Need help for info on UK re 'knight' 'sir' and 'baron'

[HordHolm]

I have a minor character in an upcoming story (current time period)

MC owns a business and makes contact with a UK company owned by 'Sir William Bearington' Call him wealthy but not stinking rich. Think net worth in the 8 to 15 million pound range, not the hundred+ million pound range. Income in the perhaps half-million pound range annually.

I want him to be the lowest of the elite, or near elite and high...ish ranking. I'm thinking technically a knight, but I cannot get a good explanation of that rank. Duke down to Baron has a thousand articles. Knight never seems to be properly explained.

Can anyone from the UK properly explain how the ranks at the bottom end of the elite work? Also, my goal is to not have my MC always calling the guy 'My lord' or such. 'Sir William Bearington' is a nice guy and wants to be called 'William'.

Also. Anything I should know so my story does not look completely stupid to the considerable UK readership here?

Sorry, in addition to my previous comment - a knight is addressed as e.g. "Sir William". He is at perfect liberty to ask people to just call him William, though he might want to use the Sir when booking a table at a restaurant or reserving tickets for something. Anyone called Sir William these days will have started out in life just called William, and won't have picked up the Sir until relatively late in life, though there is a Sir Jason Kenny, an Olympic cyclist who was knighted a couple of years ago at the age of 32 or 33. But this is an outlier - most knights will be getting on in years these days.

 

[StillStunned]

'Prince' in itself is descriptive, and does not convey an aristocratic rank - thus one can be a prince without an actual title.

I'll add the caveat here that this doesn't necessarily apply throughout Europe, where there are (or were) plenty of places where the hereditary ruler was titled "Prince".

(And then of course there's the word "prince" as used by Machiavelli to describe a ruler or leader in general.)

 

[HordHolm]

I'll add the caveat here that this doesn't necessarily apply throughout Europe, where there are (or were) plenty of places where the hereditary ruler was titled "Prince".

(And then of course there's the word "prince" as used by Machiavelli to describe a ruler or leader in general.)

Yes, totally, e.g. Prince of Orange, Prince of Lichtenstein, Prince of Monaco.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Esquire is a term that means you're a liar, a cheat, and a lawyer in America. I could have said just lawyer, as a lawyer is always a liar and cheat. Just kidding.

BOGUS!

 

[stickygirl]

I used to live near a house where Lord Seb Coe lived - the bloke who did well in an Olympic running game that featured a Vangelis backing track, than ran as a member of Parliament for a county he'd never lived in but had a nice seaside resort. He failed in that role but was elevated and graciously accepted a peerage. He is the exception that proves the rule: you don't have to go to Eton to be a cunt

 

[stickygirl]

Sorry, in addition to my previous comment - a knight is addressed as e.g. "Sir William". He is at perfect liberty to ask people to just call him William, though he might want to use the Sir when booking a table at a restaurant or reserving tickets for something. Anyone called Sir William these days will have started out in life just called William, and won't have picked up the Sir until relatively late in life, though there is a Sir Jason Kenny, an Olympic cyclist who was knighted a couple of years ago at the age of 32 or 33. But this is an outlier - most knights will be getting on in years these days.

Just William?

 

[HordHolm]

Just William?

Indeed, and if necessary I'll scweam until I'm sick.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Not necessarily. Esquire can also denote a landowner with a lot of land. A single small lot nor a solitary large lot wouldn't get er done.

BOGUS!

 

[StillStunned]

In Mr American, by George MacDonald Fraser, there's a scene where Mr Franklin (the titular American) says (paraphrased, probably), "If there was one man who looked like there was a load off his mind, it was Sir Charles Clayton, Esquire."

Which amuses Sir Charles's daughter, because duh, her dad's a Baronet, so he can't be an Esquire!

 

[HordHolm]

Esquire is a funny one. In the UK it is (or is it 'used to be'? I've been out of the country for 20 years now) a courtesy added to any official letter to any man - thus the tax people would write to my father, addressing him as Mr HordHolm esq. and the closest he ever got to any status in society was driving it around as its chauffeur. And when I was summoned for jury service, I was esq. too.

But in the old days Esquire did convey a status. It was applied to a landowner who didn't have a title, but who did have historic obligations. Originally, if you owned enough land you had to equip yourself as a knight - horse, armour, weapons - and attend the kings muster when it was called, with supplies to keep yourself fed for 40 days. The king would often write insisting that anyone with the requisite land also adopt the status of knight, but this was expensive, requiring an added expense on top of previously noted horse, armour and weapons. It would include ceremonial, which was hardly cheap, and might include religious vigils (and thus payments to the church), plus the need to take on military servants such as squires and sergeants who would require equipping, paying, feeding, etc, not to mention paying a herald to design an original coat of arms for you, and register it with the College of Arms. As a knight you might also find yourself expected to provide other services within your county, such as administering the law. This might bring personal advantage, but alternatively it might simply get in the way of administering your landholding.

So, as the High Middle Ages turned into the Late Middle Ages (from c. 1300 to c.1400), those landowners who had the necessary land and still attended the army when called rather than pay for a substitute would often forgo the ceremony of knighthood. This might be particularly true for the second, third, etc sons of knights, and even higher nobility. These people began to be called 'esquire'. In terms of class they were lower aristocracy - what we now think of as 'gentry' - and through the 15th century they were often still professional level soldiers, leaders of men who might bring a couple of dozen others with them to the army. But following the Wars of the Roses (1455 - 1487) they increasingly became gentlemen farmers, and then the esquire title was applied increasingly to those in the professions - doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, before then being extended to every man over 18.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

@HordHolm is correct. Basically don't go for Viscount or above, because it wouldn't fit the character, and gets horribly complicated. Your classic knighthood fits. He'd be addressed as Sir William, formally, but assumed to be a knob if he insisted on it.

If you want him to get enobled so he can sit in the House of Lords and be part of Government, then he'd be Baron Bearington of Somewhere, technically addressed as Lord Bearington (and 'my lord', but again only a wanker would insist on it). In the Lords, his colleagues would refer to him as 'my noble friend' and the opposite benches would say 'the noble Lord'.

 

[stickygirl]

As ever I stand to be corrected, but my noble friends in the Kingdom of Units may concur that the title of Baron has Germanic overtones, perhaps because of the Red Baron von Wiftoven? As a result, Baron as title is not looked upon with a friendly disposition. Viscounts are a biscuit, minty and covered in chocolate and wapped in green foil.

 

[onehitwanda]

Viscounts are a biscuit, minty and covered in chocolate and wapped in green foil.

no no no, those are Vi-cunts!

I'm pretty sure vi-counts are something to do with rowing.

 

[AchtungNight]

And remember, folks, whatever your kingdom, it only takes a few appropriate bad situations to make it collapse.

 

[Bramblethorn]

no no no, those are Vi-cunts!

I'm pretty sure vi-counts are something to do with rowing.

Pretty sure that's vi-cocks?

 

[onehitwanda]

Pretty sure that's vi-cocks?

No, you're confusing that with vi-cox, which is what Cambridge call their reserve coxswain - typically called up the night before Boatrace because the pri-cox is shitfaced and was caught trying to elope with a swan.

 

[Uk_Guy_93]

Sounds like what the OP is looking for is a “Baronet”. You get the title “Sir” but it is hereditary, not awarded. Dates back to the Middle Ages when the Baronet were charged with keeping a unit of 100 men at arms in case the King needed to raise an army. Now a days it’s just an inherited title mostly found within “Old Money” families. Only thing telling them apart from knights is the post nominal “Bt”.
So it would be “Sir William Bearington Bt.”

 

[Voboy]

If he's from an "old noble family," you need him to be a baronet or a baron. Knighthoods in these times are typically individual honors, though of course it always helps to be "connected." But if he's from a family with long-inherited wealth and/or status, but is not a "lord," then he's far more likely to be a baronet.

Baronetcies used to be far more common than they are now, and they're rare enough that people usually refer to them by the family's name: "the Smith Baronetcy," for example, which might have been conferred around (let's say) 1809 for Captain Smith's valiant action against the French, then passed down to subsequent Smiths to the present. Though, to be fair, it's FAR more likely that Captain Smith would have gotten a Bath knighthood for that, which would not have been passed down.

BUT! If Captain Smith had continued doing Brave Things To Confound Bonaparte even after receiving his KB, or if he'd subsequently served as some sort of high-level political appointee, he'd have been more likely to be made a baronet at the end of the war, or perhaps at the end of his career. That would have raised his entire family's status, permanently (or as long as the male heirs lasted).

Naturally, being a baronet is expensive. But that's par for the course.

 

[MillieDynamite]

The tax on the taxes paid is what really hurts. Actually, I don't know shit about it. But I think the most insulting tax would be a tax on the amount of taxes paid.

If he's from an "old noble family," you need him to be a baronet or a baron. Knighthoods in these times are typically individual honors, though of course it always helps to be "connected." But if he's from a family with long-inherited wealth and/or status, but is not a "lord," then he's far more likely to be a baronet.

Baronetcies used to be far more common than they are now, and they're rare enough that people usually refer to them by the family's name: "the Smith Baronetcy," for example, which might have been conferred around (let's say) 1809 for Captain Smith's valiant action against the French, then passed down to subsequent Smiths to the present. Though, to be fair, it's FAR more likely that Captain Smith would have gotten a Bath knighthood for that, which would not have been passed down.

BUT! If Captain Smith had continued doing Brave Things To Confound Bonaparte even after receiving his KB, or if he'd subsequently served as some sort of high-level political appointee, he'd have been more likely to be made a baronet at the end of the war, or perhaps at the end of his career. That would have raised his entire family's status, permanently (or as long as the male heirs lasted).

Naturally, being a baronet is expensive. But that's par for the course.

 

[stxjimmy]

I have a minor character in an upcoming story (current time period)

MC owns a business and makes contact with a UK company owned by 'Sir William Bearington' Call him wealthy but not stinking rich. Think net worth in the 8 to 15 million pound range, not the hundred+ million pound range. Income in the perhaps half-million pound range annually.

I want him to be the lowest of the elite, or near elite and high...ish ranking. I'm thinking technically a knight, but I cannot get a good explanation of that rank. Duke down to Baron has a thousand articles. Knight never seems to be properly explained.

Can anyone from the UK properly explain how the ranks at the bottom end of the elite work? Also, my goal is to not have my MC always calling the guy 'My lord' or such. 'Sir William Bearington' is a nice guy and wants to be called 'William'.

Also. Anything I should know so my story does not look completely stupid to the considerable UK readership here?

Debretts should tell you all you need to know if you Google it.

 

[HordHolm]

Sounds like what the OP is looking for is a “Baronet”. You get the title “Sir” but it is hereditary, not awarded. Dates back to the Middle Ages when the Baronet were charged with keeping a unit of 100 men at arms in case the King needed to raise an army. Now a days it’s just an inherited title mostly found within “Old Money” families. Only thing telling them apart from knights is the post nominal “Bt”.
So it would be “Sir William Bearington Bt.”

Ah, no, afraid not though the mistake is understandable. Baronet was a rank re-invented post-middle ages, during the reign of James I (1603 - 1625). They were awarded in return for donations to the crown, and were mostly conferred during the seventeenth century. Earlier medieval awards (and there were a few) were compensation for the loss the status of being 'called to parliament'. Prior to 1611 it was very unusual, but after then there were more than 3,500 made. Since the 1960s roughly 20% of Baronetcies have died out.

The rank that you are thinking of is Banneret, when a knight reached a certain level of land ownership/other wealth that they were able to bring one hundred or more men to the army when called. They were then entitled to cut the tails off their heraldic flag (called a pennon, which had a swallow-tailed shape) and convert it into a small banner (a rectangular flag). This change in the shape of their flag being a very obvious outward sign of their rank as in general only the aristocracy (those of the rank of Baron or higher) were able to carry banners onto the battlefield. The rank of Banneret was not hereditary.

 

[GlennJenko]

Earl
Viscount
Marquis / Marchioness
Count / Countess

Nerd thing 1: in Britain, Earl and Counts are the same thing and are below Marquises/Marchionesses. The female equivalent is still Countess though.

Prince / Princess
Crown Prince

We also don't have a Crown Prince. Any person who's a sibling, child or grandchild of the reigning monarch can be titled Prince or Princess - hence why Harry and Meghan's children were only given the titles when Harry's father became King. While people use the title of Prince/Princess, there's only one official "office" of a Princeship - the Prince/Princess of Wales, which is always and only given to the heir apparent of the reigning monarch.

Strictly speaking a knight is not an aristocrat, and is still a 'commoner', and would occupy a seat in the House of Commons, if a politician, rather than a seat in the House of Lords

Nerd thing 2: this is why the current Leader of the Opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, assumed the role with no difficulties, while Alec Douglas-Home, PM from 1963-64, had to renounce his earldom in order to become the PM, as no noble is allowed in the House of Commons. He had to get his own Commons seat too, so for a few weeks the Prime Minister was in neither House of Parliament.

 

[TheArsonist]

In addition to @HordHolm's excellent breakdown, it's important to realize that a lot of what we would loosely think of as the lower "aristocracy" in England were/are families without titles of nobility: the "gentry." They were rich landowners (generally living off rents paid by their tenants) who would intermarry with the titled "peerage," as well as the descendants of the heirs who didn't inherit the titles. For example, Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice, and the Darcy family in general, hold no title, though he's the grandson of an Earl on his mother's side. (This type of untitled aristocracy is/was much more common than most people think, not just in England; for most of the Middle Ages, formal, inheritable noble titles were rare in most of Europe.)

Some of these families are very old, tracing their ancestors back to the Norman invasion, but most rose to the rank much more recently. (It used to be said that it took three generations to make a gentleman, so if your grandfather was a butcher who got filthy rich, bought a country estate and sent his son to Oxford, the stain of "tradesman" would just about have washed off by your generation, and you could be accepted as a respectable member of the gentry, though of course all your friends and neighbors would know where your family came from.)

Members of the gentry might often earn knighthoods (through military, political or financial service, or some other accomplishment, or simply by connections) and be styled "Sir," but as already explained, these would not be inherited. As gentlemen, they might at other times style themselves "esquire," which gave us the term "country squire."

All of this is somewhat archaic, but the point is that if the character comes from a family that have been rich landowners for more than 150 years or so, he wouldn't need a title to be posh and a member of Britain's traditional ruling class.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Squire is now archaic (mostly seen in pantomimes), but still used in London as a term of jokey respect by older men to male customers. So the spouse gets called squire or guv'nor by the dry-cleaner or shoe repair guy, while I get called Missus. Younger men (and all kebab shop workers) go for 'boss' or 'bossman' and 'lady'.

Agree with the three generations thing - it can go down as well as up! Getting accepted in that part of Society involves sending your children to the right schools (pre-prep to age 8, certain prep schools, then public schools like Eton at 13) and being at the right clubs and social events and making the right friends. There's plenty of boys at a huge school like Eton on needs-blind scholarships who aren't part of that class at all (and often spend the rest of their lives being embarrassed about their schooling).

 

[HordHolm]

Some of these families are very old, tracing their ancestors back to the Norman invasion, but most rose to the rank much more recently. (It used to be said that it took three generations to make a gentleman, so if your grandfather was a butcher who got filthy rich, bought a country estate and sent his son to Oxford, the stain of "tradesman" would just about have washed off by your generation, and you could be accepted as a respectable member of the gentry, though of course all your friends and neighbors would know where your family came from.)

Members of the gentry might often earn knighthoods (through military, political or financial service, or some other accomplishment, or simply by connections) and be styled "Sir," but as already explained, these would not be inherited. As gentlemen, they might at other times style themselves "esquire," which gave us the term "country squire."

This is a very good point excellently illustrated by the evolution of the medieval Paston family, as seen in their collection of preserved letters - granddad was a peasant who survived the Black Death and was able to buy up land cheap as a result of the plague, becoming rich enough to send his son to school to be educated as a lawyer. He then got rich enough through influence at court to buy more land and even get his son knighted, as Sir John Paston, and build Caister Castle, which was then fought over in a minor action as an incidental part of the Wars of the Roses (1455 - 1487). The Paston Letters are available in inexpensive paperback editions.