[ Previous ] [ Next ]

This article is a response to ongoing frustration with the usage of British titles to be found in both reference books and novels about the Revolution. How many times have you seen a reference to "Lord Francis Rawdon" or "General Cornwallis?" I've stopped counting. And the thing is, they're both wrong. It seems bizarre to write about these people without at least making some attempt to get their names correct, so for those who are hopelessly confused by all the references and mis-references floating around, here is a quickie overview of the basics to (hopefully) clarify the situation.

The field of British titles, rules of precedence and so on is enormous and gloriously convoluted -- exactly what one would expect from a system that has grown up haphazardly over the period of at least a thousand years, and was added to by kings who arrived to rule Britain from Scandinavia, Germany, France, Scotland and elsewhere. But the basics needed to understand the few people who came over here during the Revolution should be simple enough for me to manage. (Then again, I tried to explain it all to a writer friend, and I think it just made her more confused.)

The British peerage consists of five ranks. In order of descending importance they are duke, marquess/marquis (spelling optional), earl, viscount and baron. Holding one of these titles grants a man the right to a seat in the House of Lords, which had considerable political power in the 18th century. Below the rank of baron are two additional titles, baronet and knight, which are honors that do not give their holders either entry into the peerage or a seat in the Lords.

Starting at the top, with an example: Susan Bertie Tarleton's dad was Robert Bertie, Duke of Ancaster. His title, Ancaster, differed from their family name, Bertie. This is common with older titles, which often refer to an area of land. ("The Duke of Devonshire," for example.) Ancaster would have been addressed as "your grace" or more casually "Ancaster." His military rank would be attached to his title, not his family name. I.e., he was never addressed as "Colonel Bertie." With a rank as high as duke, he'd be unlikely to be referred to by his military rank at all. People would know what it was, but they wouldn't commonly use it. In fact, when I tried quickly to find a contemporary example of how the two were combined, I came up dry. My best guess would be "Colonel his Grace the Duke of Ancaster" -- which explains why nobody bothered very often!

A duke's heir apparent (his eldest son) is addressed by his father's second-highest title as a courtesy. His younger sons are "Lord" + first and surname, e.g. "Lord Peregrine Bertie. Lord Peregrine was never called Lord Bertie. Similarly a daughter would be called Lady Georgiana Bertie or Lady Georgiana, NOT Lady Bertie.

This example illustrates the general point that the forms "Lord" + first name ("Lord Francis") and "Lord" + surname ("Lord Rawdon") are NOT interchangeable. An individual will have the right to be addressed one way or the other, never both. This is probably the most common usage error to be found in RevWar documents. He was "Francis, Lord Rawdon," NOT "Lord Francis Rawdon." Period.

The right to use the "Lord Francis" form is something that a man is born with. It is based on his parentage, and it will never change over the course of his life. Essentially, what it means is "this man has no title of his own, but his father is a senior peer, i.e. a Marquess or Duke."

The "Lord Rawdon" form means that the man himself holds a title of his own, and that title may change several times over his lifetime. Again, Rawdon makes a good example. While he served in America, he was Lord Rawdon. When his father died, he became Lord Moira (i.e. the Earl of Moira). Late in his life, the King elevated him to be the Marquess of Hastings, so he became Lord Hastings.

The previous example also illustrates that the "Lord" + title form of address is used on all but formal occasions for any peer below the rank of duke. A man addressed as "Lord Middleton," for example, might equally be an earl, a marquess, a viscount or a baron.

In general, the ranks of marquess and earl follow the same rules (as each other). Either is addressed as "my lord" and would have a military rank attached to his title. Thus, "General Lord Cornwallis" or "General the Earl Cornwallis" (or if we're getting really formal "General the Right Honourable Earl Cornwallis") but NOT "General Charles Brome" and NOT "General Cornwallis". Calling the Lord General simply "Cornwallis" is a bit informal, but it is correct. That is, you'll notice, how he (and other titled individuals) signed their letters. In a world as small as the peerage, the designation of the title alone was all the identification that was necessary.

The heir apparent to a marquess or earl will hold his father's second-highest title as a courtesy. Again we have Lord Rawdon as an example. (He's so extremely useful.) His father was the Earl of Moira and had a secondary title of Baron Rawdon, which was the one that his son was entitled to use in everyday life. A courtesy title does not grant the son a seat in the House of Lords, and it is exactly as it sounds -- a courtesy. In some documentation, relating to the Court for instance, you will find Rawdon referred to more formally as "the Honourable Francis Rawdon."

The daughters of a marquess or earl are addressed as per those of a duke, e.g. "Lady Charlotte Rawdon." The younger sons of a marquess are like those of a duke -- "Lord George Smith" -- but the younger son of an earl is merely "the Honourable George Smith."

Viscounts and Barons, the two lowest ranks of the peerage, are addressed as "my lord" and referred to on all but the most formal occasions as simply, for example "Lord Coleraine." Their children are the same as an earl's, for example "the Honourable George Hanger." Formally, Georgey was "Major the Honourable George Hanger," though calling him "Major Hanger" is perfectly acceptable. (I've also seen contemporary documents addressing him as "the Honourable Major Hanger," though I don't believe that is technically correct.)

The two non-peerage ranks, baronet and knight, use the same forms of address (as each other). In casual terms, a baronetcy is simply a hereditary knighthood. (There's a little more to it than that. If you want the details, check out Burke's Peerage.) Each rank is referred to as "Sir" + "first and surname", e.g. "Sir Banastre Tarleton" or "Sir Henry Clinton" NOT "Sir Clinton." And Ban's wife was "Lady Tarleton" NOT "Lady Susan Tarleton." (But just to complicate matters, though, if she had been her father's legitimate daughter, rather than his bastard, she would have been Lady Susan Tarleton by virtue of being a duke's daughter, which outranks the title she gained through her marriage.)

And if this makes it even more confusing or you want to know the more esoteric details, there are a number of online sources, such as Burke's Peerage which cover the topic in depth.