Sir William de Brereton - Correct titles

Начал Private User среда, 30 апреля 2014
Возникла проблема на этой странице?

Участники:

  • Private User
    Geni member
  • Geni member
  • Private User
    Geni member
  • Private User
    Geni member

Упомянутые профили:

Показаны все сообщения (5)
Private User
30.4.2014 в 10:50 после полудня

If anyone is curious as to why the display name has been changed, please allow me to explain. "Sir Knight" is not a title (and certainly not part of a name). If a man is knighted or made a baronet (or inherits a baronetcy), he becomes "Sir (name)", not "(name), Sir", much less "(name), Sir Knight".

Also, although his display name had "VIII" appended to it, this is an incorrect usage of generational post-nominals which usually only apply to *living* generations. For example: my great-grandfather, grandfather, father and I all have borne the same name. However, I would only be "Robert Haines IV" if my great-grandfather happened to still be alive at the time of my usage of the title; as I am the only living one of the four, I do not use a post-nominal.

There are examples of this rule being bent, such as with monarchs and hereditary aristocrats. And some commoners such as J.J. Astor IV used it, but that was a convention to disambiguate him from his well-known forebears. Clearly, that's not the case here.

30.4.2014 в 11:09 после полудня

You're right about using Sir and Knight. This topic is covered in the Naming Conventions for Knights project:
http://www.geni.com/projects/Naming-Conventions-for-Knights/11429

As far as post-nominal numbers, there have been quite a few debates about it. Out of all those discussions two points stand out:

* Most contemporary Americans no longer follow the traditional rule about numbering only living generations. Indeed, most are not aware there was such a rule.

* Except for royalty and sometimes the highest nobility, our European ancestors didn't number themselves. So, the numbers are only a genealogical convenience and were never part of their "real" names. Nevertheless, users are split about whether to use them and if so how.

Private User
1.5.2014 в 4:56 до полудня

@http://www.geni.com/path/Judy+Rice+is+related+to+Sir+William+de+Bre... is my 1st cousin 18 times removed i did not know his name was changed thks for letting me know Judy Rice

Private User
1.5.2014 в 9:01 до полудня

I agree about the sir knight, however when sorting out a families with 12 generations of people, sometimes with no birth or death dates, it's very helpful to sometimes gives them a number, at least temporarily. I try to assign their main property holdings to the as this helps as well. Many of the old genealogical resources will state " and this Robert was the third of his name from Adlington" and that's all we can get until further cross referencing can be done. The Breretons are my family as well, so will probably be working on them at some point during this whole Chesire research. It's a work in progress.

Private User
1.5.2014 в 9:11 до полудня

I also wanted to add that many existing profiles do not include yet the actual rank of the individual in question . When you get back into the early Norman years in Britain, the government wasn't so formalized , but in wills and land documents I'm translating they refer to each other as Viscounts or Dukes, or Engineers, et al, which is key to sorting out identities of people who show up in military actions in historical research that seems to support things like claims of rank, marriage, acknowledged illegitimacy, etc.

Показаны все сообщения (5)

Зарегистрируйтесь или войдите в систему чтобы участвовать в этом обсуждении