[LMB] HH chapter 7

Peter H. Granzeau pgranzeau at cox.net
Thu Apr 20 03:49:57 BST 2006

At 08:29 AM 4/18/2006, Jacki Knight wrote:
>I hate to be picky, but.....
>On 23/03/2006, at 7:57 AM, Scott Raun wrote:
>>Why does Ingrey have to be considerable nobility?  Think of Princess
>>Diana - if Princess Di had siblings, and _they_ had kids, they'd be
>>cousins of Prince Harry, the (presumed) future King of England.  But
>>would they have any significant rank?
>1 - Princess Diana did have siblings.
>2 - Her brother Charles is Earl Spencer, his son will be that after him.
>3 - Prince Harry is the younger son - why would you presume he is 
>going to be the future King of England. Anticipating a nasty fate 
>for William, are you :-)  ?
>4 - OTOH, her sister Jane's children have no real rank as she 
>married a commoner. Jane herself only carries the courtesy title of 
>Honourable. Score one for your original point.
>5 - Although Herself did say that Ingrey's father was a baron of some sort.
>Jacki in Canberra - behind as usual (and impatiently waiting to get 
>her hands on HH again - 8th in line at the library!!!!)

The British peerage is unlike German peerages.  Every child of a 
German Prinz, Herzog or Fuerst or Graf was also a Prinz(essin), 
Herzog(in), Fuerst(in) or Graf(in), just as long as both of the 
child's parents were of the high nobility.  In Britain, that is not 
true (e.g., the son of an Earl is not also an Earl, unless somehow he 
has been created as one himself by the Monarch--that happened in the 
case of Arthur Wellesley, who was a younger son of the Earl of 
Mornington, and became the Earl of Wellington in 1812 (eventually, 
his descendants also inherited the Mornington title, but by that 
time, the title was, of course, Duke of Wellington).

Regards, Pete
pgranzeau at cox.net  

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list