Answering Questions: Aristocratic Titles and Audiobooks
Compiled by Mary Jo
The Wenches invite readers to submit questions to us, and due to general overwork, two interesting questions got lost, but now are found. So both questions are being answered today, and the questioners will each get a book from me.
Here is the first question from Rosa Berini Franco:
I would like to ask you about a question that has us debating several friends who are fond of historical romance. The question is the following:
When a distant relative inherits a title (e.g., earl) from someone who dies without direct heirs, do the sisters of that relative receive the courtesy title of lady? By distant relative, I am referring to a fourth or fifth degree cousin who has no title whatsoever.
BREAKING NEWS: THE WENCHES ARE WRONG!
Two well-informed Wench readers have offered corrections, and I LOVE that this happened. I had a vague idea about the petition process Nancy Mayer mentions, but didn't have time for a deep dive into the subtleties when a very distant relation inherits a title. So here are better facts <g> So many thanks to both Alice and Nancy, and they get books, too.:
Alice Mathewson:
Many apologies for having to disagree with the Word Wenches but siblings do get courtesy titles if their brother inherits a title from a distant relative, ie they may not be the child of a peer but they are the brother or sister of one. Please see this exert from Debretts' website https://debretts.com/peerage/courtesy-titles/ . By example, the current Duke of Sutherland was born to Mr Egerton. When he inherited the title from his cousin, his three sisters had 'lady' added to their names. Two more interesting points about this title 1) the current duke has two sons but seven granddaughters 2) there is also an Earl of Sutherland - they were once the same person but the earldom is a Scottish title and so can pass down the female line. Therefore the titles have separated and are now held by two different families.
Nancy Mayer:
When a man succeeds to a title whether that of a grandfather, uncle , or distant cousin, he or his siblings can request grants of special precedence. My Debrett of the 1840s has pages of grants of special precedence. Even married sisters with higher titles can receive that grant.The reasoning is , if the father ( and rarely) the mother had lived, the children would have received those honors.
We Wenches discussed this and the consensus was no. Christina Courtenay clearest answer:
In order for a child to be a lord/lady they have to be the son/daughter of a duke or a marquess, and in the case of just lady also the daughters of earls. So if the cousin's father wasn't the duke/marquess/earl I don't see how his siblings can get a courtesy title.
Pat: Courtesy titles represent an additional title, for the most part. If the cousin inherited both an earldom and a viscountcy, his son might take the viscountcy and be called Lord. His wife would be Lady. But his sisters, as Christina says, did not have a father in the peerage.
(Above is a portrait of Bess, the mistress and the second wife of the Duke of Devonshire. She was born Elizabeth Hervey and her father was the Bishop of Derry. He later became the fourth Earl of Bristol and all his children acquired titles. She became Lady Elizabeth because her father was an earl.)
Here's a fun link that gives lots and LOTS of information about titles.
The second question is about audiobooks and comes from Janice Jacobson:
With the popularity of audiobooks and the increasing ease of obtaining them, I am seeing more comments and reviews from readers talking about books they listened to rather than read in print.
Has the new popularity of audio media affected your writing process at all? I know when I have to compose something I hear the words in my head and then I put them on the paper. I know some people put the words on the paper and then read them aloud or in their heads. The sound and the rhythm are very important - but I don't have to think about how they will sound if someone else says them. Is this a consideration for you?
Wenchly replies:
I suspect most writers are visual, not aural, except for those script-writing types who write mostly dialogue. I can't even listen to myself read a page from my books. If I had to worry about how what I'm writing will sound in audio, I'd go bonkers and never pick up a keyboard again!
As for audio books - I've often been advised to read my dialogue out loud to myself in any case just to make it sure it doesn't sound stilted or not the way a normal person would talk, but I don't do it with audio books in mind specifically. In fact, the few times I've made myself listen to the audio version of my own books I cringe! But then I'm not a fan of audio books anyway, I prefer to read.
As for audiobooks, I don’t like hearing a story that way, so I never listen to them. I don’t even like reading my scene aloud while I’m writing to test them. That just doesn’t resonate with me. I ma a traditional reader—I need to see the words on paper.
This question about audio is interesting - I listen to audiobooks now and then, and my youngest son is a narrator. So I've heard some from him about reading aloud, but I've never thought about audio while writing a book. It's worth pondering.
I don't listen to my books in audio once they're produced, but I do listen to my computer read scenes back to me. It's a kind of proof-read. Hearing it, I pick up awkward phrasing, repetition, missed words and typos. Before this technology, I used to read scenes aloud, just to check them, but I would often "see" the word I meant it to be, and so would read that, rather than the word that was actually there on the page, so the computer is more accurate.
The only other time I read any of my work aloud is for a live reading in front of an audience, and then, with that added pressure, I become aware of things I could have done better -- sentences I could have made tighter and occasionally phrasing that could be tricky to read aloud -- that sort of thing. So these days I generally read a passage aloud to myself before reading to a live (or virtual) audience.
We seem to be getting a preponderance of Wenchly opinion toward "authors not thinking much about their audio versions." Add me to that list! I can't imagine listening to a book when I could be reading it myself. Listening makes sense in a car, but I work at home and don't spend a lot of time on the road. And think of the horror of getting to one's destination in the middle of an exciting scene and then having to get out of the car!
But I take audiobooks seriously because so many people enjoy them, particularly those with long commutes. This is why I've made a point of gradually getting older books into audio. Most of my self-produced audios have been narrated by Siobhan Waring. I love her voice and could listen to her read the phone book. (If we still had phone books. <G>)
I think narrators are hugely important. Bad narration can kill one's desire to listen to a good book, and good narration can make you willing to listen to that book more than once. This is subjective, of course, but it explains why it's good to listen to an audio sample before you buy.
Audiobooks often have different covers from the print version because the print publisher created and owns the artwork. I assume that the audio company would have to pay more to use that proprietary art, so sometimes they'll design a cover of their own.
So there it is! If you listen to audiobooks, what do you like or dislike about them?
Mary Jo