Quick Index Board Index Home FAQ Site Map

View thread | Previous message | Next message


Because...   Written by Barbara (9/11/2009 2:42 p.m.) in consequence of the missive, Why a baronet?, penned by Graciela
Are you new?

As I said, many people believe he is. Since a knighthood is awarded for a particular service to the crown, it seems more probably that this title was inherited rather than earned in Sir John's case. The situation of his family having a not only a large estate but the largest and central estate named the same as the valley and the village nearby makes it more likely that this family has a hereditary title rather than a knighthood.

Just because she didn't specifically say he was a baronet doesn't mean he wasn't one. We could also argue that in the case of the Sirs who are knights, we are told that they are knights such as Sir William Lucas. Jane Austen also did not give Colonel Brandon or Mrs. Dashwood first names, but that doesn't mean they don't have first names.


Previous message | Next message | Board index

All messages in the thread


Password:

Groupread is maintained by Myretta with WebBBS 3.21.


View thread | Previous message | Next message
Board index

Group Read Board Pride & Prejudice Board Emma Board Sense & Sensibility Board Persuasion Board Mansfield Park Board Northanger Abbey Board Austenuations Board Jane Austen's Life & Times Board Lady Catherine & Co. Board Library Board Virtual Views Board Ramble Board Meetings Board Newcomers' Board Milestones Board Help Board Pemberleans Board





- Jane Austen | Republic of Pemberley -

Quick Index Home Site Map JAInfo

© 2004 - 2012 The Republic of Pemberley

Get copyright permissions

Quantcast