There are other royal courts, reigning and non-reigning, in many countries, including
some residing in the United States. Some of these courts are remnants of the Western
Holy Roman Empire, which certainly did not disappear in 1806 as historians often
claim, and others are part of the Eastern (Byzantine) Holy Roman Empire founded by Constantine
in xxx, several hundred years before the Western Holy Roman Empire. As Friedrich
Heer says in his 1967 classic work, The Holy Roman Empire, "Francis II was called
upon [by Napoleon] to divest himself of the imperial crown, in terms so threatening
that he had no choice but to comply. He did so on 6 August 1806, and at the same
time dissolved the 'Roman Empire,' an act for which he had no legal justification."
When the Western Holy Roman Emperor "dissolved" the empire, the Byzantine Porphyrogenitus,
as the ranking Byzantine (Eastern) potentate, considered himself as the successor,
as did the Byzantine royalty and nobility, who eventually came together as the government-in-exile of the (Eastern) Holy
Roman Empire.
The present Byzantine Emperor, Caesar Dominus Pius Flavius Johannes VII Daniel IV
Alexander Augustus, came to the office as any emperor--he was born to it, of a distinguished
royal lineage that ruled in the ancient Byzantine empire, which at one time even included
parts of Italy. The Byzantine kingdoms and principalities tended to stay together,
even though the royalty of the "German" Holy Roman Empire renounced rights and titles
with abandon, so that only their monarchist followers were left hoping for restoration. Meanwhile, the Byzantines went right on with the idea of a non-political government "in exile,"
which is where they are today. Many monarchists are focused on the Western (read
German) royalty, not the Eastern, and so many are intent upon the idea of a political
restoration that the idea of a non-political, in-exile restoration that maintains and
nurtures the ideals of royalty, nobility, and chivalry never occurs to them. And
besides, the Byzantines learned long ago to just go about their business among themselves,
and not stir up the hornet's nest of Germany. Certain imperial princes, especially
those in exile in South America, denied any "dissolution" of the ancient empire by
forming a "League of Princes of the Holy Roman Empire," just as Napoleon's imperial
prince supporters had formed the Confederation of the Rhine. The Confederation vanished with
Napoleon, but the League still exists today as the Byzantine Holy Roman Empire, in exile,
headed by His Imperial and Apostolic Royal Majesty, The Emperor Cæsar Dominus Pius
Flavius Johannes VII Daniel IV Alexander Augustus who has not relinquished his rights or
powers.
A royal dynasty can be created by force of arms, by grant, and by creation. Some princely
families (in America and elsewhere) have received letters patent from the Porphyrogenitors
("born to the purple"), Princes of the Blood Royal of the Byzantine Holy Roman Emperor who have, in modern times as in ancient, the authority to grant or create
hereditary princes who then head ancient non-political principalities of the Holy
Roman Empire. In creating a prince by grant, Porphyrogenitors assign a principality
to the prince, and the prince then becomes the fons for his nobles and knights. The assignment
of a non-political principality is an ancient practice, and, on occasion, the monarch
further grants the principality in perpetuity and the prince is no longer a vassal prince, but is elevated to the rank of a sovereign prince, i.e., a monarch in
his own right.
The non-political, or titular, principality is one which once existed, but which is
currently extinct, having been in past centuries absorbed by force of arms into another
country. However, if the Holy Roman Emperor never relinquished rights to the principality (and he rarely did), it is still considered by the "Holy Roman Empire-in-Exile"
as within the provenance of the Blood Royal Princes, but "non-political." That is,
the geographical boundary of the principality no longer exists, but the title to
the principality continues as legitimate and is considered quite real not only by the League
of Princes of the Holy Roman Empire-in-Exile, but also by many other European royalty
and nobility.
Even some monasteries of the Holy Roman Empire were created principalities, and the
abbot made a prince. The Roman Catholic Church also followed that practice, as, for
example, the Abbey of San Luigi which was recognized by the Church and France as
a principality on August 25, 1883 at Tunisia and Tripolitania, and the abbot, Fr. Henrice
Pancomez was selected as the abbey's first Prince-Abbot. Also, the Pope, from time
to time, creates a titular bishop who holds the authority of a See that has ceased
to geographically exist. This practice was derived from the Holy Roman Emperor's practice
of creating hereditary princes of ancient but extinct principalities.
Americans usually think of a prince merely as the son of a king or queen (deriving
the idea from the world's most visible monarchy, the British), and Americans, again,
have to be instructed and reminded that a prince can be a monarch in his own right--as,
for example, Prince Rainier of Monaco who holds the title Serene, denoting
his status as a sovereign head of a royal house, with all the rights and privileges
of the sovereign, including the right to create nobles and knights for his royal
houses. Unlike Rainier who reigns as well as rules, there are Americans who are themselves
hereditary (and even sovereign) princes of non-reigning royal houses. A non-reigning
royal house, just as a reigning one, may legitimately have a full complement of nobility and one or more Orders of Chivalry, and the head of the house, regnant or not, retains
full powers to create legitimate nobles and knights as needed or desired.
Of course, Americans know about such titles as king, queen, prince, duke, marquis,
earl (and its European equivalent, the count; for Americans, the most famous count
is the fictional vampire Dracula, an identity which causes some problems for genuine
counts.), viscount, and baron, but they think that these titles are strictly British and
are issued only by the British Crown. But royalty and nobility are not only not "strictly
British," they are not even primarily British--Britain's modern monarchy itself has a Continental source (Germany), and there are many other royal houses in Europe,
Latin America--and even in the United States. Concerning the royal houses in the United
States, Americans are usually astonished to discover that one can be a solidly patriotic American and yet still belong to a royal house or hold a legitimate hereditary
title from the fons of a royal house. Perhaps Americans have the idea that the term
democracy excludes the term royalty, but a hereditary and non-regnant royal house
can exist very nicely within a democracy. For example, Italy is a democracy, yet an Italian
can be a hereditary count. Likewise, America as a democracy can--and does--easily host
hereditary American counts (and barons and marquis, and dukes) of princely royal
houses headed by hereditary and legitimately titled princes who happen to hold American
citizenship.
The idea that titles come from royal houses, not governments, is a very difficult
thing for Americans to grasp--so difficult, in fact, that modern monarchs seldom attempt
to explain the fact to Americans, whose heads are filled with fairy tale kingdoms
and visions of cinematic "royalty." All those King Arthur movies have taken a toll on
the real thing. Furthermore, Americans have complicated their ideas of royalty by
readily granting royal status to cinema actors. The term "movie queen" is well known.
Clark Gable was called "the king," and John Wayne was called "the duke." In music, Elvis
Presley was "the king." The American press, otherwise so efficient in glorifying
movie actors, has a particularly difficult time grasping the idea of noble titles
as emanating from a royal house, not a government, so much so that royal houses in America simply
avoid the press whenever possible. For example, the press can't seem to understand
the fact that a prince is not necessarily the son of a king, but can also be a sovereign monarch in his own right with rulership over a geographic or hereditary principality.
The identity of royalty and government is so firmly fixed in the American mind that
it takes a considerable amount of education and reeducation to help Americans to
see that a royal house is not political or governmental, but familial--a family. Hence,
Americans (because they have no experience in these matters) have to be instructed and
regularly reminded that monarchies--including the royal house of England--come from
Europe and Eastern Europe and exist there (or elsewhere in exile) to this very day.
There are only some dozen or so "governing" European monarchs remaining today--which is odd,
considering that until the early 1900s, the most common form of government in the
world was the monarchy, a system that had survived from Old Testament days. But monarchies have fallen on hard times, and even surviving monarchies are, at most, constitutional.
Americans are usually surprised to learn that such countries as Sweden, Denmark,
Norway, and Belgium have monarchies.
Americans sometimes have some difficulty understanding the non-reigning, non-political,
non-governmental royal house. In the case of noble and royal titles, Americans are
not at all stupid, just unfamiliar with certain usages and customs, and an unruffled
explanation of one's legitimate use of a noble title can suffice for the American
who wants to know--otherwise, the title can simply be used without explanation. A
common question from an American to a nobly titled American is, "Well, what do you
do with a title? What does it mean?" The answer is, "Well, what does a book do with its title?
It is used for self-identification and is clearly stamped on its binding so that
it can be identified." The questioner could also be asked, "Well, what do you do
with your title of 'Mr./Mrs./Ms./Dr.'?" Usually, the questioner gets the idea. Titles are,
in fact, personal property and are always used at the discretion of the holder (not
the user, as some seem to think).
THE AMERICAN FONS
So, Americans are fascinated with titles, and for some Americans mere fascination
is insufficient--they want a title. Once one understands that a legitimate title has
a legitimate fons honorum, the problem for the title-seeking American becomes one
of finding a legitimate fons--and then actually acquiring the title. Because of the influence
of the Constitution, there are no laws at the federal, state, or local levels that
control the acquisition and use of titles. Of course, one could merely assume a title,
such as was done in the 19th century which abounded in "doctors" who never went to
school and "professors" who never taught, but the possibility of being exposed as
a fraud always made self-conferment a danger. Further, there were always laws against
committing fraud, but these laws dealt with actual damages incurred, not to the use of a
self-conferred title. There were (and are) no laws preventing the use of the titles
"Dr." or "professor"--until the fake "Dr." takes out an appendix or the fake "professor"
tries to conduct a class at university.
Americans are familiar with and are fairly comfortable with the titles of doctor,
professor, and reverend, the American equivalents to life peerage titles. The "life
peerage" is the British practice of granting a title of nobility that is vital, i.e.,
not inheritable, but ceases to exist upon the death of the holder. A famous life peer
was Lord Laurence Olivier (or: Laurence, Lord Olivier), who held the title of baron. Upon his death, Olivier's
title became extinct. The advantage to the British Crown of awarding life peerages
is obvious--the great can be honored with a noble title without the need to distribute royal
lands or wealth and without disturbing the peace of mind of the ancient hereditary
nobility who may not welcome a parvenu. The life peerage is virtually unknown among
the other European monarchies, whose titles, when granted, are invariably hereditary and
whose patents of nobility usually ennoble the entire family. England considers the
European practice extravagant, but Europe considers the British practice parsimonious.
The titles doctor, professor, and reverend are not inherited or granted from a sovereign,
but, in true American fashion, they are personally earned through the application
of the American work ethic (there is a certain amount of intelligence involved, of
course, but it is also true that the Ph.D. can result as much from diligence as intelligence.).
Americans like the idea of "working for" a title, so three organizations have evolved
in America to fill the need for a "work ethic nobility"--higher education, fraternal orders, and religion.
AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION AS A FONS
From higher education come two coveted prenominals, the titles "Dr." and "Professor,"
both of which are, in some areas of this country, treated with as great a respect
as any European title of nobility. (This is especially true in certain areas of the
American deep South where, sometimes, a "Dr." or a "Prof." may not even have to produce
a driver's license to pass a check.) The holder of a doctor's degree (whether the
Ph.D., the Ed.D., the D.Psy., or the M.D., or any other variation) is granted the
non-transferable, vital (non-inheritable) title "doctor," which makes the doctor's title an
American equivalent to a life peerage. There are, however, two versions of the doctorate,
the "earned" doctorate and the "honorary" doctorate, awarded honoris causa. The earned doctor's degree is a result of approximately ten years' of personal (well, not
totally personal, since a scholar's spouse commonly participates in getting that
degree, often by holding down two or more jobs and by providing free reading and
editing services, not to mention acting as a sounding board for academic theory. The ten years
are a total of four for the undergraduate, two for the Master's Degree, and four--sometimes
five--for the doctorate). effort on the part of the scholar. The earned doctorate is the foundation of the true title of American nobility, the honorary doctorate.
As the titles granted by a reigning monarch, so the honorary doctor's degree (usually
awarded during a university's commencement exercises) is an award for an individual's
outstanding service to mankind in general and the university in particular--which,
in one sense, means that the president of a university cloaks himself in the power of
the state and takes on the role of the sovereign prince. (University professors generally
agree that the real vestiges of the feudal system are not found in Europe, but in
the halls of academe where the Chairman is Baron to the Dean, and the Dean is vassal
prince to the sovereign president.) The honorary degree most often awarded is the
"Doctor of Humane Letters." Does the holder of an honorary degree have the right
to the title of "doctor"? Yes, absolutely, although writers of books of etiquette seem to
think that the holder of the honorary doctorate should not use the title, which is
utter nonsense and sheer snobbery on the part of "etiquetticians." Indeed, certain
etiquetticians, apparently impressed by the physician's annual income, claim that only the
M.D. should use the title "Dr." in public--which is not only further nonsense and
snobbery, but also ignorance, since the title "doctor" means "teacher"--and medical
doctors are not teachers. Furthermore, since the Ph.D. (and, in general, the other doctors)
holds three degrees (B.A./S., M.A./S., Ph.D.) to the MD's two (B.S. and M.D.), there
is no question that the Ph.D. has a firmer academic grip on the title of "doctor"
than does the M.D.
While the title of "Dr." is derived from the degree, the title of "Professor" is derived
from a profession, that of college/university scholar/teacher. It is believed in
some university communities that the title of "professor" is a superior title to
"doctor," and at many fine universities a professor is insulted if addressed as merely
"doctor." (This is not usually the case in the American South, where the titles are
often used interchangeably without giving offense.) Those outside the university
setting usually don't know that there are three ranks of professor, those of assistant (usually
granted upon being hired), associate (often granted after five to seven years if
tenure is given), and full (granted at least after an additional five to seven years,
although often longer), and that one is promoted to a higher rank not only after a passage
of a lengthy period of time, but also only after measurable and outstanding contribution
in the areas of scholarship (publication of articles and books), teaching, and university and public service. Unlike the nobleman who only has to please his monarch,
the professor who wishes to be promoted must be approved first by his/her department,
then the Chair of the Department, then the Dean of the College, then the Vice-President for Academic Affairs, then the President, and--finally--the Board of Trustees.
The prestige and power attached to the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor
are actually limited to the university community itself, since, in general, the public doesn't use the title "professor," probably because the patent medicine hucksters
of 19th century America appropriated the title and brought it into disrepute.
THE AMERICAN FRATERNAL ORDER AS A FONS
America's attempt to provide a fons of nobility for its people can be most clearly
seen in its highly-developed fraternal order system, the primary example of which
is Freemasonry. (The comments which follow also apply to such fraternal groups as
the Oddfellows, the Knights of Columbus, the Woodmen of the World, and others.) Of course,
Freemasonry is a British system, and many of the current royalty and nobility of
England hold high offices in British Freemasonry--including Prince Philip who takes
his Masonic duties very seriously. (It is more accurate to say that Freemasonry is Irish, since
the first Grand Lodge in in the world was organized in London in 1717 by Irish residents
who belonged to independent Irish lodges back in their home country. Prior to 1717, all Masonic Lodges were independent.) Indeed, the royalty and nobility of other
European countries also have active roles in their respective Masonic Grand Lodges--the
Grand Master of the Swedish Grand Lodge is King Charles XVI Gustav.
After 1717, Freemasonry consisted of three degrees (initiations), those of Entered
Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and Master Mason, and no more. It was in 18th century France
that the "high degrees" beyond the first three degrees of Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and Master Mason developed, which development included the creation of whole systems
of degrees that granted elaborate titles. Perhaps Frenchmen, having discarded all
royal and noble titles in their Revolution, began to long for their heritage and
fulfilled their longing by creating simulated noble titles for the Masonic "high degree"
systems such as the "Emperors of the East and West," the "Rite of Strict Observance,"
and many others. The supreme achievement in degree-granting titles was the Masonic
French Rite of Memphis-Misraim, which conferred some 186 degrees, along with 186 titles!
Officials of this Rite granted forms of address which even the most power-mad monarchs
would envy. "Sovereign Prince Commander of the Stars" is only one example among the Rite's many degree titles. The Rite of Memphis-Misraim is now considered "clandestine"
(illegal and unrecognized) by all regular Masonic authority.
When the "high-degree systems" entered America, the titles came with them, and Americans
took to them with relish. The Rite of Memphis-Misraim flourished in the American
west, but then faded away, buried under its own weight and under the scandal of the
selling of degrees. But when the Emperors of the East and West came to America, it underwent
a transformation from a 25-degree system to a 33-degree system, renamed itself The
Scottish Rite, gained respectability, and became the best-known of the two regular and legitimate Masonic "high degree" bodies (the other being the York Rite). Titles
of royalty (but not nobility) abound in The Scottish Rite: "Prince of the Sun," "Rose+Croix
Prince of Heredom," "Prince of the Royal Secret," and "Sovereign Grand Inspector General." Of course, Masons who belong to The Scottish Rite understand their Order
to be a fraternal organization and do not presume to hold authentic titles of royalty.
The York Rite confers neither royal nor noble titles, but does confer a title of
knighthood, the Knight of the Temple. So too, members of the Masonic Order of the Temple
understand their organization to be a fraternal Order, not an authentic Order of
Chivalry, and these Masons do not claim to hold authentic knighthood.
The American comes to a Masonic title either by taking an initiation (for example,
to be a Prince of Heredom, one takes the 18th Degree of the Scottish Rite), or by
being elected to the dignity of a Masonic office. High Masonic dignitaries are usually
shown the greatest of deference and respect by their Masonic members, and, like the monarchs
of old, they are often feted at great banquets held in their honor. Actually, should
modern monarchs insist on the same level of treatment that some Masonic dignitaries receive, they would be in danger of their thrones! No criticism of the system is
intended, since Freemasonry is a fine and worthwhile philosophic and philanthropic
institution whose officers serve without pay, often at great expense to themselves.
But there is no doubt that Freemasonry is, for Americans, a dream fulfilled--a constitutional
monarchy in which even a common laborer can rise to the position of, if not sovereign
prince, then at least archduke.
THE CHURCH AS FONS
The Church--whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant--also confers titles. In fact,
in historical times, the Roman Catholic Church attempted to arrogate to itself the
power to grant all titles, including that of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. The
Holy See of Rome, as a city-state, today reserves to itself the right to grant the Papal
titles of prince, marchese, and count which it occasionally bestows upon worthy Roman
Catholics. The Holy See of Rome also grants to its clergy the title of Monsignor,
which then supersedes the title "Father." Of course, both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox
Churches grant titles such as Archbishop and Patriarch, and so on. Generally, Protestant
Churches grant the title of "reverend" to their clergy, although certain Protestant groups prefer "pastor" or "brother." The full range of ecclesiastical titles is covered
well in L.G. Pine's The Story of Titles. However, Pine makes some rather snide comments
about the Church's use of titles, saying that titles are incompatible with Christianity. In fact, Pine hadn't the faintest idea what he was talking about. The New
Testament writers went to great length to show that Jesus was a Prince of the (non-regnant)
Royal House of David, and royal titles abound in both the Old and New Testaments. Pine certainly knew about secular titles, but apparently he knew little about Biblical
royalty, and even less about the royal titles of Jesus, who was not only considered
"King of the Jews" by no less than Pontius Pilate, but "King of Kings" by Christians.
THE ORDER OF CHIVALRY AS FONS
In the case of Orders of Chivalry, Americans have a truly difficult time. Most Americans
are exposed to knights through old MGM movies or through news reports about the knighting
of distinguished British actors such as Sir Richard Burton or Dame Edith Evans, or, more recently, Sir Anthony Hopkins. Generally, Americans have no trouble whatever
in addressing these knights correctly--"Sir First Name." When European knights enter
the scene, Americans again have some difficulty substituting "Chevalier" for the
title "Sir." (Happily, the title for both the British and European knighted woman is
"Dame," so confusion is less likely.) Of course, Americans can learn the proper address
of a European knight when he or she has an accent and is obviously not an American,
but when Americans are knighted in genuine Orders of Chivalry that follow the European
custom (as most do), there are two problems.
The first problem is that Americans are so used to fraternal orders using the title
of "knight" that the "Order of Chivalry" and the titles granted by it have little
meaning and require explanation. It takes patience and a clarity of mind to explain
that there is a difference between an authentic knight of an Order of Chivalry and members
of the Knights of Columbus, Knights of Labor, Knights of Pythias, and--heaven forebear!--Knights
of the Ku Klux Klan.
The second problem is that Americans are not accustomed to the idea that Americans
can be knighted...and they can as, for example, when the Queen of England grants
"honorary" knighthoods to distinguished Americans. Of course, the term "honorary"
doesn't mean "but not really," but only is a gentle subterfuge used to prevent protests from
those who might object to the (perfectly proper and legal) receipt of knighthood
by prominent Americans who have thereby received grants of minor nobility and a minor
noble title. The Queen of England rarely grants knighthoods to Americans. It is more common
for other European Orders of Chivalry to be active in America, where are found various
religious Orders of Chivalry as well as Dynastic (royal house) Orders. In the United States, authentic Orders of Chivalry headed by royalty or nobility include the Knights
of Christ, the Order of the Noble Companions of the Swan, the Sovereign Order of
St. John of Jerusalem, The Religious and Military Order of Knights of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, the Royal Order of the Three Crowns, the Order of the Crown of Lauriers,
and others. The idea of an American holding an authentic knighthood is so far removed
from the experience of most Americans that they find it difficult to grasp the meaning--or think that the legitimate American knight is kidding about the accolade,
or, worse, is somehow deluded.
SOME COMMON FORMS OF NOBLE AND ROYAL ADDRESS
Americans are fond of the idea of equality, believing that "all men are created equal"
and believing that eschewing titles and being on a first-name basis constitutes not
only equality, but also friendliness. Undoubtedly, all men are created equal, but
not all achieve equally, and using a first name without permission is not friendly, but
rude, even in America. Of course, it is not possible in this small space to cover
all possibilities; therefore, the reader should take note that the following usages are not prescriptive, but, in general,
follow the European model.
The Knightly Gentleman of a European (non-British) Order of Chivalry in formal speech
and in writing may be addressed as "The Right Honorable Chevalier John Smith," or "The
Right Honorable Chevalier Smith," depending upon the usages of the Order to which the Knight belongs. Some Orders use the "Right Honorable" and some do not, but, in general, the phrase may be used without error. Informally he is titled Chevalier (sheh-vul-YAY;
sometimes, shuh-VALL-yay) Christian name, thus: "Chevalier John." Even more informally,
the Knight also may be simply addressed as "Chevalier." The untitled
first name of a Chevalier is never used alone. In British usage, the title "Sir" is a prenominal to the first name only, so that there is a "Sir John," but not a "Sir Smith."
The Knightly Gentlewoman of a European (non-British) Order of Chivalry in formal speech
and in writing may be addressed as "The Right Honorable Dame Mary Smith," or "The Right
Honorable Dame Smith," depending upon the usages of the Order to which she belongs. Informally, she is titled Dame Christian name, thus: "Dame
Mary," or very informally as "Dame." The title "Lady" is a courtesy that denotes the non-chivalric wife
of a Chevalier and is not used to address a woman of knightly rank. The untitled
first name of a Dame is never used. Note also that , in British usage, the title "Lady" is the equivalent of "Lord" and is used to address a female Peer.
Ecclesiastical rank and title take precedence over secular rank and titles. Clergy,
therefore, often use only ecclesiastical prenominals ("Rev." or "Father" or "Bishop"),
omit chivalric prenominals ("Sir" or "Chevalier"), and list postnominals only in
writing. In some religious Orders of Chivalry, chivalric prenominals are formally combined
with the ecclesiastical ones thus: "The Right Honorable Chevalier the Rev. first
name and surname" or "The Right Honorable Dame the Rev. first name and surname. If
a Priest, the formal title in some usages is "The Right Honorable Chevalier Rev. Fr." followed
by the full name. If a Bishop, the formal title is "The Right Honorable Chevalier
the Rt. Rev." and his full name, thus: "Rt. Rev. the Right Honorable Chevalier John
Smith." When in doubt, it is always correct to address clergy with ecclesiastical
prenominals, according to the usage of the denomination. The untitled first name
of clergy is never used.
The non-chivalric wife of a Knight is often addressed as "Lady" as a courtesy. In speech and in writing, that is, informally and as a courtesy, she may be addressed "Lady" plus
her Christian name, thus: "Lady Jane." The non-chivalric husband of a Dame is titled "Mr." unless he holds a title in his own right.
Titles of nobility of royal houses are those of baron, viscount , count, marquis,
and duke. (Note: Some royal houses do not confer the title of viscount.) For the first
three (or four) titles, it is proper to use the pre-nominal qualifier "His/Your Excellency" plus the titular designation which may be a surname
alone or a surname with a place designation. Sir Anthony Wagner,
Garter King of Arms, makes it quite clear in his book, A Herald's World, that a surname
without a place designation is perfectly correct for a title of nobility, and that
he often counseled new British peers how to keep their surnames intact as noble titles.
If a place designation is used, Garter sees it merely as "an address." See Garter's
book, pages 20-21 and 126-129. It is proper, in European (but not British) custom,
to refer to "Baron Last Name," as in "Baron Smith." As the highest-ranking nobility,
the duke's pre-nominal is "His/Your Grace." Note that the British usage for all peerage
titles is "Lord" plus the titular (or last) name, as in "Lord Snowden," the titular name of
Anthony Armstrong Jones, or "Lord Olivier," the titular name of Baron Laurence Olivier (Laurence, Lord Olivier).
When signing documents, nobles use only the last name, and one may hear nobles speaking
to each other using the last name only (a usage which close American male friends
have adopted).
In formal occasions, where one holds multiple titles, the practice of "diminishing
title" applies, where the highest to lowest titles come before the name. Titles are
generally ranked in descending order, thus: quality title (His/Her Excellency or
His/Her Grace), ecclesiastical title, noble title, academic title. For example, if John Smith
were a Priest, a Knight, a Doctor of Philosophy, and a Baron, he would very formally
be introduced, following the rule of diminishing title, as His Excellency the Rev.
Baron Dr. Smith of Connor. (That is, in very formal presentational speech, as, for example,
if Baron Smith were being presented at a formal evening dinner or at court. The
complete title would also be used in formal writing, as, for example, an official
invitation or an official letter or document. The full title might also appear on the
envelope of a formal document such as an invitation.) Formal titles can prove unwieldy,
so, for informal situations, single titles suffice. Thus, Smith could also be correctly addressed as His/Your Excellency or Baron Smith. However, since ecclesiastical
rank may take precedence over secular titles, it also would be correct to address
Baron Smith as Father Smith (but not "Father John"). Those who wished could address
him in common conversation simply and correctly as Dr. Smith. Note that titles of nobility
preclude and supersede the use of "Chevalier" or "Dame" when the noble is also a
knight, so Baron Smith would not be addressed as Chevalier Smith.
Monarchs are usually addressed as "Your Majesty" if a king or queen, then, in conversation,
the title "Sir" or "Ma'am" (while some authorities say the word rhymes with "harm,"
other more modern authorities say it rhymes with "jam") is used. The "Crown Prince" is usually the son of the king or queen and is the one designated to inherit the
throne. The Crown Prince is the one usually thought of by Americans when the title
of "prince" is heard. The correct form of address for the Crown Prince is established
by the Monarch. In fact, the Monarch establishes all correct forms for his or her dynasty.
The Sovereign Prince is addressed as "Your Highness Prince X" or using the prenominal as established by the Royal Dynasty to which the Prince belongs. In
conversation with the Sovereign Prince, "Your Highness" is used once, followed by
the use of "Sir," although it is not incorrect to occasionally repeat the title of
"Your Highness" during the course of the conversation. Unlike the Crown Prince or
the Papal Prince, the Sovereign Prince exercises all sovereign rights within his dynasty.
MANUALS AND GUIDEBOOKS
American etiquette books are of little help in establishing the correct use of noble
and royal titles, and, in some cases, are not only incorrect, but exhibit insufferable
arrogance by pretending to limit and control legitimately owned titles, claiming
a "correctness" that simply doesn't exist. For one wishing to find a useful guide for
royal and noble etiquette, there are only a few reliable sources, mostly British,
mostly difficult to obtain. One is Titles and Forms of Address: A Guide to the Correct
Use, a standard work by "Armiger" now in its 14th edition (London: A.C. Black, 1971).
Robert William Chapman's Names, Designations and Appellations (Oxford: Clarendon
Press) is good, but outdated, its last edition being in 1936. Dorothy M. Newman's
Forms of Address: Honours, Orders, Decorations, Medals, Religious Orders in Canada, Breat Britain,
and the U.S.A. (St. Louis: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1980) is very inclusive. If available,
a useful general guide is Debrett's Correct Form: An Inclusive Guide to Everything from Drafting Wedding Invitations to Addressing an Archbishop. Also, L.G. Pine's
classic work The Story of Titles (republished by Barnes & Noble as Titles: How the
King Became His Majesty) is very interesting and useful. These books are to be used
as guides; the best procedure in any circumstance is to determine and follow the practice
of the holder of the title.
There are also books about the honors system itself, including Michael De-la-Noy's
The Honours System (New York: Allison and Busby, 1985); John Walker's The Queen has
been Pleased: the British Honours System at Work (London: Secker and Warburg, 1986);
James McMillan's The Honours Game (London: Frewin, 1969); and Cyril Francis James Hankinson's
My Forty Years with Debrett (London: R. Hale, 1963).
CONCLUSION
Some titles are hereditary, and some titles are vital, but in every instance, a title
is property, and, as with any other piece of property, the owner is perfectly free
to use it, without apology, whenever he or she wishes, keeping in mind both propriety
and requirements. The titled believe that the correct use of forms of address ennobles
both the user and holder. In the mock modesty and ersatz intimacy of American culture,
where unsanctioned first-name usage is casually assumed by the ignorant or the willfully rude, proper use of legitimate titles is an educating and stabilizing link with
tradition in an otherwise uncertain and rebellious culture which so desperately needs
to learn self-respect, as well as the respect of others.
Your comments and questions regarding this essay are welcome. To comment on this article via eMail, click HERE.
To return to the articles selection page, click HERE.
To return to the main page of The Noble House of Maxalla, click HERE.