Addressing royalty and nobility

Oct 05, 2008 02:29

Setting: a fantasy based on 12th/13th century England ( Read more... )

1100-1199, uk: nobility, 1200-1299, uk: history: middle ages

Leave a comment

Comments 14

randomstasis October 5 2008, 20:11:51 UTC
If it's really based on feudal England and he actually owns a manor, then the king is ultimately his liege lord, and could be addressed as such. Formal address for the king and queen in documents, Majesty:princesses, Highness in the second and third person, for princes, Grace and Highness, (since they were often Dukes or earls, or they could be referred to by their honors, although not addressed that way by a commoner)- Knights should be addressed as Sir X, princes not knighted as Lord X, and, it wasn't uncommon to refer to the younger members of the royal family as Lord or Lady firstname either.
My lord and lady usually works informally.

Reply

randomstasis October 5 2008, 20:53:23 UTC
and now that I actually go looking, I can't find any but very formal documents referring to "your Majesty" but did find this http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/williamnewburgh-becket1.html
in 1174, a prince in disguise speaking to the king.
"I am the attendant upon Ralph de Glanville, your faithful liegeman, by whom I have been sent to your highness; and I come to bring good tidings." "Ralph, our friend! Is he well?" asked the king. "He is well, my lord," he answered
and
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/hoveden-becket.html#1165aThe Letter of Gilbert, bishop of London, to pope Alexander upon the answer of the King on the business of the archbishop of Canterbury.
"our dearest lord, the illustrious king of the English, ...his royal majesty,

Reply


mamadeb October 5 2008, 20:20:10 UTC
1. You're asking how a commoner would address his country's royal family. He would probably say "Your Grace." "Majesty" didn't become the form of address until the Tudors a couple hundred years in the future. He might also address him in the third person. "Will your graces be hunting today?" He would probably wait to be spoken to first.

2. While your apothecary might be wealthy, I'd hesitate to say he owned a manor house - that implies he also owns all the lands around him plus the rents from all the tenants. These tend to be hereditary and not for sale - and belonging to nobility. It's possible he could have gotten a grant from the king, of course, but more likely, he would just have a large home.

BTW, he'd have to be EXTREMELY wealthy. Royal families would not travel without an entourage and your apothecary would be expected to bear the expense of putting all of them up - food, housing, entertainment, damages.

Reply

orthent October 6 2008, 19:20:26 UTC
He would probably say "Your Grace." "Majesty" didn't become the form of address until the Tudors a couple hundred years in the future.

For some reason, I seem to remember that there were complaints about its adoption, too--that it was an innovation that showed an unprecedented level of arrogance. Did that happen, or is it just my imagination?

Reply

bobcatmoran October 6 2008, 20:12:02 UTC
IIRC, Henry VIII was the one who started "Majesty" as a form of address and, yes, it was seen as extraordinarily arrogant.

Reply

mamadeb October 6 2008, 23:17:39 UTC
Because "Majesty" had been reserved for Emperors, of which there was only one (Holy Roman) commonly acknowledged.

Reply


sollersuk October 5 2008, 20:47:22 UTC
One thing to remember is that for 12th century and much of 13th the nobility would have been using Norman French, not any variety of English.

As mamadeb says, an apothecary (fairly low tradesman; might be of importance in the town where he lives, but not elsewhere) would not own a manor house as he would not hold a manor - particularly at that date, that would be confined to someone who could provide military assistance. Also seconded re the expense of entertaining royalty. This was a common way of getting dues from vassals, and could be ruinously expensive.

Reply

randomstasis October 5 2008, 20:59:49 UTC
seconded, but the OP should look at peripatetic courts- the manor might have been the kings gift to a favored doctor, and therefore technically still the kings- the entourage might well be quarted elsewhere

Reply

mamadeb October 5 2008, 21:20:49 UTC
But what would the apothecary be speaking?

Actually, that's fairly serious. Would he be speaking Saxon, would he, as someone associating with the nobility, be speaking Norman French, or would it be a pidgin?

I admit I did not think about that when I posted, but as the OP would be writing in English, it seems reasonable that the terminology would be English as well.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


hafren October 6 2008, 05:40:47 UTC
It really isn't as codified then. I'd be surprised if he used anything but lord and lady.

Reply


syntinen_laulu October 6 2008, 19:29:00 UTC
Second everybody who said that in the 12th-13th century ownership of a manor entailed serious military responsibilities, so the king simply wouldn't give one to someone who couldn't fulfil such responsibilities. If he wanted to reward his doctor/court alchemist or whatever, he'd give him a highly-paid sinecure, or the right to collect customs duties, or something like that.

Nor would a scholar/specialist like that want a manor. It wasn't like the 18th or 19th century when the newly-rich could buy country estates in order to become genteel; he couldn't play the part of a knight, and stuck in a country manor he couldn't pursue his own vocation either.

I'd say that "My Lord", "Your Highness" and "Your Grace" are all plausible.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up