instead the Earl's grandson died childless before the Earl (let's say the Earl just lives a long time and there was an accident), would I be correct in thinking that the Earl's great-grandson (by his granddaughter) cannot inherit the title in this scenario?

I think it can only be inherited from father to son. It can't go from the Earl, through his eldest son, through his granddaughter, to her son. Instead, I think they'd have to go back through the Earl's ancestry to look for second cousins once-removed and so on, to see if there are any living male heirs of direct descent from a previous Earl with the title.

Do I have this right?

So I'm currently really interested in highly-hierarchical societies, from dictatorships like the Soviet Union or North Korea, to the British Peerage System. I'd particularly like a narrative history (as opposed to a survey history).

.

If this is too niche, then I'd also go for a non-fic narrative history about England which happens to go over the peerage system a lot because of the subject matter. I like history books that aren't super academic or difficult to read, and would work well for people not already familiar with the subject.

.

I'd love something along the lines of Tom Holland's "Rubicon," in that it takes a complex subject and makes it accessible and readable, without sounding like a Wikipedia page. I know this is niche but any help would be really appreciated!

Why are the Bridgertons so wealthy and have such high standing, so much so that all of the men wanted her hand to increase their status. Like Anthony is just a Viscount which is like the fourth lowest rank in the peerage system above a Baron and below an Earl. Daphne doesn’t even have a title (The Honourable Daphne Bridgerton or Miss Bridgerton instead of The Lady Daphne Bridgerton or Lady Daphne) and yet a prince and a duke were interested. You would think they would have aimed for a debutante with higher rank or something but I guess she is still apart of court so that’s all that matters.

1. Are peer title holders allowed to name their first born son aka the heir apparent "creatively"? I went through half of current title holders of the English peerage and the heir apparent's names are quite traditional (they were named after their father, grandfather, great grandfathers, ancestors etc). For example, let's just say my son is the heir apparent of my title but there's just too many relatives, ancestors and people with the name Henry. Can I name him Mittens Romeo Ellington, 4th Earl Pawton or is there some kind of unspeakable rule for naming your heir apparent?
2. Can foreign citizens hold title? For example, if there was no male heir in the United Kingdom, the distant relative who lives in the United States can keep the title. If so, what happens to the estate/family seat?

I'd like to read a book where there's some sort of character development of a young kid/man working his way from the streets up to the ranks of the monarchy. Earning titles, knighthoods, the like.

A coming of age story in the old imperial days, I guess.

I was just deleting spam offering advanced degrees and wondered.

So the paper I'm currently working on is about King Richard III in his capacity as Duke of Gloucester, which is why I refer to him as Richard, Duke of Gloucester most of the time.

That made me curious - the titles are numbered, obviously, but as far as I understand it, the numbering starts all over again whenever a title is created anew?

For example, what if there was a William James, 3rd Duke of Atlantis in the first creation, and a William James, 3rd Duke of Atlantis in the second creation? How would I distinguish between the two?

Apparently there are no laws prohibiting the creation of hereditary peers outside of the royal family, but none have been created in 30 years. Why the change?

If Violet Crowley is the Dowager Countess, why is Robert the Earl of Grantham? Shouldn't he be the Count of Grantham? Any clarification/correction would be appreciated. Thanks from America! :)

Why is there no Duke of Upper Canada or Earl of Boston, etc?

I am talking about awarding British peerage titles. How do people decide who deserves a peerage or not?

Here is an example that will hopefully explain what I am talking about. This guy only sat as an MP for 5 years, he gets a barony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Lyell,_1st_Baron_Lyell

However this guy, was a diplomat and the Viceroy of India, ambassador to France, permanent under-secretary and he still only gets a barony instead of a higher title. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hardinge,_1st_Baron_Hardinge_of_Penshurst

So how does the awarding of peerage titles even work?

I realize that the most impactful reform of the House of Lords took place in 1999, which is outside of the purview of this sub, but the movement had existed for decades prior, so I hope the question will be considered appropriate.

As the title indicates, I think it would be interesting to get a modern perspective from a current member of the hereditary peerage. I understand that any significance or esteem related to holding one of these titles may be long extinct, but the fact that these individuals legally hold these titles to this day is a testament to their once formidable grandeur.

Some questions:

1. How often does your title come up in conversation outside of close friends or acquaintances?
2. At what age did you recognize the significance of your title or how rare it actually is to hold a peerage or honorary title?
3. What advantages/disadvantages does holding the title result in?
4. Is your title used on identification/passport or other official documents?
5. If you could choose to abolish or absolve yourself of the title would you or not?