Jane Austen discussion
General Discussion
>
Why does Persuasion highlight the Baronetage?
date
newest »
newest »
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Gosh, well, I'm very glad they settled on Mr President in the end! But I do wonder what the first female president will be addressed as? I'd like to hear Madam President (as that ties in with a l..."
I do believe it will be Madame President and the First Gentleman. The vice president's husband is referred to as the Second Gentleman.
As for a gay president, it would be 1st lady or gentleman, as appropriate. As for trans, well I guess titles would be left to the individual though I cannot image that scenario any time soon. I think there are far too many conservatives here to be that inclusive.
A female governor's husband is "first gentleman" so I expect that will be the case with a female president's husband as well.
I'd forgetten there is alreay a female vice president! Nice that her hubby is the Second Gentleman. :)And that there is already precedent, as said, for state governors too.
Megan Markle was in a snit about Archie not being a prince but neither are anybody else's except for William's. **
She can come out of her snit now! With the Queen dead, Archie and Lilibet become the grand-children of the (new) monarch, ie, Charles III, and so are entitled to the title 'Prince' and 'Princess'.
There seems to be some kind of tentative rapprochment going on with Harry/Megan and the rest of the royals, which has to be good. Maybe the Queen's death is knocking heads together?
William has just been given the title, by his father, who now has the power to do so, of Prince of Wales, and Kate is Princess of Wales. He also becomes the Duke of Cornwall, his father Charles' own title (the title Prince of Wales, is the gift of the monarch, and is not automatic.)
JM - rather belated response to your post - I never knew any of that! I guess, as you say, it was indeed the 18th Century and they had to make it all up as they went along, without any precedent.Perhaps the only thing even approaching a precedent was in the 17thC when England briefly became a republic, and Cromwell took the title Lord Protector.
Though I think that title had also been used, much earlier, in the alte 15th C by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, during the minority of his nephew, Edward V. (Didn't last long, as he took the crown for himself, and Edward infamously 'disappeared')
When the French got rid of their monarchy in the Revolution, they turned to Ancient Rome for titles, and went for 'Consul' (I think Napoleon was 'First Consul' is that right?)
As a species, we do seem to like titles, I must say!!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Megan Markle was in a snit about Archie not being a prince but neither are anybody else's except for William's. **
She can come out of her snit now! With the Queen dead, Archie and Lilibet become..."
I do not follow celebrities or royalty as a matter of course but you cannot miss hearing all of it. I found that whole Megan Markle snit thing annoying because it was disingenuous. You do not go on Oprah if you want more privacy! Megan can pretend she did not know what was up but Harry knew the drill. His cousins' kids did not get the prince and princess title either because it did not belong to them. It had nothing to do with skin color. And grow up and get a job. In your late 30s, if you want more security, pay for it yourself. I do have issues with the lying. I also find it hard to believe there were not staff members assigned to give Megan some kind of Princess Protocal lessons.
My sister adored the Queen. She even got up to watch Harry and Megan's wedding. She was fine with them until they went rogue, so she gives me an earful now and then.
In a way I feel sorry for MM because I think she just didn't realise how boring most of the Royals' lives are - just opening hospitals and planting trees etc, not very glamorous at all. She saw the fairy-tale aspects, and not the reality. The British upper classes can be very, very dull.I feel she missed a huge opportunity to integrate non-white (and, American!) people into British royalty, but she would have had to have put up with all the 'dull stuff' and that was what she didn't want to do it seems. And curtsey to Kate, as well!! I think she thought celebrity was the same as royalty, which it isn't (royality is mor boring, but more real.)
I completely agree she should have had a 'minder' to show her what she had to do and so on. She was, I think, very 'alone' in the palace, and that wasn't good. The thing is, it was up to her to fit in with the palace, not the other way round. I don't think she and Harry gave it a long enough go before 'running away'.
Maybe, now, in this new era, things can have another chance to not be as bad as they became. But she MUST stop writing things, and going on TV. That must stop She has to 'play the part' in that respect, or be ostracised for ever by the UK (if she actually cares, of course.) Maybe now will be a turning point to a degree of reconciliation, and that would be good.
She's also getting older - and less glamorous. Hollywood will be a lot less keen on her....!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry - all the above was off topic for this group. Apologies! I wonder, trying to bring it back a bit to Austen, do any of her novels mention the royal family of the time? I know Emma was invited to be dedicated to the Prince Regent, but is that the only royal mention/connection?
One thing is for sure, Sir Walter Eliot would have adored to be more involved with the royals - think how thrilled he was to be related to Viscountess Dalrymple!!
In P&P, the Bennets ask Mr Collins in Anne de Bourgh has been presented at court. Alas, her health prevents it.
What does it mean for Emma to be invited to be dedicated to the Prince Regent?
The actual Prince Regent had one of his members of court tell Jane Austen that she would be permitted to dedicate her book to the prince. It’s funny because Jane Austen didn’t like him but was at that point obligated to do the dedication.
Oh, the book, not the character. Thanks. Now I get it.I thought the comment was about the character Emma and I did not remember it in the book. And I did not understand the custom of a person being "dedicated" to the Prince Regent. Honorary godchild? So many things Americans do not know about royalty because we do not have any. Some custom Dr Octavia Cox would explain on Youtube.
As an American, I’ve had to research countless things about Regency England for my books. We may speak (sort of) the same language but the cultures are quite different. It helps that the American legal system came mostly from Great Britain.
It was my fault - I should have written 'Emma' not Emma!!!!Interesting point about the Bennets asking about Anne de Burgh's presentation.
It does raise the question of just how 'grand' one had to be to warrant a presentation at court. I guess if Anne's grandfather was an earl, that placed her high enough.
In terms of precedence and the Baronetage, there's a bit in Persuasion where the Musgrave girls are asking Anne to 'have a word' with Mary, to stop Mary endlessly going on about insisting on her right to take precedence over their mother Mrs Musgrave. (Fat chance, of course, that poor Anne would have any influence over her pain in the backside sister!)It isn't spelt out in the text, but it must be that because Mary (Eliot) Musgrave is the daughter of a baronet, that she takes precedence (ie, goes through doors first etc) over her own mother-in-law.
Otherwise, the norm would be for Mrs Musgrave (Senior) to take precedence over her own daughter in law (Mrs Charles Musgrave) as the older woman of the two.
Remember the bit in P&P where the insufferably Lydia returns home as Wyckham's wife, and she pushes past her oldest sister, Jane, telling her that she, Lydia, now takes precedence and must go first in and out of rooms, as SHE is married, and Jane is 'only' Miss Bennet.
That said, what will happen when Jane and Lizzie are married? What determines precedence then? ie, amongst women who are all married to 'gentlemen' but those without titles? Or will Darcy take precedence not just because he's richer than the other men, or because his maternal grandfather is an earl, like his cousin Anne de Burgh??
Just to add that the Musgrave girls say that their mother knows that Mary takes precedence, but it's Mary endlessly banging on about it that grates (but then everything about Mary grates - she really is an appalling person.)
Way too detailed for me. I get why Lady Catherine is higher than Lady Lucas. First names mean everything. I get a Duke is better than an earl. I wish American news people would stop saying Princess Kate because she was not born a princess and call her by the correct title. Beyond a few more nuances picked up from Jane Austen and the BBC, that is about it.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "That said, what will happen when Jane and Lizzie are married? What determines precedence then? ie, amongst women who are all married to 'gentlemen' but those without titles? Or will Darcy take precedence not just because he's richer than the other men, or because his maternal grandfather is an earl, like his cousin Anne de Burgh??."Darcy might take precedence because he's older and his family is old and important. The name implies Norman ancestry, as does Fitzwilliam. Mr. Bingley is new money. I don't think he'll much care and neither will Jane. I doubt Lizzy will force anyone to be seated according to precedence. I bet she'll make it so married couples can sit next to each other instead of at the opposite end of the table.
One good blog I enjoy reading to learn about the Regency era is
"Jane Austen's World"
http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/
Another good one is NineteenTeen
https://nineteenteen.blogspot.com/
At informal gatherings I completely agree Lizzie/Jane will not make a fuss etc etc. But what about at formal affairs (eg, if Lady C condescends to visit!!!)I assume there must be some sort of general rules at play in those days?
It might have been by age, too - an older lady would take precedence over a younger one. But if two were close in age, especially middle age, that might be a bit contentious!!!!!!!
Yes, Kate is really Princess William, just as Diana was Princess Charles.But the media totally give up on that and in a way I understand and agree, as it would, I think, these days, sound a little too formal? I assume that when they in formal occasions, at the Palace or whatever, then the 'correct' form is always given?
The title that takes the biscuit though for being confusing is 'Hon'' for married couples.
I 'honestly' (ha ha, no pun intended!) have no idea what the rules are, but they revolve around who has inherited the 'Hon' title, the wife or the husband, and if both of them have!
I 'think' (???) that if a female Hon marries a non-Hon, then she is The Honorable Mrs Jane Smith, whereas if HE is the Hon, and she is not, then she is The Honorable Mrs John Smith.
What happens if they are both Hons I've no idea!
It comes into Nancy Mitford's Pursuit of Love, when one of the 'Terrific Hons' (the group of female cousins in the novel), marries a non-Hon, and she mentions somethning about how an envelope is addressed.
Then, of course, there is the issue of divorce, too. Once divorce became socially respectable in the 1930s, there had to be new rules drawn up when a divorced countess, say, did not immediatley remarry. I think she got the title 'Jane, Countess of Blankshire', to indicate she was a divorcee.
But that might be for dowagers, ie, Violet, Countess of Grantham (for Maggie), whereas Cora, Robert's wife, the current countess, was just 'Countess of Grantham'.
In one of Georgette Heyer's novels, a character who is the widow of the younger son of a duke, is called Lady Henry, but she is a daughter of an earl in her own right, so when she remarries (a baronet) she becomes Lady Ianthe again - and NOT, even more confusingly, Lady Fotherby (I think that's her husband's surname?), because as the daughter of an earl she outranks her own second husband, and so keeps her own 'daughter-of-an-earl' title, ie, Lady Ianthe (whereas when she was the wife of a younger son of a Duke, her husband outranked her, so she took his title, ie, Lady Henry)Talk about confusing!!!!!
Catherine, Princess of Wales sounds so lovely
Lady Catherine takes precedence over everyone, whether it is correct or not LOL! I'd say Lady Catherine, as a daughter of an Earl and widow of a knight or baronet plus being older, would go in first with Darcy. Then Lizzy and second ranked gentleman and so on. Lady Anne would go in ahead of Mary and Kitty because of her rank. I think servants and hostesses kept track of those kinds of things and it was just part of their upbringing. Mrs. Bingley would have had to learn it on the go after Mr. Bingley sr. inherited his wealth. Her daughters would learn all that in school. Lady Ianthe Sylvester is a ninnyhammer and wouldn't and couldn't stand on ceremony if you asked her to LOL! To be fair to her, it doesn't sound like her father's title or her late husband's status means much to her.
Yes, I agree - it would be foolish hostess who didn't let Lady Catherine go first everywhere!!!!And Anne de Burgh would, I think fairly, take precedence over the other young ladies.
As for servants, I think that they were even more attuned to who outranked who. In the servants hall, when ladies maids and valets accompanied their visiting employers, they were seated in rank order. So, if you were a lady's maid to a Countess, who was visiting a house, you would have a more senior position in the servants' hall than a lady's maid whose employer was only a baronet's wife visiting etc etc. Servants could be incredibly snobby!
I agree - ninny though Lady Ianthe is, she is not stuck up.
Jane Austen
Books mentioned in this topic
Sylvester or The Wicked Uncle (other topics)Georgette Heyer's Regency World (other topics)
What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist—the Facts of Daily Life in 19th-Century England (other topics)
Debrett's Peerage and: 2 (other topics)
Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage: 107th Edition (other topics)
More...
But I do wonder what the first female president will be addressed as? I'd like to hear Madam President (as that ties in with a lot of modern usage for senior female officials in many respects). But that might sound too formal when the time comes?
And what about her husband? Will he be First Gentleman? (The Clintons must have thought this through I assume 'just in case'!)
Which of course promptly begs the next question - what about when there is a gay President (of either gender?) (Or when it comes to addressing a trans president!)
Still, I guess it will all get sorted when the time comes. :) :)