Legitimate or not?

Anne here, writing with a sense of frustration — and no doubt preaching to the converted. The frustration is caused by the number of times I've come across books where an unmarried prince (or a king or a duke or any nobleman, actually) discovers he has a son, because some years ago he slept with a woman and unknowingly got her pregnant. Fast forward several years and he comes across this child and his mother, and decides to marry her and make the child his heir. 

Noooooooo!  I want to shriek. Actually I'm probably likely to stop reading at that point because it shows what I think is unforgivable ignorance of the laws of inheritance — historical laws particularly, but the law remains pretty much the same for contemporary titles of nobility.

These days for most people illegitimacy is no longer even an issue; nevertheless, especially in the past, it was a huge issue. An illegitimate son born to a noble father could not inherit his father's title, regardless of the child and father's wishes.

An illegitimate son born to a king might be given a title—for instance on reaching adulthood, the illegitimate sons of Charles II were given dukedoms, along with estates and wealth, and their own sons, if legitimate, could inherit their title, but they could never aspire to be King.

Because that would create chaos. Until recent years there was no way of proving paternity, so the closest men could come to ensuring they had true heirs of their body was through marriage. Of course, marriage was no guarantee of fidelity, which was why women were frequently 'cabin'd, cribbed, confin'd.'

It's one reason why Henry VIII went through so many unfortunate wives, trying for a legitimate son. He had many suspected illegitimate children but only acknowledged one, Henry Fitzroy the first Duke of Richmond and Somerset, born in 1519. His mother was Elizabeth Blount, the lady-in-waiting of Catherine of Aragon.

The king openly celebrated the birth and acknowledged the boy as his own, giving him the surname Fitzroy (‘son of the king.’ Fitz is a common surname prefix indicating bastardy, hence Fitzcharles, Fitzgerald, Fitzwilliam etc.) In 1525 the six-year-old Henry Fitzroy was made Duke of Richmond. Henry doted on his son and despite his illegitimacy, it was apparent to many that the young duke was being groomed for kingship. That would have been hugely controversial — but Henry was used to reforming the way the world worked. However the question became moot when the young duke died aged 17.

Illegitimate sons given noble titles by a king had their coat of arms marked with the bar sinister, a bar crossing the shield diagonally from the top right to the bottom left. It wasn't a mark of shame, as such, but clearly established their illegitimacy.  (Stephanie Laurens was making a tongue-in-cheek pun on this when she named the heroes of her famous series The Bar Cynster.)

But it was only the king who could grant titles to their illegitimate sons. No other nobleman could do it. They could marry the mother and settle money and unentailed property on the child, but they could not pass on their title.

In order to be considered a legitimate child during the Regency, your parents had to be married at the time of your birth. A child born to a married woman was automatically considered to be legitimate unless the husband took active steps to disown the child before it was born or at its birth. If he were away at the time of the conception he could accuse his wife of adultery and divorce her.  The Duchess of Devonshire was sent away under a false name to have her child by Lord Grey. The baby was given up to be raised by others.

Lower down the social scale things were quite tough for illegitimate children. Illegitimacy was a huge source of shame and people went to great lengths to hide it. An illegitimate child could not inherit anything unless they were named specifically in a parent's will — even if the father had openly acknowledged the child as theirs.

Marriage was another complication. An illegitimate daughter was unlikely to be accepted or welcome at all socially, whereas a son might be admitted to the fringes of society with the assistance of his father — if the father was wealthy and influential. But not only were many people reluctant to allow an illegitimate child to marry into their family, even getting permission to marry could be complicated, and sometimes involved permission from the courts.

If a marriage was found to be invalid, none of the children born to that marriage were legitimate. (Mary Balogh wrote a superb series based on this very premise -- The Wescott series, beginning with Someone To Love. )

And if any of their children had married by license when minors, even with the permission of the father, such a marriage was also invalid and all those children illegitimate. Talk about the sins of the father being passed on. Imagine discovering as an adult that you are illegitimate and that your own marriage was probably invalid and your own children and even your grandchildren were illegitimate. What a shock!

So some writers handle this question well, but other persist in writing stories where titles are simply handed over, or left in a will, and where illegitimacy is a minor inconvenience. It makes for a good story — to anyone who doesn't know better.

What about you — do you have any historical issues that bug you when you're reading? What will make you give up on a book? I must confess if the writing is good enough and the issue not completely central, I might read on. But I also might shriek, as well.

Comments

[Kathy Emjerson]

Calling a knight Sir Lastname (Sir Browne instead of Sir Anthony in the case of Sir Anthony Browne, for example) will drive me to toss a book against the wall (not so much if it's on my iPad) and some writers who ought to know better have done this. Always makes me wonder where the copy editor was. Then again, I was once asked to blurb a book where an important secondary character chose to go by one of her lower titles. When I mentioned how unlikely this would be, especially given the character's personality, to the editor who asked for the blurb, he shrugged it off but passed my concern on to his newbie author. She was not happy with me and she saw no reason to change anything.

[Kathy Lynn Emerson]

I don't know why (how) my iPad managed to change the spelling of my name, but obviously it did in the above comment,

[Doreen Knight]

Inheritance through the female line is an automatic dnf for me.

[Christina Courtenay]

Great post, Anne, and I totally agree, that's very frustrating! And I'm with Kathy - I get very irritated when titles are used incorrectly, especially if a son or daughter of a mere Sir is called Lord/Lady Something-or-other. It is so easy to look up aristocratic titles, there is no need to get it wrong!

[Patricia Rice]

ooo, you've found a glitch even I haven't managed yet!

And copyeditors simply do not know the rules of titles. They are complicated and unless one bothers to sort through all the layers, errors will always slip through. So authors need to know their business.

personally, I think some copyeditors rely on the work of other authors to base their knowledge of titles.

[Patricia Rice]

oh no, it is possible! There are certain titles that in ancient times received permission to be passed on through the female line because the males died out. It was also possible to petition the Lords for various dispensations to pass on lands and money. And if the lord didn't sign an entailment, even the estate could go elsewhere--although I haven't dug too deeply into that.

[Susan Allan]

I totally agree on all counts. It’s a total turnoff when I come across this kind of historical inaccuracy because it simply tells me the author actually has no real interest in history.

I just read one where the villain has killed several members of the family to clear his way to inherit a Dukedom. But he could never have inherited because he was illegitimate. Such a basic, fundamental error. When I discovered he was the villain and that in fact he had no chance of ever inheriting - I wanted to tear up the book but as I was reading on my iPad - I couldn’t. So, so frustrating.

On a related note, I hate books where the author refuses to recognise how damaging pregnancy before marriage could be for a young woman’s prospects in life. I’ve read several where the pregnancy is accepted and even celebrated and made no difference to the young woman’s reputation at all. Infuriating.

[Patricia Rice]

You hit on a topic, Anne, that I'm playing loose with at the moment. Illegitimacy is a problem in so many aspects, that naturally, I had to try to play with it. I'm still digging my way out of the debris when it comes to property law. But titles... good grief. A modicum of reading would show that's impossible.

[Mary Jo Putney]

I wondered about that, Kathy. *G*

[Mike]

@ Kathy: I totally agree. This misuse of "Sir Browne" really grates, and I don't much like other errors in the use of titles, though when it comes to the more obscure rules regarding courtesy titles of non heirs in the upper ranks of the peerage all can be forgiven.

@ Doreen: but it's not always wrong if there is no male heir. Unusual and in need of justification but ... (see this Debrett article: https://debretts.com/peerage/titles-in-the-female-line/)

Apart from errors in titles I dislike cases where inheritance rules are broken - I recently read a book where the someone was disinherited by the current titleholder and lost the title as well as the estate. Obviously impossible, even though the unentailed estate could be willed elsewhere.

Also, I am put off by military errors, even though I suspect most readers neither notice nor care (and the plot is often not harmed by them).

And am I the only one who thinks that there are far too many Dukes wandering around Regencyland? Non royal Dukes are uncommon - so having even one who is young, attractive and unattached, let alone a group of two or three, is a bit improbable - and Royal Dukes are even fewer (and probably old and fat to boot). Earls are a much better bet - in terms of the peerage they are as common as muck and having a small flock gather is no surprise.

[Lil Marek]

Yes, you are preaching to the converted, LOL. Another one that drives me batty is the duke who is going to decide who his heir shall be. (No, I'm not referring to Caroline Linden's recent series—she has a perfectly good explanation.)

[Marsha]

I unfortunately know a bit too much to not catch these issues. Clothing sins are my biggest bugbear - post 1600 to 1920-ish, no matter how slender,you wore stays, corset, jumps. If you weren't a rough labourer,you were pretty much covered from toes to wrist to neck, saving only women's decollatage.
I am going to stop myself with that one as well as agreeing with points above.

[Quantum]

On a practical note,if an annoying book is on an ipad there is excellent software available for shredding it LOL. Even better with audio, Audible allows return of disliked books! On the whole I find that I can overlook many historical issues if the writing is very good, If I notice something, I can imagine an alternate (parallel) universe. Basic scientific issues can really bug me though.

[Mary T]

I have read a fair enough number of these books to have at least a passing knowledge of titles. And even I know that an illegitimate son would not inherit a title. But as far as getting titles right, I imagine I might have missed one or two without even knowing it. Personally, I'm not sure why so many the characters have titles. I'm guessing it has to do with book sales. Like someone above mentioned - there are an awful lot of dukes running around out there.

My focus is more on the story itself. I am more likely to notice a modern word or phrase that is used - a real turn off for me because it takes me out of the story and reminds me that I'm just reading a book written by someone who needed a better editor.

And unmarried sex has been around since the beginning of time - but I don't believe that most women were casual about it before the pill. When I read a book that has the unmarried heroine sexually active but not worried about it, it is just hard to believe.

Great topic Anne.

[Alger John]

A pet peeve of mine is the use of firearms. No one who has ever been shot at in a Regency novel can ever tell where the shooter is, despite a huge cloud of smoke and the relatively close distance the shooter must be. Firearms often seem to work fine in the rain, rarely need to be cocked before firing and bulky handguns can be hidden with relative ease and without spilling powder out of the flash pan.

[Anne Gracie]

Kathy, yes, that annoys me too. But I'm not sure that it's the copy editor's job to spot things like incorrect titles ‚ they're trained in grammar, not so much in history. It's really the author's job, isn't it? That newbie author you mentioned might not have changed that book, but I bet she was more careful in future.

[Anne Gracie]

Yes, as Pat has said, it was occasionally possible, but I would imagine an author would make that clear, if not in the story, then in a note at the end.

[Anne Gracie]

Yes, it's very lazy. I think some writers just think it sounds nicer/more glamorous. I once read a manuscript where the mother was something like Mrs Smith and the unmarried daughter was Lady something, and when I asked the writer to explain, she said it sounds better. sigh. I hope I convinced her otherwise, but really, I don't know that I did.

[Anne Gracie]

Susan, I've heard that kind of plot scenario too, and it makes me want to scream. BTW. Quantum (below) has made practical suggestions for "tearing up" electronic books.

I'm also with you about the way so many fictional historical heroines happily bonk their way through the book with no fear—or even thought— of pregnancy. I think a lot of younger authors, having grown up with easy access to reliable contraception, simply don't think about it. Or maybe they just ignore it because sex sells.

[Anne Gracie]

Pat, the heroine in my last book was illegitimate and I did everything I could to make her "passing" as legitimate convincing. There are still a few loose threads that I might have to cover in the next book. It gets very complicated.

[Anne Gracie]

Thanks for that link, Mike. And yes, I've also read a book where the titleholder threatened to disinherit his heir. Sure, he could will any unentailed property elsewhere, but he can't stop a legitimate heir inheriting the title.
And I'm with you on the number of dukes in Regencyland. But dukes are glamorous -- fat old royal dukes with dozens of bastards notwithstanding.

[Anne Gracie]

I haven't read that Caroline Linden series, but I'll take your word for it. Thanks Lil.

[Anne Gracie]

Marsha, I agree — even if the stays were light, they were there. And if they weren't, there had to be a good reason for it.

[Anne Gracie]

LOL, Quantum — thanks for that practical advice for "tearing up" electronic files. I'm curious as to some of the scientific issues that bug you. I was astonished to discover, when I was researching my Regency-era book set partly in Egypt, that there was furious debate in the scientific and medical community over whether The Plague was contagious or not. And the extremely fashionable physician who supervised Princess Charlotte's pregnancy more or less killed her (and the baby) with his theories.

[Anne Gracie]

Thanks, Mary. I do think the many titles we see is because people think they're more glamorous and it sells books. Though when I think of the popularity of Jane Austen's Mr Darcy it's more about the man than the title, isn't it? And the same with Georgette Heyer's Mr Beaumaris.

I really don't think a lot of the younger authors have ever realized what a huge revolution the pill was. And all the casual sex I see in historicals, with no concern for the possibility of pregnancy — let alone the huge disgrace — absolute ruin— that would be involved . . . I shakes me head. But as I said above — sex sells.

[Anne Gracie]

Thanks, Alger John — I have never shot a firearm, let alone a Regency-era one, but you make a several very good points. Perhaps we need you to come on to the word wenches and give us all a lesson.

[Nancy Mayer]

Scotland did a;low a child to be considered legitimate if the parents married after the birth. That was OK for a Scottish inheritance but an English one usually required children be born after the parents married to be eligible for anything. one author asked my advice about a story. I told her that no peer could select his bastard son over a legitimate one no matter that an author had a peer choosing from among his grandson, a nephew, and a son born out of wedlock.An English peer had no choice as to his successor.Still, far more prevalent error is naming barons as such. Baron Byron , Baron This and Baron That. A Man was a baron, he wasn't called one.

[Anne Gracie]

Thank you, Nancy. Yes, Baron This or that is another one. I always remember in Georgette Heyer's Venetia, she tells Lord Damerel that they used to refer to him as "the wicked baron."

[Kareni]

Thanks for your post, Anne. I hadn't known that about Fitz- signifying illegitimacy, so I learned something today.

Like Mary T, I'm likely to be thrown out of a book by modern language or something anachronistic.

[Mary M.]

Good idea! Let's have him as a guest.

[Mary M.]

So many untruisms, so little space to rant! I'm in for all of the above, especially the "too many dukes," which I've ranted earlier. I've seen Almack's on Thursday (two dufferent authors), knickers in a twist (1930s, as I recall, and one of my favorites, a hopeful mother who assured her daughter, "You could marry an earl, or a duke, or even … (breathlessly) a marquess!"

Judith Landsdowne had a series about a Duke's heirs in which the duke had married the hero's mother three days after the H's birth (through no fault of the parents, a ship went off course, etc.), cutting him out of the line, but the second-born son who did become duke was mentally deficient. The H did everything he could to support his brother, but a cousin who happened to be next in line persisted in believing the H was trying to kill his brother the duke. Great series, wish I could recall the title of it.

[Quantum]

"I'm curious as to some of the scientific issues that bug you"

Anne. Time travel portals come particularly to mind. The only reliable way to physically travel to the future is to move at speeds close to that of light. Travel to the past leads to paradoxes like the hero killing his mother so that he cannot exist. I think that such paradoxes indicate that it is not possible.

Theoretical scientific ideas always need experimental verification before they can become established theories especially in the complex medical field ... if possible best tested on rats before being used on people!

[Suzanne Askham]

Thank you for raising this. It does jar when fairly major laws that haven't changed much in centuries are unknown by an author, and their copy editor. I read a contemporary novel just a few days ago in which Lord X was the illegitimate son of the previous holder of the title. The impossibility of this does grate, and makes the world-building less convincing. I will see if I can find the novel and send the author a link to this post.

[/anne...]

While it wasn't in novel, I recently fell down the Harry and Meghan rabbit hole. It's amazing how little some people know - two people insisted that 'of course' a duke takes precedence over a prince (or princess).

Which would be news to The Princess Royal and Prince Edward no doubt...

[Joanna Maitland]

Great post, Anne. And I do so agree. I hate it when authors get titles wrong. The one that bugs me is when the old Duke is reconciled with his daughter and makes her son his heir. Through the female line? Not for a dukedom unless Scottish.

But equally, I'm bugged by authors who assert that a woman can never inherit an English title. Not true. Some ancient English titles could be inherited by daughters if there were no sons. I wrote a book based on that premise -- My Lady Angel -- where the heroine inherits her father's barony (and property) but his higher title is inherited by a hated cousin (who gets no money). Cue lots of conflict!

Re the title Baron. It's become noticeable since the use of life peerages in the UK that a lot of female peers like to be addressed as Baroness Bloggs rather than Lady Bloggs. I assume it's because "Baroness" looks more like a real title whereas "Lady" could be just the wife of a knight. The men, Barons, don't have the same problem because "Lord" is clear about rank.

One final piece of info that I picked up years ago in a magazine article. The children of a baron or viscount get the title "the Hon John Smith, the Hon Joanna Smith". But if said baron adopts a child, he/she is not entitled to the prefix "the Hon". No way, therefore, that the adopting parents can conceal from the child that he/she was adopted. In the article, the mother said it was a source of grief because the adopted child couldn't understand why he was treated differently from his siblings. I imagine that the same would be true of higher titles. If I'm right, the son of a duke is Lord John Surname but an adopted son would be Mr William Surname. One to ponder on.

[Joanna Maitland]

Re my last para. It's the younger sons of a duke who are Lord John Surname. The eldest son has a courtesy title of his own. Sorry I missed off "younger".

[Annette N]

Yes, some of the obvious errors can be grating. But, to be honest, when you think about it, many of the books which have those glaring errors, are not particularly well written in other areas. So, I have found it is pretty easy for me to say (after throwing up) "enough of that".
I want well developed characters. I want a plot that makes actual sense. I want characters who react in a normal human way. Unless of course the character is a villain who will hopefully fall off a cliff before the end of the story.
I would like a modicum of actually correct English grammar.
Most of all, I want writing that moves forward in a manner that is almost lyrical. I want words that give a sense of action or romance or danger. In short, write well, please.
Agatha Christie and Georgette Heyer could write well and create word pictures. Anyone who has read a book by either of these women, will be able to easily describe the action and the characters. They were masters of writing well.
See how easy it is. (tongue in cheek here)
Anyone who has written a book is to be admired. Anyone who has written a book well is to be admired, respected and well loved.

[Kelly Larivee]

Great post! Fascinating as always. As usual, the Wenches have it right!

[Alice Mathewson]

Scottish titles in particular can frequently go through the female line. The Marquess of Stafford married the Scottish Countess of Sutherland and their son was made Duke of Sutherland. Some generations later, the nearest heir was female so she got the Scottish title, while the Dukedom went to a distant male cousin

[ML]

The duke issue has only gotten worse recently. I was challenged to create a "count your dukes" stack on Insta, and being me, I then collected every book I had that had the word "duke" in the title and analyzed that first. :-) Again, this is only my collection, but the results are telling:

Pre-2000 publication: 1 book
2000-2009: 10
2010-2019: 68
2020-mid-2022: 13

So really, it's in the last 15 years or so that every other historical romance hero has been a duke. And that's just crazy! Add to it illegitimate sons who become dukes....

[Karen S. Clift]

Susan, those types of stories I go with the attitude that "we" know he'd never get it but he's insane or pathological or whatever the term would be & HE believes that he would inherit if all those folks got out of the way, even tho' we all know better. Usually HE gets killed before HE finds out; that's a shame because I'd love to hear the great wailing & gnashing of teeth when he's denied & then executed! Yeah, some days, I can be pretty vengeful, esp. if I liked someone he killed!

And you saying that about pregnancy, made me think of that episode in Downton's Abbey where Lady Mary wanted to "test-drive" the guy before marriage & sent her maid out to get the "anti-pregnancy apparatus" (I forget what it actually was) and how nasty folks were to the maid purchasing it!

[Karen S. Clift]

I admit, I've been laughing at the number of Dukes out there, and I figure the Marquis's (sp?) are going to start escalating soon. But shoot, used to be the "in" title was Earl, now it's Duke. We can't go any further up, so which one is next in popularity? Sir's (speaking to the "common man"?) or do we go back to having so many Earls on the ground that the poor proverbial cat is in major danger? I just figure ah well--and laugh at the amount of money out there as well! Sure wish I could handle money as well as so many of them do!

[Anne Gracie]

Karen, I think we're going to continue to see dukes on every corner for a good while yet. Marquises (or Marquesses) don't seem to be popular at all— possibly because even the choice of spelling is tricky. And very few books have viscounts, for some reason.

The late Jo Beverley's Titles article is still up and is very useful. https://www.jobev.com/title.html

[Anne Gracie]

Thanks Quantum — though I don't think you'll have the rat vote here. *g* I'd call time travel books as fantasy though, and in fantasy, anything is possible — as long as the writing is convincing enough that readers can make that leap of imagination along with the writer.

There's also the argument that some areas of science were written in fiction long before science caught up with those ideas. And of course now you're going to ask me for examples and I can't bring any to mind. But AI comes to mind.

[Anne Gracie]

The trouble with modern language or things sounding anachronistic is that it's all in the mind of the reader. I recall a Regency heroine called Tiffany being criticized as being too modern a name, but in fact it was perfectly correct for the time — people just thought it sounded too modern.

And my copyeditors (bless 'em) often query words or phrases I use, and I refer them every time to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) which lists the date the word first appears in print.

Language is tricky, though, as we're writing historical novels for a modern audience, many of whom don't know and don't care about history. So authors have to try for a historical feel that's still accessible for modern readers.

[Anne Gracie]

LOL Mary on the "even a marquess." I suppose a marquess had rarity value in romanceland, and that elevated him above the more common titles. That Judith Lansdowne story rings a faint bell, but I can't recall it either.

[Anne Gracie]

Suzanne, I've often come across contemporary novels that make this kind of error. I suppose those authors don't have the historical knowledge, or maybe they and most of their audience don't care. The title sounds glamorous and maybe a little bit exotic and that's what matters to them.

[Anne Gracie]

Oh Harry and Meghan would make for an endless rabbit hole, or rabbit holes, I'm sure. But yes, their ongoing publicity is slowly teaching a lot of people a little bit about UK titles at least. But some years ago I was stunned when my (supposedly well educated) adult nephew told me he wasn't going to vote for Prince Charles to be king after the Queen died. After I stopped laughing I explained that he didn't get to vote — that was the point of a monarchy. I'm not sure he believed me.

[Karen S. Clift]

Mary, I don't know that series but I do remember that Mary Balogh used it in her Huxtable quintet series--the one that missed legitimacy due to timing was Constantine; Jonathan (Jon, who I think we could describe as autistic) was Earl at the beginning of the series and Stephen was the cousin (he & his sisters were living in a vicarage in a small town--not knowing what was going to happen to them) and it was another cousin or friend (who eventually became a Duke) who suspected Constantine of stealing from Jon and Constantine loved to pretend to live up to the "bad press"

[Anne Gracie]

Yes, that's true, thanks Alice. But it's rare enough that a wise author might explain it, either in the context of the novel, or in an author note.

[Anne Gracie]

Thanks, Joanna, and I'm sure people saw your addendum/correction. Interesting that contemporary baronesses like to call themselves Baroness Surname, rather than Lady Surname.

[Anne Gracie]

Thanks, Annette. I haven't read Agatha Christie since I was a teen, but Heyer I've reread most of my life, and I have to agree that she writes superbly. I have come across some well-written historicals that have made mistakes with forms of address and titles, but in general, you're right.

[Anne Gracie]

Thanks, Kelly. We do our best.

[Anne Gracie]

Wow, ML, that's an interesting set of numbers. Thank you for sharing. I wonder if the huge success of Julie Quinn's The Duke and I was influential here.

[Karin]

That is hilarious about your nephew. Obviously he doesn't read romance! Or history!

[Teresa Broderick]

Well!! You are all so knowledgeable and I've learned a tremendous amount. Lots of things bug me in books too but especially in films made of historical books. The recent debacle that was Persuasion is a stand out one for me. Also the Persuasion with Rupert Penry Jones was awful. As you've probable guessed Persuasion is my favourite Austen and I HATE when they mess with it. This was a wonderful post!

[Karin]

I'm not that well versed in titles, but I would catch the obvious errors, like illegitimate sons inheriting a title. I recently DNF'd an historical romance in the first chapter. The editing was really poor which got on my nerves. But the last straw was the use of the word "hassle" to mean annoying or bothersome.

[Elizabeth Rolls]

It's definitely possible for a title to be passed to a female. Depends on how the original title was set up. A title could only pass to a daughter if she had no brothers. There was also the possibility if Lord X had no male heir and the College of Heralds couldn't find one by going back up the family tree, and the title was going to become extinct, that Lord X could ask the Crown to recreate the title. This usually meant that his daughter's eldest legitimate son would inherit.

[Quantum]

I guess I'm just not a fan of extreme fantasy where anything goes. An element of plausibility, eg through developing mental powers, is essential to keep me interested. I agree that the best science fiction can anticipate the future. For example I like Anne McCaffrey's Pern books for anticipating space exploration (which is just beginning}. Thanks for inspiring the stimulating discussion here!

[Nan Reinhardt]

Copy editor here and yes, you are so right most CEs don't know the rules of titles, nor is it their job to know them. If you happen to have a CE who knows enough to question a title, then a query for the author is appropriate, but no CE should ever change something like that. As you say, it is the author's job, not the CE's, to research and know how to title their characters.

[Jean Ffrench]

On topic for me, as I am currently reading “The Rake's Daughter”! As an aside, Anne, i was gobsmacked to read about a willie wagtail calling in London. It is NOT a bird found in the northern hemisphere. Nevertheless, I love your work!

[Jean Ffrench]

Huh, you should try watching the current version of Persuasion on Netflix. Destroyed the whole basic premise of the book. I watched about ten minutes and gave up. The TV series starring Ciarán Hinds was the best.

[Anne Gracie]

Thanks, Jean. Glad you enjoy my books. Re the willie wagtail, my copyeditor queried it and I sent her this :
Willie wagtail UK
Featured snippet from the web
This is an insectivorous bird of open country, often near habitation and water. It prefers bare areas for feeding, where it can see and pursue its prey. In urban areas it has adapted to foraging on paved areas such as car parks. It nests in crevices in stone walls under roof tiles, under stones etc.
https://www.britishbirdfood.co.uk/birdguide/bird/pied-wagtail#
Pied Wagtail - British Bird Food

[Corinne]

If she is a baroness in her own right, i.e. not necessarily married to a baron, she is Baroness xx and can/should be addressed so.

[Susan/DC]

I don't think Jon was autistic. He was the last born child so his mother was older, and from that and the description I think he had what we'd call Down's syndrome.