Baronetcy for Sale

Last week, I was deep into the final pages of the next Unexpected Magic book (with no sign of a title in sight, I might add!) and still had no clear idea of how I’d resolve all the details of my conflict. You might say I’m a pantser—someone who writes by the seat of her pants. I like to be as surprised as the reader when I reach the end. Yeah, I know, stupid. But man, has that taught me how to edit!

But the point is—I had a brilliant brainstorm that would cap everything off so very nicely, except it involved all sorts of research. All writing came to a screeching halt as I dug into the origins of a baronetcy, who inherits, how, can a king just hand one to anyone he feels like, what are the requirements, can land be attached…  Argh!

So now, you are the beneficiaries of my research, because I don’t have any time left to come up with another blog. I will graciously spare you the really nitty gritty details if you'll bear with me.

First off, baronets are not peers, not considered noble, and can’t vote in the Lords, although they can be considered aristocrats. Their rank is higher than knight but beneath barons. Unlike a knight, the title is hereditary. A baronet is addressed as Sir and his wife as Lady, although she is not considered a baronetess (probably because no one could pronounce it, although maybe because in Scotland, women could sometimes be a baronetess in her own right).

My real concern was in the land, because baronets are created with territorial designations. So if my guy doesn’t own land, can he still be made a baronet? How can he be made Sir Whatever of Howsomever-on-the-Rye unless he owns land there? So far, I’ve not found a real answer to this except in the history of the baronetcy itself, which falls laughably close to my character’s opinion on politics—everything can be bought.

The first baronets were created in the 1300s to help Edward III pay for his army—fork over enough cash, provide a league of soldiers, and you, too, can be called Sir. Those original titles eventually died out—I’m guessing a title without land attached isn’t something the family fights over.

Jolly good King James I had a similar problem, too many battles to fight—those belligerent Irish simply wouldn’t stay in their place—so he decided to bring baronetcies back. In this case, he offered titles to 200 gentlemen of good birth with an income of at least £1,000 a year. These fine aristocrats were required to pay for thirty soldiers for three years in exchange for adding Sir to their names—or maybe it was their wives who wished to be Ladies. No mention is made of needing land to earn the title, although a thousand pounds a year was a princely sum in those times, and land would have been the main means of earning that kind of income. But if land wasn’t actually required… my guy might have an opportunity.

There were a lot of unclaimed baronetcies in the 1800s that could be tossed around. Over the years, the keepers of the registry  had a hard time keeping up with all those minor titles, and they kind of lost track of what belongs to whom. So my guess is that the title does not pass down with a particular piece of land, because it’s pretty easy to track land, whereas people tend to propagate or die off with regularity. And even though I’ve still not found it stated anywhere, I’m concluding the reason baronets are not considered peers who can vote in the House of Lords is because that right is reserved for landowners.

(image is Sir Robert Peel, 1st baronet, a mill owner who became heavily involved in politics before he was made baronet.)

So yay me! My guy may win his own title, if I can beat this plot into line. When I first started writing Regencies, I thought my head would spin off my shoulders trying to figure out how titles worked. When you read about our romantic aristocrats, do you pay attention if we get the details right? Or do you just shrug and figure it doesn’t matter as long as the heroine gets her man?

Comments

[Kathy Lynn Emerson]

It definitely bugs me when the details aren't as accurate as possible. One thing in particular that drives me crazy is how many otherwise savvy writers get the form of address wrong and call a knight Sir Lastname when it should be Sir Firstname. I understand that it's confusing when the knight's wife is Lady Lastname (unless she's the daughter of an earl or a duke), but it isn't all that hard to get right. Of course, I could never convince cover copy people at St. Martin's of how this works, either, witness the number of times the covers of my Lady Appleton mysteries had references to Lady Susanna. Arrrgh! End of rant. Pat--looking forward to reading the baronet book when it comes out.

[Lillian Marek]

I prefer it when things like titles are correct, but it's not something that really bothers me. Mild amusement and a shake of the head, perhaps.
But isn't it wonderful when research provides you with the perfect information for your plot? YES! shouts the author. *Grin*

[Elaine]

I've been reading historicals for so long that I have learned the basics of titles and yes it does annoy me when an author doesn't get the basics right!

[Beverly Abney]

Since Regencies have long been my favorites, and historical novels set in Great Britain over anywhere else, I think I have pretty much gotten used to the way titles are. I do notice when there is a really bad mistake, and if an author makes mistakes that I notice much, I no longer read that author. I love a book that flows along smoothly without jolting me out of the story.

[Annette Naish]

I pay more attention if the author gets major things wrong ----crummy hero -----nasty heroine----behavior that is mean or disgusting. I know enough to have an idea about British titles and nobility etc. I know that if one is of the nobility it is important to have your status recognized and honored by those who are of a lesser status. But, unless someone makes a giant mistake it will not prevent me from continuing the book.

[Mary T]

I will just shrug as long as the story is good otherwise. I'm more likely to notice modern words or phrases the slip in every now and then. I remember one book I was reading where the author referred to someone (in the story) "maintaining their cool." In spite of that I felt the author still did a good job of creating the feel of the regency era. I'm pretty forgiving.

[Patricia Rice]

Resources are so readily available on the internet these days-- I don't know why people don't look it up! Back when I first started, I had to interlibrary loan a tiny book on titles and take copious notes so I could keep it all straight.

[Patricia Rice]

Yes, that's what I'm afraid some authors are doing--turning readers away by their lack of curiosity. Really, doesn't one wonder about proper address?

[Patricia Rice]

Ahh, now I have to write a crummy hero and nasty heroine just to see what happens. But I know what you mean!

[Patricia Rice]

You are a far more generous person than I am, but that may be because I bend over backwards hunting down modern expressions and looking for substitutes. So it irks to see others sliding by. But I agree, a good story is worth reading.

[Kathy]

I'm a stickler for the details, so it would annoy me if there were inaccuracies. I'm also a history buff and really enjoy the small details and relevant background information, so don't stop your research! I appreciate it.

[Andrea Penrose]

A very interesting blog, Pat! To us non-Brits, titles can be SO confusing (I say that hanging my head in shame as I have occasionally made an error, even though I try very hard to double check on my reference list.) It sounds like you can safely give your hero the baronetcy and dare anyone to say it's wrong!

[Laura Boon]

I like historical details to be right. I often don't notice when it is right, but I do when it is wrong. I also notice when I learn something new. Like when I first read about a Marquis, I had to go and look up where they came in the order of aristocracy

[Mary M.]

Laura Boon, I remember an instance where a heroine is told she might marry "an earl, or a duke, or even ... a marquess!" Such an error in itself wouldn't stop my reading, but where there are period or factual errors, there are usually modern phrases, poor (or missing) geographical details, and a general disregard for the time period being claimed.

Some Amazon reviewer stopped me in my tracks (briefly) by stating, "So what? It's a fantasy." No, it's fiction and the author claimed in the subtitle that it was a Regency. Definitely not okay with me.

[Dana]

Sign me up in the "Yes to accuracy!" column, too. I love it when an author goes that extra mile to get details (particularly titles) right and to include things I might not otherwise have known about the era.

When I first began writing, one of my go-to sites was Jo Beverley's. Her page on forms of address was my bible.

[Carolyn Raich]

Yes, it really bugs me when it is obviously wrong - as others have said, it is relatively easy to research these things nowadays. If you are not interested in being, as far as possible, historically accurate then don't write historical fiction. It's fine to take some creative licence, but the essential facts need to be right - including terms of address.

[Carolyn Raich]

I agree. I've come across a few authors that use words that weren't even used during the period in which they are writing. Words that arose in a later period, and sadly often in another country!

[Nancy]

After James, the Kings liked baronetcies because they could give them away without consulting ministers and it cost him nothing. The man just had to have done something the king wanted to reward. Whether the man was legitimate or not wasn't a factor either. At one time , the oldest legitimate son of a baronet was considered a knight. I want titles used correctly and the laws of marriage and inheritance followed. One author said she disliked the aristocracy so didn't much care about using heir titles correctly. Another said she didn't think it mattered. I wondered why they were writing regencies about such things.
Liked your post, Patricia. I am reading one of the Magic books and enjoying it.

[Patricia Rice]

Thank you! It's rather nice to know someone besides myself appreciates the details!

[Patricia Rice]

when I was very young and reading a lot of English lit, I spent many hours in the library trying to work out the order of kings and queens and aristocracy!

[Patricia Rice]

Having just deleted "babysitting" from my current draft for an 1830 book, I can attest that it's a constant struggle!

[Patricia Rice]

Anne Gracie also has an excellent one. With so many resources these days, there really isn't any reason to get it wrong.

[Patricia Rice]

I'm utterly appalled by the casualness about historical accuracy in a historical! I guess they really are writing fantasies.
But the marriage laws...ai yi yi! I have entire tomes on them and I might recite the law, but that doesn't mean anyone ever paid attention to it. Fascinating how society evolves!

[Karin]

I don't know that much about titles, so unless someone makes a glaring error, it'll probably slip past me. Modern anachronisms and spelling and usage errors really bother me though.

[Barbara Rogers]

Well, I don't stop reading a book because they might make a mistake or two. Some things bug me more than others. If the titles, addresses, etc are incorrect I usually find other things as well -- things like modern names or nicknames and modern terminology. Those things bug me quite a bit. I find those things keep playing through my mind as I read the story and really take away from the enjoyment of even a really good story. I just saw a synopsis for a Regency Romance where the heroine was named Rhianna (sp?) was that name in use during that time period? I didn't even finish reading the synopsis -- just went on to the next book I was looking at.

[Patricia Rice]

That's the thing, isn't it? If we pick up a book expecting "historical" and we get "fantasy" instead, then we're bound to be disappointed. Authors ought to be aware of this.

I can find RHIANNON in ancient Welsh legends, but it wasn't a name commonly used until the Fleetwood Mac song in 1976. If I'm given an explanation for an odd name: "family legend says we date back to the ancient Celt queen..." I'm fine with weird names. But there books and the internet for looking these up too!

[Anne Gracie]

Rhiannon is and has been used in Wales for many generations. I have a friend whose mother is Welsh (from North Wales where Welsh is still their primary native language) and her sister is called Rhiannon, and so are relatives past and gone. For it to work for me in a Regency, the heroine would have to have Welsh connections.

[Janice]

It must be a delicate art, to write accurately about the regency era and yet be intelligible to moderns; to put enough regencyness in to add flavor, yet not do an infodump which stops the story dead and irritates a reader more interested in following the plot at that point. I don't know how you guys do it.

I know a bit about regency social history, but I'm certainly no expert. I do get distracted by "easy" errors (such as Sir Lastname, or that unusual peer who was able to will away his title and entailed property), but if I like the writing itself, and I am engaged with the characters, I'll read on. I will mentally class it as an alternate history :)

This is particularly true if the book was done in an era when information (we won't debate the quality of all of it here :) is only a mouse click away. I know enough about the economics of a writer's life to realize that days spent at the library researching stuff (no matter how fascinating) were days spent not writing, and if someone was being paid by the word or by the book, writing under tight deadlines, and not independently wealthy, I will cut them a lot of slack.

Now that it takes a lot less time to hone in on what you know you don't know, I am less forgiving. However, I still forgive the people who make mistakes because they didn't know what they didn't know; the internetz will be prompt to tell them, and if it's e-pubbed, today's tech gives them the capability of correcting their errors.

In the days of print only, authors seldom had the luxury to fix errors (unless as they sometimes did, they rewrote the whole thing as a different book, as Mary Jo and Catherine Coulter did). In my collection, I have only one "before and after" set like that -- Dangerous Deceits by Barbara Hazard, in which the original Fawcett Coventry #184 was later reprinted with corrections as a Signet Regency. Kudos to her for making the changes even though many customers wouldn't have noticed or care.

[Patricia Rice]

thats an excellent point that we can fix many e-books after theyve come out if they include errors. Publishers, unfortunately, still dont. Im having a hard time imagining any copy editor letting a faux pas as huge as willing an entailed estate and title to someone though! The mind boggles.

Patricia Rice
http://patriciarice.com

[Janice]

Yet so it was - and it's *still* a really good story. It just didn't happen here in this universe. I don't think it could have been fixed because it's the basic plot premise. The only way it could have worked is if the title holder had made his decision and then offed all the people who were inconveniently ahead of his choice. I wish we had had a chance to ask Ms Layton how that happened. I do miss her writing.

http://hibiscus-sinensis.com/regency/retroread02.htm#51

[Laura Boon]

Oh yes! Been there, done that. And isn't it confusing to get your head around when you have no inherent knowledge on them and the different houses or dynasties?!

[Laura Boon]

Oh dear, Mary M, that's a terrible error. In my opinion anyway.

[Anne Gracie]

"I remember an instance where a heroine is told she might marry "an earl, or a duke, or even ... a marquess!" "

Sorry, but what's wrong with that. A young woman could marry any of those titled men.
If you mean the spelling of marquess, that's the English spelling for marquis.

[theo]

Pat, I really enjoyed this article originally, but I was reading an article on Copely this morning and his painting, John Watson and the Shark. Way down in the article, there's mention that Watson, who was orphaned, received a Baronetcy. No details are given, but I found it interesting ass this was the late 1700's. Hope the link works:

http://bit.ly/29qelRb