Sounds pretty "relative" to me :) THANKS!! (nfm)
Posted by ElaineL on February 07, 1998 at 18:41:29:
In response to Nobility, aristocracy, etc., written by The Mysterious H.C. on February 07, 1998 at 16:06:20
]
] ] Darcy had good connections. But is he not an "aristocrat," being only a "gentleman" because his father did not hold a title, even though his mother was the daughter of an earl?
]
] Elaine -- in the technical legal sense you're only a "peer" if you're the actual person who holds the aristocratic title (and has the right to sit in the House of Lords -- if not a woman -- etc. etc.) But if you're in the immediate family of such a title-holder, or in the immediate family of the eldest-son of a title-holder (earl or above), then you get a formal aristocratic honorific (as described in the honorifics page). Similarly with knights (though children of baronets and kinghts don't get a special honorific). Darcy didn't fall into any of these categories.
] Beyond that, among the untitled "landed gentry", everything is subject to at least a certain degree of personal opinion and debate -- relative status among the untitled depends on how much a family's wealth, character, antiquity, political connections, etc. impress other families who are in socially influential positions.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
