English Noble Numbering Convention

[The Professor]

I've never found a fully convincing reason why English (and thence British) numbering of its nobles is along the lines of 3rd Duke X or 5th Margrave Y, whereas the continental method was Duke X the 2nd or Margrave Y III.
Is it based in allodium?

 

[aegis03florin]

Very interested by this topic.
Would it be because of different form of property over the land ? That means the earl of X do not own the X shire/county but govern it in the name of the king who was the one who created it (William the Conqueror), who can destroy it (and recreated later) and to which return in absence of heirs.
The alodial lands of that particular noble can be (and usualy was) spread to the entire kingdom.
On the continent it was quite opposing situation and the family identify with the county. You was a count because you owned that piece of land...

 

[The Professor]

Very interested by this topic.
Would it be because of different form of property over the land ? That means the earl of X do not own the X shire/county but govern it in the name of the king who was the one who created it (William the Conqueror), who can destroy it (and recreated later) and to which return in absence of heirs.
The alodial lands of that particular noble can be (and usualy was) spread to the entire kingdom.
On the continent it was quite opposing situation and the family identify with the county. You was a count because you owned that piece of land...

That's what I'm assuming. That because allodial lands were technically (and initially) independent of the crown they got numbered like royalty whereas in England allodium didn't exist following the Conquest.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Yes, based on idea of the King as the fount of all honour. You might not be only the "third Earl of X" in England (and Scotland and Ireland) but the "third Earl of X of the second creation" (i.e. the third member of the second family to hold that title).
Examples from the early modern period (I am not well informed about the medieval) Dukes of Devonshire had no lands in Devonshire, Dukes of Manchester had no land in Manchester, Earls of Lisburne (Lisburn modern spelling) were Welsh landowners. Viscounts Downe were Yorkshire landowners and Earls of Carnavon were Hampshire landowners. Lord Berwick a Shropshire landowner.

 

[Thoresby]

The Earls of Carnarvon is a good example, the family name is Herbert and they were from South Wales originally and became Earls of Pembroke. When a younger son inherited lands through the female line in Hampshire, (Highclere aka Downton Abbey) he chose a Welsh title as to hark back to that ancestry despite the fact that he no any of his ancestors had ever had anything to do with Carnarvon which is in North Wales.

Basically any British title post about 1400 probably has nothing to do with the lands held by the family. e.g. the House of York mostly had lands in the Welsh Marches. There are exceptions (Earls and Dukes of Northumberland) but they are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[The Professor]

Yes, based on idea of the King as the fount of all honour. You might not be only the "third Earl of X" in England (and Scotland and Ireland) but the "third Earl of X of the second creation" (i.e. the third member of the second family to hold that title).
Examples from the early modern period (I am not well informed about the medieval) Dukes of Devonshire had no lands in Devonshire, Dukes of Manchester had no land in Manchester, Earls of Lisburne (Lisburn modern spelling) were Welsh landowners. Viscounts Downe were Yorkshire landowners and Earls of Carnavon were Hampshire landowners. Lord Berwick a Shropshire landowner.

The Earls of Carnarvon is a good example, the family name is Herbert and they were from South Wales originally and became Earls of Pembroke. When a younger son inherited lands through the female line in Hampshire, (Highclere aka Downton Abbey) he chose a Welsh title as to hark back to that ancestry despite the fact that he no any of his ancestors had ever had anything to do with Carnarvon which is in North Wales.

Basically any British title post about 1400 probably has nothing to do with the lands held by the family. e.g. the House of York mostly had lands in the Welsh Marches. There are exceptions (Earls and Dukes of Northumberland) but they are the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not overly concerned with the name of the title since that usually has a connection with land or town held - note that English titles are usually for a town (Arundel, Leicester, York) if the land name isn't ancient (Cornwall, Kent, Norfolk).
It's the reasons for the differing continental vs insular conventions on numbering that have me puzzled.

 

[Thoresby]

Sorry let me rephrase, as ShortsBelfast said English title's post Edward I are titles of honour not territorial designations. They are not comparable to Continental noble titles. There was always an Count of Styria so knowing that a particular Austrian Emperor was the 43rd since the titles creation wasn't relevant or useful but knowing be was the 4th Charles was relevant. In contrast knowing that the a Thomas Duke of Norfolk was the 3rd of that creation is relevant as it's a handy clue the antiquity and thus precedence of the title.

 

[The Professor]

Sorry let me rephrase, as ShortsBelfast said English title's post Edward I are titles of honour not territorial designations. They are not comparable to Continental noble titles. There was always an Count of Styria so knowing that a particular Austrian Emperor was the 43rd since the titles creation wasn't relevant or useful but knowing be was the 4th Charles was relevant. In contrast knowing that the a Thomas Duke of Norfolk was the 3rd of that creation is relevant as it's a handy clue the antiquity and thus precedence of the title.

Isn't that just restating nonallodial (ie created by and held for the crown) vs allodial (not created) in a different way?

 

[Thoresby]

Isn't that just restating nonallodial (ie created by and held for the crown) vs allodial (not created) in a different way?

Well "allodial" entities like the March of Styria were also created (970) but actually I think France is a really useful example. In the middle ages you have Dukes of Burgundy numbered regnally i.e. Phillip II because they were territoral entities. But by the early modern era the Princes of Conti are numbered in the English and Spanish style.

 

[Lampiao]

Sorry let me rephrase, as ShortsBelfast said English title's post Edward I are titles of honour not territorial designations. They are not comparable to Continental noble titles. There was always an Count of Styria so knowing that a particular Austrian Emperor was the 43rd since the titles creation wasn't relevant or useful but knowing be was the 4th Charles was relevant. In contrast knowing that the a Thomas Duke of Norfolk was the 3rd of that creation is relevant as it's a handy clue the antiquity and thus precedence of the title.

I'm not overly concerned with the name of the title since that usually has a connection with land or town held - note that English titles are usually for a town (Arundel, Leicester, York) if the land name isn't ancient (Cornwall, Kent, Norfolk).
It's the reasons for the differing continental vs insular conventions on numbering that have me puzzled.

There were continental equivalents. Look for noblesse de robe.

 

[The Professor]

There were continental equivalents. Look for noblesse de robe.

I'm specifically querying the different conventions on feudal titles not officiary ones.

 

[Thoresby]

I'm specifically querying the different conventions on feudal titles not officiary ones.

The noblesse de robe was an ex post facto social distinction. At Versailles in 1788 it was probably safe to bet that the 14th Comte de X was noblesse d'epee while the 3rd Marquis de Y was noblesse de robe but the style of their titles was the same.

 

[Clandango]

Hmmm. Might be a lot of this only came a long time after the fact, to better differentiate everyone. And what of the French practice of letting all kids of nobles use titles?

 

[Cornelis]

In the Middle Ages, nobles did not use numerals, even if some sovereigns did. The numbers by which they are known nowadays were created by Early modern historians. While doing so, they adopted the rules of their own times. These rules are a result of the early modern noble titles regulation.

In Britain, the titles were both personal (only one holder at a time) and severely controlled by the King (no one could simply assume being an earl or viscount), same goes in Spain or Italy, so the rule is "X, Nth Duke of Y". The thing are complicated further by the different creations of the same title, as ShortsBelfast wrote ; in fact, despite this legality, noblemen usually style themselves with a higher numeral than the legal one, because they saw two creations in the same family as one, or they did not take into account attainders. For the Middle Ages titles, it is not even possible to know if a title was re-created (thus starting a new series of lords) or a female-line succession accepted. In France, titles were personal but not severely controlled by the King ; Dukedoms were the only truly regulated title, but any noble could assume being a marquis without being prosecuted. In Germanic areas, titles were not personal, so no one could be The Duke of Z, much less the Nth Duke of Z. In both countries, numerals, when used (very few did in France), are on the "x IV, Duke of Y" model.

An alternate naming system is using numerals not for title succession, but for family succession. This is usually done for Italian families, which had a rich history even before being granted titles.

 

[The Professor]

@Cornelis
Could you bullet point that for me, I kind of get it but then lose it again further down

 

[Cornelis]

@Cornelis
Could you bullet point that for me, I kind of get it but then lose it again further down

Here is my try, with some precisions :

• If titles are both worn by a single person at a time and controlled by royal power (Britain, Spain, Italy) : "X, Nth Duke of Y". Example : Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk.
• If titles are worn by many persons (Germanic Areas) : "X N., Duke of Y". Example : Prince Heinrich LXVII Reuss of Schleiz.
• If titles are weakly controlled by royal power (France) : no numeral, or in case of need, either family one (Example : François XIX de La Rochefoucauld (legally the 15th Duke of La Rochefoucauld) or title one (Example : Victor-François de Broglie, 8th Duke of Broglie (the fifth Victor in his line).

There are many counter-examples to these "rules", of course and many alternative naming system, such as the nom de terre in France. Using some technicalities, you could have two different holders of the same title under two different names. For Example, Louis de Rouvroy de Saint-Simon was the Duke of Saint-Simon, his elder son Louis was the Duke of Ruffec (same title as his father, different name), and his younger son Armand-Jean was the Marquess of Ruffec (different title, same name). No need for numeral in this situation and even some headaches if you try : the Duke of Ruffec was legally speaking, the 3rd Duke of Saint-Simon, but he was never known by this name. He was also not the first Duke of Ruffec, as no Ruffec duchy was ever created. The only precise way to name him using a numeral was "Louis de Rouvroy de Saint-Simon, 3rd Duke of Saint-Simon, known as Duke of Ruffec". A tad long, even in the etiquette-hungry French court...

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

I'm not overly concerned with the name of the title since that usually has a connection with land or town held - note that English titles are usually for a town (Arundel, Leicester, York) if the land name isn't ancient (Cornwall, Kent, Norfolk).

English title's post Edward I are titles of honour not territorial designations.

I am curious, but how many noble titles are based upon the territorial land?

AFAICT/AFAIK the Duchy of Lancaster is roughly in the same place it has been in the whole time since Edwards 1-3, and even at some stage had most of the North of England under its control. My understanding is that the Dukes of Northumberland, Norfolk and Cornwall is the same. To that end the dukes of Somerset/Beaufort are bastard lines just given title because they were Lancaster offspring

Pretty sure Edward III named his son Duke of York for some honorary position because most of their territory seemed to be in the Welsh marches, Calais, and even Ireland.

 

[Thoresby]

Both the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall (which unlike Dukedoms are legal entities) have considerable holdings outside their titular counties and have had for centuries and anyway are royal and weird. The Duke's of Norfolk have been based in Sussex for centuries but used to have extensive East Anglian estates, Somerset and Northumberland are both primarily based in their titular counties. The Duke of Devonshire has never owned any land in Devon.

 

[The Professor]

I am curious, but how many noble titles are based upon the territorial land?

The original titles were based on AS lands as redistributed by the Norman kings. As time went on and lands accrued back to the crown or got divided among female heirs, titles, which weren't divisible, became more divorced from their original territory. Most are now purely honourable, that is disconnected from any land.

 

[Cornelis]

The loss of link between feudal properties and titles came early in Britain, but eventualy all countries fell into it. In the areas were feudal property remained strong, the link was often enforced by changing the name of the place, no the title. The Saxon example is well known : when the emperor granted the title of Duke of Saxony to the Wettin, the march of Misnia became the Duchy of Saxony, hence the two german lander of Lower Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt. In France, when the King awarded a new dukedom and the grantee asked for a title without territorial holding, the name of one of his lordships was changed. When James Fitzjames became a duke in France in 1710, his lordship of Warty was renamed Fitzjames, even if Fitzjames is not a placename. In Spain and Italy, this was far less common, even if the kings created some "titles on the name" in Italy and some landless titles in Spain, usually on the "Count of Casa X" Model, Casa meaning House.