How English aristocrats dress, their tastes and style. English Jewish aristocracy in Great Britain Life and traditions of English aristocrats

The English aristocracy is a brand. Something like the bear caps of the guards and the beefeater parrots. It is interesting to trace what happened in the beginning, and how the aristocracy became an illusion.

The jurist Thomas Smith (1513-1577) wrote a treatise, De Republica Anglorum, in 1562-1565, in which he told us the following: “We in England generally divide our people into four categories: gentlemen, townspeople, yeomen, artisans or laborers. Of the gentlemen, the first and foremost are the king, the prince, the dukes, the marquesses, the earls, the viscounts, the barons, and they are called nobility, and they are all called lords and nobles: they are followed by knights, esquires, and simple gentlemen. This classification was then repeated verbatim in William Harrison's (1534–1593) description of England.

As I said the previous time, Thomas Wilson (1560?–1629), a representative of the royal administration, in his treatise The State of England in 1600 wrote: , while among the nobility, Thomas Wilson singled out the secular and spiritual nobility. On the other hand, he divided the nobility into the eldest, to which he included marquises, earls, viscounts, barons and bishops, and the youngest, which, in his opinion, consisted of knights, esquires, gentlemen, priests and educated people (everyone who received some or a degree). Elsewhere in his treatise, Thomas Wilson named "knights, esquires, gentlemen, lawyers, professors and priests, archdeacons, prebendaries and vicars" as part of the "minor nobility".

Historians of law can easily tell how the various titles came about.

The title of duke (duke, duchess) was created in England in the eleventh year of the reign of Edward III (in 1337) and the eldest son of the king, Edward the Black Prince, became the first duke.

The title of marquis (marquis, marques, marchioness) was introduced in the eighth year of the reign of Richard II (in 1385). King's confidant Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford was declared the Marquess of Dublin in Ireland (Marquesse of Dublin in Ireland).

The title of earl (earl, count, countess) has existed in England since 800. This title began to be worn by the representative of the king in the administrative-territorial district (shire), who took over the functions of ealdorman.

The title of viscount (viscount, viscountess) was created in the eighteenth year of the reign of Henry VI (in 1440). The first Viscount was John Beaumont. The viscount was originally the sheriff of the county.

The title of baron has existed in England since 1066. Initially, it denoted the holder of land received directly from the king.

In the era of the reign of Edward III, there was still a title of baronet, which was granted by the king's patent in exchange for a certain amount of money. The term "baronet" is found in the text of one of the statutes of King Richard II as a designation of a member of the nobility, deprived of the privilege of participating in parliament on an individual call on behalf of the king. In subsequent times, no one wore the title of baronet, and he was forgotten until he was revived by James I. On May 22, 1611, he created a hereditary class group of baronets in the hope of extorting some money in this way for the arrangement of Ireland. His Majesty offered the title of baronetcy and lands in Ulster to two hundred gentlemen who had an income of at least £1,000 (one pound in 1600 is today about £135 in purchasing power). In order to become baronets, they had to buy a special patent by paying 1,095 pounds to the royal treasury, while applicants for this title undertook to maintain 30 soldiers from the army stationed in Ireland for three years. Naturally, although James I even allowed payment for baronet patents with a three-year deferment, the demand for them was not too great. Until 1615, less than a hundred wealthy English moles bought a patent for the title of baronet (and since 1615, James I came up with the idea of ​​raising to the peerage for money). In the social hierarchy, the baronets occupied a place that was above the position of the knights, but below the position of the barons.

At the time when Thomas Wilson wrote his treatise, that is, in 1600, there was not a single duke in England. The title of marquis was borne by 2 noble persons, the title of count - 18, viscounts were 2 people, there were 39 barons, knights - about 500 people, esquires - 16,000 or more. The total population of England at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries was about four million people or a little more. That is, in general, the noble class included about half a percent of the population. For comparison, in Spain only 10% considered themselves noble. In 1520, there were 25 grandees and 35 other representatives of the senior nobility, not counting other trifles, but under Philip II another 18 dukes, 38 marquises and 43 counts were created, under Philip III 20 marquises and 25 counts, under Philip IV - 67 marquises and 25 counts, and under Carlos II - 209 marquises, 78 counts and 5 viscounts! At the same time, it must be said that the increase in the number of nobility in Spain and the absence of such a phenomenon in England are easily explained. In Spain, the feudal title was directly connected with real power, since it was tied to the land. This has never happened in England due to the historical nature of their nobility. Next, we will see what it was.

The main attention was paid to the occupation and property status of the nobility. "Gentlemen are those whom their blood and race make noble and famous", but at the same time "no man is made a baron in England unless he can spend at least one thousand pounds or one thousand marks from the annual income ". The annual incomes of viscounts, earls, marquesses and dukes should have allowed them to spend even more money. If representatives of these estate groups had incomes below the established norms, they still retained their titles, but they were not allowed to the upper house in parliament on the grounds that their property status had fallen so much that it did not allow them to "maintain honor." For a knight, the annual income was to provide for the expenses established by the "old law of England" in the amount of forty pounds sterling - for example, "for the coronation of a king, or the wedding of his daughter, or the knighting of a prince." The marquesses and earls each had an average income of £5,000 a year. The annual income of the baron and viscount was about 3,000 pounds. Three of the bishops - Cantebury, Winchester and Isle of Ely - had an income in the amount of 2 to 3 thousand pounds sterling a year, the rest of the bishops had an annual income of from one thousand to 500 pounds, but some of them received less than these. amounts.

The English "senior nobility" (dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, barons and bishops) had a hard time at the beginning of the 17th century. These titles were increasingly at odds with the real power of the people.

Firstly, there were too few aristocrats (a little over sixty families). This was largely facilitated by Queen Elizabeth I, who sought to prevent the erosion of the older nobility by wealthier people from less noble strata. In thirty years, Her Majesty has elevated only one person to the aristocratic rank and allowed two to inherit the aristocratic titles of their ancestors. In accordance with the order, fixed by custom and law, the titles of duke, marquis, earl and baron were inherited only by the eldest sons. The rest of the sons of aristocrats became mere esquires. At the same time, all the sons of dukes and marquises and the eldest sons of earls were called lords.

Secondly, the vast majority of English aristocrats at the beginning of the 17th century could not boast of the antiquity of their kind - no more than one to one and a half centuries. The aristocratic clans of older origin, with rare exceptions (for example, the Duke of Buckingham and the Marquess of Dorset), were completely exterminated during the civil war of 1455-1485. Of the 50 lords who at the time of the beginning of this war constituted the upper house of the English Parliament, by 1485 29 remained alive. By 1540 their number was replenished. In 1621, there were 91 lay peers in the House of Lords, of which 42 received a peerage during the reign of James I.

Thirdly, by the beginning of the 17th century, the economic positions of the aristocracy had noticeably weakened. Unlike the French, Spanish and German nobility, which relied on extensive land holdings, the English aristocracy had the main basis of its power in positions at the royal court. The titles of English aristocrats, as a rule, were not associated with the lands they owned, which was largely facilitated by the practice of distributing lands by the king to his vassals not in a single array, but in several areas located in different localities (“Earl of Essex”), which was established in the time of William the Conqueror , for example, had nothing to do with the lands of the county of Essex, and the lands of the Earl of Oxford were located anywhere but in Oxfordshire"). Title succession was not automatic. “Dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons are either elevated to the rank of monarch, or honored with this honor, being the eldest sons, as the highest and closest heirs in relation to their parents,” wrote Thomas Smith. At the same time, he noted that by raising to the rank he refers to “first of all, the bestowal and determination of the conditions of honor (granted by the monarch for good service ...), which, with the title of this honor, usually (but not always) complains to him and his heirs, only male ... " .

By the beginning of the 17th century, no more than 3% of land was in the possession of the English aristocracy. Since this was not enough to receive an income corresponding to the title, the English aristocrats were looking for money at the royal court. This means that they climbed out of their skin in order to achieve any material awards, pensions or rents for themselves by any means, and even better - to get positions that allowed them to embezzle state funds and take bribes. At the same time, from the end of the 16th century, aristocrats began to get more actively involved in entrepreneurial activities, so that at the beginning of the 17th century, 78% of the aristocratic families of England received various kinds of income in this area. At that time, one of the most common and fastest ways to get rich was obtaining patents from the royal government, which granted aristocrats exclusive rights to produce something or trade in any product. The most profitable branches of England's foreign trade - for example, the export of wool and cloth, the import of wines, raisins and other products - were thus in the monopoly possession of individual aristocrats. As a rule, these were major dignitaries, so to speak, "who had access to the royal person." Suffice it to cite Robert Dudley, later Duke of Leicester, as an example. He amassed a huge fortune thanks to the exemption from taxes granted to him by Elizabeth on the importation of sweet wines, olive oil and velvet into the country.

The English “elder nobility”, although it was not a caste, at all times was a class group that had quite definite boundaries. The number of dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons has always been well known. And the legal status of the holders of these titles was quite clear. "The peerage of dukes, earls, marquesses, viscounts and barons was distinguished by their hereditary titles, their favorable legal position and their privileged parliamentary status." The baronets held, like the named groups, a hereditary title, but they had no legal privileges and no seats in the House of Lords.

The "younger nobility" was more open than the "older". It was not difficult for an ordinary person to enter this category - it was only necessary to achieve a certain standard of living. In the words of Thomas Smith, "he who has learned anywhere the laws of the kingdom, who has studied at the universities, who has mastered the liberal sciences, and, in short, who can live idle without indulging in manual work and will still be able to have posture, duties and kind of a gentleman, he will be called a master, since this is the title that people give to esquires and other gentlemen. The college of heralds gave such a person a newly invented coat of arms and title for a fee. At the same time, an entry was made in the heraldic book that the coat of arms with the title was granted to him for his merits and certain merits. "Such men," remarked Thomas Smith, "are sometimes disparagingly called gentlemen in the first generation."

Only the king could raise to the rank of knight. Elizabeth I was extremely stingy not only in terms of money, but also in the distribution of this title. However, during the reign of James I and Charles I, it could be acquired by almost any landowner who had the opportunity to pay the required amount for it and did not refuse to perform the duties corresponding to the knighthood. However, both the duties and the rights of persons belonging to the "junior nobility" did not have a clearly defined character. For these reasons, the number of knights, esquires, gentlemen, priests, and those who belonged to the named group of educated people could only be approximated.

As they write in all history textbooks, in the first decades of the 17th century, the economic influence of the "younger nobility" increased. Many of this category became successful merchants or established the production of any goods. Thomas Wilson described it this way in his treatise: “Gentlemen who used to go to war are now growing up into good masters and know as well as farmers or peasants how to improve their lands to the maximum.” This was the "gentry" or "new nobility". The discrepancy between title and power was very noticeable when, for example, the "new nobleman" was legally considered a knight, esquire, or a gentleman in general, but in fact he was a powerful landlord who cruelly exploited the peasants and drove them from allotments to run these allotments for pasture for sheep, preferring peasant tenants and hired workers. At the same time, he could raise cattle for sale in the London market, breed cows to make cheese and butter from their milk, which were profitably given in England and abroad, at the same time extract ore or coal (often on the territory of his own estate - sources sometimes indicate the presence of quarries, deposits of coal or other minerals in the manors), etc.

The gentry's belonging to the category of nobility gave them the opportunity to participate in local government, holding the positions of justices of the peace, sheriffs, juries, etc. At the same time, the gentry made up a significant part of the House of Commons of the English Parliament. By 1628, the combined wealth of the members of this house was more than three times the combined wealth of all members of the House of Lords, excluding the king.

Following the "senior" and "junior" nobility in the hierarchy of English society at the end of the 16th century - the beginning of the 17th century, there were townspeople or bourgeois. Among them were not only merchants or owners of manufactories, but also officials of the city administration, as well as members of the House of Commons of the English Parliament.
After the townspeople or the bourgeois, Thomas Smith put such a category of the population as yeomen (yeomen). In his description, these are people who, being personally free, freely owned their own land, receiving from it an income in the amount of 40 pounds sterling a year. In the social hierarchy, they were lower in rank than gentlemen (nobles), but higher than workers and artisans. As a rule, yeomen were wealthy people, lived in good houses, conducted some kind of business that brought income, which allowed them to keep servants and buy a title of nobility. Thomas Wilson noted in his treatise that he knew "many
yeomen in the various provinces of England, who were able to spend annually three hundred or five hundred pounds, obtained through the exploitation of their own or leased land, and some two or three times more than this. The number of wealthy yeomen "who are able to lend money to the queen (which they usually do from her letters under seal when she wages any wars, defensive or offensive, or carries out any other event)", Thomas Wilson estimated at 10,000 people only in rural areas, not counting cities.

The number of yeomen, called freeholders, who kept six to ten cows, five to six horses, in addition to calves, foals, sheep, and had an annual income of 300–500 pounds sterling, was in England and Wales at the turn of the 16th–17th centuries at 80,000 people. . Thomas Wilson deduced this figure, as he himself pointed out, from the sheriff's books he personally viewed.

Thus, by the beginning of the 17th century, English society ceased to be feudal by itself, gradually and without revolution. Legally, this was expressed in the loss of the meaning of the feudal prerogative of the king: the land holding, around which this prerogative revolved, lost its former meaning. In the debate held in the House of Commons on March 8, 1609/1610, on the question of prerogative guardianship, it was explicitly stated that such officials as vicegerents and their deputies, justices of the peace in the counties, military leaders, etc. serve their monarch regardless of their holdings , and “when it is necessary to raise any troops in the service of the monarch, all consider themselves obliged to serve as subjects, and no man asks a question either whose holder he is, or how he holds his land. Therefore, it is obvious that this question of dominions is not connected with the government, it is neither a spur of honor, nor a bridle of obedience.

Well, the last post about England, Upper class or British Nobility.

By the way, do you know that in English there is no equivalent of the word "nobility"? Because there is no such social phenomenon. Nobility & Aristocracy do not mean nobility in the Russian sense, but mean "aristocracy", which is not at all the same thing. Approximately 100 families belonged to the aristocracy in Russia, such as the Yusupovs and the Golitsyns. Most of them were descendants of the boyars who had served under Ivan the Terrible.

But in addition to the aristocracy in Russia there were hundreds of thousands of ordinary nobles, including small estates, most of whom lived only slightly better than their serfs and were just as dark. This happened because the titles were continuously blurred through the generations. In England, however, there was a majorat, in which only the eldest son inherited the title, and all other children received a title one lower. For example, the eldest son of Duke became Duke, and the rest became Marquesses. In turn, the younger children of Marquess were Earls, and since there were only six or seven titles, they very quickly disappeared altogether. Therefore, the aristocracy remained small and was a real nobility. Actually for this, the system of majorata was introduced.

The First World War dealt a heavy blow to the English aristocracy. First, a lot of men from this class died. Secondly, conditions have changed and those who served the estates went to the front or to production. Those who remained demanded such payment that most of the large estates could not support them and could not exist without them. The last straw was death duties - an inheritance tax introduced in 1945, which finished off most of the noble families.

Therefore, today in England there are very few, a few, estates, and almost all of them are open to visitors in order to earn money and avoid taxes. But the titles survived and the culture of the British aristocracy remained. One of the women from this layer is Samantha Cameron, a direct descendant of Charles II. Diana was also from a very ancient and noble family of Spencers, who were considered more noble than the royal family.

Diana was generally a bright representative of the Upper class. She did not even finish the 8th grade of the school, because she failed her final exams twice. This is quite typical for the British aristocracy, education among them has never been considered a great advantage, and not everyone has the ability to get it. In England there is a whole class of schools, usually boarding, where the academic requirements are noticeably lower than in good schools, but which are nonetheless very difficult to get into from another class. The emphasis there is on sports and team games. Graduates of these schools also often do not go to universities, although now this is gradually changing.

Outwardly, women here are similar to women, but more casual and loving extravagant things. They think it's too cool to care too much how they look. Extravagance is considered a sign of this I don't give a damn attitude to appearance. They may be wearing wild-colored trousers, or a sweater torn at the elbows, or a coat embroidered with crocodiles. But those who work try not to stand out, there are no crocodiles here. The rest of the aesthetic in this class differs little from the Upper Middle Class, no lips like a carp, no fake tan, no sparkles.

In the comments to previous articles about England, I was asked a lot about foreigners living here. Upper Class is the only class where foreigners (or representatives of other groups) cannot enter as their own (yes, and Natalia Vodianova too). You cannot marry into this class, you have to be born into it. Therefore, Kate Middleton does not belong to him, but her children will.

Foreigners coming to England, for all intents and purposes, fall into the class to which they fit their education, work, culture and income. Benefit workers in the Underclass, blue-collar workers in the Working class, mid-level professionals in the Middle class, big business, bankers and oligarchs in the Upper Middle.

This is where the series about England ends, and thank God, how tired I am of it.

French was only abolished in English jurisprudence in the 18th century. Before that, it was the norm that when you come to court, the judges speak a dialect of French, pass sentence, write down the sentence in French. They are not like you, they are the descendants of the Norman occupiers. Yes, they canceled the French dialect, and the royal court continued to speak in their native, Old Norman dialect of French. It's cultural to remember that you are the highest stratum, a special nation, and not an Englishman.

This is the fundamental difference in the use of the French language by the Russian aristocracy. If the German language was the language of the invaders who came in large numbers under Peter the Great and Anna Ioannovna with Biron, then the French language was then a compromise. The nobles rise above the people, but the Germans do not have the right to dictate their linguistic superiority to the higher Russian nobility. In the English aristocracy, everything was simple, family-like. At the everyday level, it was assumed that a) they are not English, but a special people; b) they speak their own dialect of French, and not the Parisian dialect, that is, they form a special people, called to lead and rule. It is clear that the popularity of the French language was hit hard by the French Revolution. Should we be proud of the language of the Jacobins and sans-culottes, that is, ragamuffins proud of their raggedness? This is where the English aristocracy hastily began to develop special manners that emphasize the difference between them and the common people, since the scope of the French dialect began to shrink in favor of the aristocratic version of the English language. By the way, the aristocratic, English language in the 19th century was so far from popular English that this made it possible for Bernard Shaw to compose the play Pygmalion. Another indicator - the most prominent English writers are Irish and a bunch of non-English aristocrats like Byron and Oscar Wilde.

However, during the American War of Independence, colonists with the proper level of education had no doubt that they were fighting not only for the independence of the colonies from the mother country, but also for the independence of themselves, their relatives, from foreign, alien aristocracy, which was proud of the fact that who were not English. In the same way, neither the English archers of the Hundred Years' War, nor later career fighters like the pirate Morgan, had any doubt that they were looking to profit from the foreign power that occupied their country.

But let's continue with the logic of reasoning. What is surprising in the rise of the Rothschilds in Britain in the 18th - 19th centuries, if the English people never owned power in the state, but foreigners ruled the country? What is surprising in the fact that the richest people in Britain today are foreigners, people of different nationalities from Jews to Indians? This is such a British, national custom, when the English themselves are the servants of the ruling class, and the ruling class itself constitutes a special nation of foreigners, which is a kind of nation within a nation with its own traditions, called aristocracy.

It is high time for historians to raise the question of the chronic inability of the English people to have their own statehood and govern themselves. Because of this, the British have to take someone else's power and other people's traditions for their own property. We must even talk about the genetic inferiority of the British. The genetics of the aristocrats is one, but the people are different. Hence the famous expression - an English lady can eat an apple ... through a tennis-rocket (an English lady can eat an apple ... through a tennis racket). Pay attention - we are talking about a true lady, and not about an English commoner, whose face is sometimes so primitive that it can be confused with Russian or Dutch. This is a special type of face, which, due to its aristocracy, we usually call a horse's muzzle.

Of course, the English people themselves have a lot of shortcomings. They are lazy, drink a lot (the expression to drink like an Englishman is well known), their patriotism is loud, they are prone to violence, hooliganism and indecent behavior, remember the behavior of British fans. They are prone to total squealing. English women are prone to debauchery and prostitution. Visitors to England are struck by the abundance of degraded, drunken individuals, who are commonly called degenerates all over the world. Such a people, of course, is not worthy of having their own statehood, therefore the centuries-old foreign dominion is rightly considered by the foreigners themselves, that is, the aristocrats, as a boon for the British. However, ordinary Englishmen are perfectly trainable and are ready to carry the traditions of their own training to other peoples. They willingly march, call any boss "sir", that is, a foreign aristocrat, and love, especially after beer, to sing patriotic songs. They are proud to be subordinate to the elite.

The question of when foreign domination will end in Britain can be answered with the words of Belkovsky - never. This is exactly what Belkovsky said about the power of the Jews in Russia - there is power and it will never end, since the Russians are Christians. As we know, the British are also Christians, that is, they have the right to dispose of themselves and their country is contraindicated. But the traditional, British upbringing implies the active use of the rod and preaches love for superiors.

I'm kidding? joking? There are a few. But, gentlemen, there was no secret that even in the 19th century the royal family and aristocrats often spoke among themselves in a special, occupational dialect of French, and there was not. There was a ruling aristocracy, it fenced itself off from the people over and over again by accepting more and more new portions of newcomers. For example, the Glorious Revolution is not only a return to royal rule in place of the provisional government of Cromwell's parliament, but also another influx of newcomers from the continent. Even if the aristocrats did not advertise their foreign origin, they remembered it very well. And in terms of obstacles for mixing one socio-national stratum with another, Britain will give a hundred points ahead of old Europe. By the way, the notorious Venetian merchants, whom various conspiracy theorists and propagandists call the Illuminati, came to Britain precisely because the aristocrats gladly accepted non-English people for permanent residence.

However, let's look at other signs - the English people were deprived of land, most of the land was seized by aristocrats, the English people were deprived of business, shares of trading companies like the East India were owned by aristocrats. The English people gladly fled from their native country to America. Protestantism was a form of popular protest against the power of aristocrats. As they say, everything is under the nose and does not constitute a special secret. English power is a special subculture, which it is quite logical to call foreign, like the power of German aristocrats under Anna Ioannovna, the power of Muslims in India under the Great Mughals or the power of the Manchus during the Qing dynasty in China. All in plain sight and no conspiracy theories.

). In accordance with the English tacit tradition, a person who is not a peer and is not a sovereign is formally considered a commoner (but not in Scotland, where the noble legal system is radically different from English and as close as possible to the continental one). In England, members of a family of peers may also formally be considered commoners, although legally speaking they are in reality of the gentry class (junior nobility, like baronets, knights, esquires and gentlemen); in this the English system differs significantly from the continental (and Scottish) system, where the whole family, and not individuals, are included in the nobility. Even non-peerage members of the royal family do not enjoy a special legal status distinct from other members of society.

Parts of the Peerage

There are several parts of the Peerage with slightly different privileges: The Peerage of England refers to all titles created by kings and queens of England prior to the Act of Union in 1707. The Peerage of Scotland - created by the Kings and Queens of Scotland before 1707. The Peerage of Ireland includes the titles of the Kingdom of Ireland prior to the Act of Union in 1800 and some titles created thereafter. The Peerage of the Great Britain refers to all titles created for the Kingdom of Great Britain between 1707 and 1801. Finally, the Peerage of the United Kingdom refers to most titles created after 1801.

After the union with Scotland, there was an agreement that not all Scottish peers would sit in the British House of Lords; they will elect 16 representative peers. After the union in 1801, Ireland was also allowed to have 29 representative peers. Irish elections ceased in 1922 when the Irish Free State became a separate country. Scottish elections ended in 1963 when all Scottish peers were granted the right to sit in the House of Lords. Members of the Peerage of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom all attended the House of Lords and no election was needed.

Story

Ranks

Often a territory designation is added to a basic peerage title, especially in the case of barons and viscounts: for example, "Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven of Lincolnshire" ( Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincoln) or "Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, Hindhead in the County of Surrey" ( Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, of Hindhead in the County of Surrey). In such cases, the designation after the first comma is not part of the main title and is often omitted, leaving, in the cases cited, "Baroness Thatcher" and "Viscount Montgomery of Alamein". Territorial designations in titles are not updated with local government reforms, but newly created ones take them into account. Therefore there is a title of Baroness Airy, Abingdon in the county of Oxfordshire ( baroness Airey, of Abingdon in the County of Oxford), and Baron Johnston of Rockport, Caversham in the Royal County of Berkshire ( baron Johnston of Rockport, of Caversham in the Royal County of Berkshire).

In the Middle Ages, peers could manage the lands transferred to them or even own them. At present, the only peerage in connection with which the lands are still held by the holder of the title is the Duke of Cornwall. The title of the Duke of Cornwall is automatically (from the moment the reigning monarch was born in the family or the father or mother takes the throne) is assigned to the eldest son of the monarch, who is the heir to the throne, the Prince of Wales.

Appeal

The lower four ranks of the peerage (from baron to marquess) are called "lord<титул>' or 'lady<титул>". For ranks from viscount to duke, "<ранг> <титул>».

Barons are called "Lord<титул>", and very rarely "Baron<титул>"- except for female peers, who are called" baroness<титул>". For dukes and duchesses, only the title "Duke<титул>»/«Duchess<титул>».

When personally addressing male peers, “my lord” (eng. My lord, “my lord”) or “lord<титул>”, female - “my lady” (eng. My lady, “my mistress”) or “lady<титул>". For dukes and duchesses, "your grace" (eng. Your grace) or "duke<титул>»/«Duchess<титул>».

The wife of a peer is named according to the same rules, and the same applies to a personal address to her, but the spouse of a peer does not hold any titles (unless he is a peer).

The ex-wife of a peer is named after the design "<имя>, <ранг> <титул>» without the definite article " the before rank (see Diana, Princess of Wales).

Subordinate titles

The ranks of earl and baron are considered the basis of titled nobility - if a commoner is immediately granted the title of duke or marquis, he is also simultaneously granted the separate titles of earl and viscount or baron, and the earl is also granted the title of viscount or baron (for example, Prince William received the title of duke on his marriage day Cambridge and also the titles of Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus); such junior titles are called "subordinate" (eng. subsidiary title) and are inherited along with the main one.

In addition, titles can pass to distant relatives, and in some cases be transmitted through the maternal line; as a result, it is not uncommon for peers to have several subordinate titles of the same rank (for example, the Duke of Norfolk also has three earls and six barons, and the Duke of Wellington has two subordinate titles in each of the lower ranks of marquis, earl, viscount and baron), but traditionally for when naming a peer, only his most senior title (higher in rank or more ancient) is used, the remaining titles are used by older children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren as a courtesy title.

Courtesy titles

Older children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren of dukes, marquises and earls, as well as their wives, can use subordinate titles as an honorary " title of courtesy"(English courtesy title). For example, in a duke, the eldest son may use the subordinate title of marquis, the eldest grandson may use the title of earl, the eldest great-grandson may use the title of viscount, and the eldest great-great-grandson may use the title of baron.

The younger children of peers of the two senior ranks - dukes and marquesses - use the title in the format "Lord<имя> <фамилия>' and 'lady<имя> <фамилия>».

hereditary peers

Hereditary peers are those whose dignity is inherited. They can be created by the Sovereign by orders to call to the House of Lords (eng. writ of summons) or letters of patent (eng. letters patent).

Life peers

There are also several rights that do not formally belong to the privileges of the peerage. For example, peers and their families have seats in order of precedence. Peers are entitled to wear special crowns and vestments when they are present at the coronation of the Sovereign. The peerage's crown may be displayed on the titulary's coat of arms. Peers who are members of the House of Lords have robes of honor to attend its meetings.

see also

• local nobility (English)Russian
• Actual (main) title (English)Russian

The ability for social mimicry allowed the English nobility to survive all the social conflicts and revolutions of the 17th-20th centuries, and although in the late 20th and early 21st centuries the English nobility ceased to play such an influential role as, say, even under Queen Victoria, it still supplies the British establishment by their descendants, who determine the political and economic course of modern Britain through hidden mechanisms.

Read the previous post:

Aristocracy yesterday, today, tomorrow: French aristocracy.

The French aristocracy is the most characteristic social group, which can be fully considered a kind of “golden section” for defining aristocracy as a social and cultural phenomenon. Like in all other countries of feudal Europe, in France the nobility (knighthood) and its upper stratum ) arise even during the collapse of the Empire of Charlemagne. Almost all the servants of this or that Sovereign, his tributaries - they all formed the estate of feudal nobles, among which the largest and most influential - dukes, marquises and counts - began to stand out.

The English nobility, unlike the French nobility, has never been something single and homogeneous. After 1066, when the Normans of William the Conqueror defeated the Anglo-Saxon King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings, two aristocracies and elite groups formed in England: the Anglo-Saxon - the "old nobility" and the Normans, who came as conquerors along with their duke. The split in the English nobility lasted until the Crusades, and even until the Hundred Years' War, when it was difficult to draw a line between the old and the new nobility of England.

At the end of the XII century. part of the nobles of England actively supported Richard the Lionheart and left with the King to fight "for the Holy Sepulcher" in the III Crusade, the other part remained in England and became the support of Richard I's brother, Prince John, who later became King John Landless. Actually, the struggle of King John the Landless with his brother Richard I, and later with the English barons, led to the fact that they put forward and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which limited a number of rights of the English monarch. Actually, the long struggle of the English kings and the English nobility for rights, privileges and power began with it. Among the special articles in the Magna Carta was an article on the “revocation of allegiance”, when the vassal-seigneurial agreement was broken at the initiative of one of the parties.

The Crusades, then the plague and the Hundred Years' War severely undermined the morale and ability of the English nobility. But if the French nobility had 40 years of truce between the Hundred Years War and the Italian Wars, then the English nobility did not have this time lag. Immediately after the signing of the armistice with France, England plunged into the "War of the Roses" - the confrontation between the Lancasters and the Yorks.

Perhaps this war for the English crown wiped out the English nobility even more than the plague of the XIV century and the Hundred Years War. The English nobility could replenish the thinned ranks in only two ways - by co-opting merchants and philistines into the nobility, and by including foreign nobles in the service of the English kings. The British chose both of these methods, especially since the corresponding possibilities soon turned up. Under the Tudors, and especially under Elizabeth I, England tried to break out into the oceanic expanse, where it entered into a long and exhausting struggle with the largest maritime powers: Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands.

Having a much smaller fleet than its competitors, the government of Elizabeth I Tudor, without thinking about the moral side of the issue, began to use pirate squadrons to fight Spain. The most distinguished in the fight against the Spanish fleet was Captain Francis Drake, for which he was granted a patent of nobility. The strange, even accidental victory of England over the Great Armada broke the power of Spain in the Atlantic, and England was left with only two competitors - the Netherlands at sea and France on land. It was the fight against them that took almost 180 years from the reign of James I to George III of Hanover.

Speaking about the archetype of the English nobility, let's say right away that it initially differed from the French in that it always strove for autonomy from the royal power, while in France the petty and middle nobility always supported the King in the fight against the big lords, which for England was not typical. In addition, the British Isles were located at the crossroads of trade routes, and London, along with being the capital of the English Kingdom, has always been a major trading center, which cannot be said about Paris, which was not a port city and was not at the crossroads of trade routes. Hence the specificity of the English nobility, which, although it did not consider trade a worthy occupation for the aristocracy, did not shy away from trading through figureheads from merchants or philistines. In this the English lords are very similar to the Roman patricians, who hired free Romans to manage their estates or conduct the business of their patrons in Rome. Unlike the French nobility, the English nobility, in addition to land rent, also had income from housing and trade, although this type of income was most widespread only in the 18th century.

The relative poverty of the English kings, and the brief age of English absolutism under the Tudors, made the English Court less attractive to the English nobility than the French Court to the French aristocracy, and the English nobles preferred to receive either land holdings from the crown, or began to participate in the development of the colonies after discovery of the New World. That is, the English nobility, initially split into different groups since the time of William the Conqueror, synthesized in itself a purely noble archetype of behavior: war, hunting and service to the crown are the lot of an aristocrat, but they did not shy away from making a profit in addition to land rent, in the form of renting land or the creation of manufacturing industries on them, which was completely uncharacteristic of their colleagues in the nobility in France. This type of additional income was especially characteristic of the era of the birth of English industry in the 16th century, and the colonial conquests of England with their long sea voyages, in isolation from the crown authorities, also inspired this. No wonder the most famous pirates were the English Morgan and Drake.

The fundamental difference between the English nobility and the French was not only that many English aristocrats descended from different merchant families, petty nobility and judicial families, but also that England, one of the first countries in Europe, began to move on to the formation of an elite, based on scientific and rational methods. Of course, among the English nobility there were families that had a noble origin, for example, the Dukes of Norfolk (genus - Howard) or Tudor relatives - the Dukes of Somerset (genus - Seymour), but this is rather an exception to the rule for the late English aristocracy.

It was in England that the aristocratic elite began to form not only on the basis of origin, material wealth, as was typical for other noble classes and aristocracies in Europe, but one of the most important characteristics and markers of belonging began to be considered elite education and upbringing, which were inseparable from each other in English educational tradition. Oxford, Cambridge, Eton, Westminster school - everyone knows about them today, but it was the English nobility, "merchants in the nobility" who understood the importance of education and upbringing in certain traditions of the entire English elite, in order to obtain a holistic caste of gentlemen cemented by common ideals - lords and peers of England. Eton College was founded back in the "War of the Roses" in 1440. In Russia, the Imperial Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum and His Majesty's Corps of Pages were founded only in 1811 and 1803.

These tendencies of the English nobility's commitment to pragmatism and rationalism in the accepted models of social behavior were also supported by powerful closed structures, both Masonic lodges and closed elite clubs. The latter was generally peculiar and took root only in England; in other countries, clubs as structures influencing politics did not take root, with the exception of the not-good-memory club from Saint-Jacques Street in the monastery of St. Jacob in Paris. But this was already created by French extremists in the "image and likeness" of those political clubs that dominated England from the time of Cromwell to Victorian England.

Another distinguishing feature of the English aristocracy was its adaptability to new ideas, and the lack of integrity in worldview and religious issues. The expression of Lord Palmerston, the head of British foreign policy under Queen Victoria at the beginning of her reign, can serve as a model for the pattern of thinking of the English elite: "England has no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, England has only permanent interests." This religious and ethical relativism of the English nobility was largely facilitated by the fact that England was one of the first countries in Europe, along with the Netherlands and Switzerland, to adopt Protestantism. It was these states that became the three anti-Catholic centers in Europe, and it was in them that the power of the bourgeois plutocracy was established, replacing the power of the noble aristocracy.

In fairness, it should be noted that the Huguenots of France and southern Germany, who fled from Catholic repressions, found refuge on the Island, and it was from them that the English nobility replenished. The most famous are such surnames as Schombergs or Montreuses. Of course, the Scottish clans, which became part of the British aristocracy after the accession of the House of Stuart, became the largest group that joined the English nobility. Just as in France, a separate group of British nobility is made up of bastard families descended from different monarchs of Britain. But if in France they were given the definition of bastard princes, then in England they had to be content with ducal titles and peerage, without the right to social equality with the legitimate princes of the British Kingdom.