Talk:Viscount

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not entirely true that German nobility didn't have a viscount. The German equivalent of Count, Graf, was not simple -- quite possibly due to Germany's disorganization and the many different kinds of feudal rulers. The term Vizegraf was used, roughly meaning "vice" or "substitute" count, which corresponds roughly to viscount. However, it is true that viscount was not a standard German title of nobility.

To know the example you're thinking of and the place (and the approximate date of the patent or its appearance) would make this truly the exception that proves the rule. --Wetman 06:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The page on Kakuei Tanaka links here in reference to a Japanese "viscount," but I don't see anything related here. Looking into it. 12.214.0.127 19:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 A question 2 Vizegraf 3 The Doubtful Viscount 4 How about France? 5 Dukes etc 6 Equivalent western titles

[edit] A question

Some novels I have read refer to the son (or sometimes younger brother) of a French Count (Comte) as a Viscount (Vicomte), using the same name as the Count's. Examples: In "The Scarlet Pimpernel", the son of Comte de Tournay is the Vicomte de Tournay; in "The Phantom of the Opera", the younger brother of Comte de Chagny is the Vicomte de Chagny.

Does anyone know if this is an empty courtesy? It cannot be a subsidiary title, because the placename (Tournay, etc) is always the same.

Yes, a courtesy title, empty if courtesy titles are empty. Sometimes the distinction is made explicit, "So-and-so, styled viscomte de Foo." Sometimes the courtesy title is inherited in a cadet line. --Wetman 30 June 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Thank you!

[edit] Vizegraf

Would any of you, gentlemen, please explain to me the German concept of Vizegraf? --Anglius 9 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

The use of a placename by a first son is regular practice. In the case above, however, it must also be remembered that peers holding a rank lower than an Earl (or Count)do not share their titles with an heir apparent, as they may not hold another. Also, with regards to the Viscount de Chagny, the modifier "of" would be dropped (as in the Viscount Chagny). A very interesting article, nonetheless. The Right Honourable The Viscount Dumas

I thank you, My Lord Dumas. --Anglius 02:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Doubtful Viscount

In the article User:Viscountdumas has entered "Sir Christopher Johnson, KCAJ, KOV (1975) Viscount Dumas (2005)". "Viscount Dumas" does not register at Google. Is it possible that this is the "Sir Christopher Johnson" of Knights of the Nwywre Order, one of those "Creative Anachronism" ludibria? However, it could just be that the real Sir Christopher, the former chief economic adviser to Lloyds bank, has been gazetted in the past New Year's Honours. Now, I feel a bit like Helen Hayes in Anastasia in asking this, but, since I can't imagine even a viscount fresh-from-the-box signing himself "The Right Honourable The Viscount Dumas"— as if the Duke of Wellingon were to sign himself "My Grace,..."—, would one of you Burke's-Peerage types please check whether "Viscount Dumas" has been gazetted, perhaps in the New Year's Honours, 2005? Then we'll add the brandnew Viscount to the official list.. --Wetman 01:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to thank User Wetman for bringing to light an important fact in this discussion. Although there are many Viscounts within the British aristocracy, there are also many without it, namely myself. I was ennobled and created a Viscount earlier this year by His Excellency Prince Douglas of the Principality of St. Michel de Clermont, a former Barony of Clermont in the Latin Empire of Constantinople; His Excellency's fons honorum stemming from the Eastern Orthodox Church, and its Patriarch (to whom noble titles were originally entrusted). I will admit that a listing in the Gazette would be impressive, but not any more "authentic". I am a former history teacher and heraldric artist. The study of the peerage is my hobby and passion. In the spirit of nobility, let us understand and explore the bigger picture that does not include Her Majesty's realms as well. Dumas.

The fake titles being sold to the naive by the Canadian, Douglas Henderson of British Columbia, who bills himself as "His Excellency Prince Douglas of the Principality of St. Michel de Clermont" and others are well and conclusively treated in the Earl of Bradford's website, "Fake Titles", where the interested Wikipedian may read up on the various fontis honorum ("founts of honour") who are selling such spurious titles on eBay etc. We don't want any of that chicanery going on through Wikipedia. No fake viscounts, whether self-deluded or sharpers, will be inserted in the article Viscount. --Wetman 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Just in order for stupid lowly bred goatherds such as myself to understand - are you saying that you "Viscount Dumas" and Christopher Johnson , the former chief economic adviser to Lloyds bank are one and the same person? - or are you another Christopher Johnson altogether. In which case perhaps you would like to write an article on the former Christopher Johnson as he is just about notable; and then write another page on the Viscounts Dumas explaining why you and they are notable. I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy on this subject, but I would suggest it does not accept articles on members of the nobility who possess less than 16 quarterings. Giano | talk 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

...Giano, your sixteen quarterings joke will be taken seriously by the Pitchforks and Torches! I have 16 quarterings myself: alas, they are all blank: Argent, on a fess engrailed argent three besants argent... --Wetman 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And I should have included any title created by Napoleon, or anyone with a bar sinister in any of their 16 quarterings - lets help Wikipedia maintain falling standards. Giano | talk 08:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an article on fake titles. PS Wouldn't the plural of fons honorum be 'fontes honorum' (3rd declension)? --Macrakis 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oop!! My Latin, you see, is a one-way street. As at the lion's cave in Aesop, it all comes in, but none of it comes out. Good to see Wikipedia's had the subject covered since 5 May 2004! --Wetman 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There are no such recognised postnominals as KCAJ or KOV, so this person is clearly something other than a viscount in the normal sense of the term. JackofOz 22:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This name has come up in discussion in many circles of late. Whilst true Apostolic titles can and still do exist his'fons honorum' is a fake and a fraudster and therefore this Viscount Dumas has simply been conned. Wake up. Just surfing. Bill Britain

Hello, I have heard that he got his title from that Douglas Henderson person that is supposed to be Prince Douglas living in British Columbia in Canada. Must have paid big dollars for something that is worthless..Steve..

[edit] How about France?

I just ran across a definitive reference to French "vicompte". I figure if I could stumble across one, others must have found lots more. Howcum there's no mention here? Is there anyone out there able to add something substantial? - Kkken 11:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dukes etc

Is this article the appropriate place to discuss higher peerages? The section beginning "A British peculiarity is the" mentions a lot that seems (and is covered) in the main peerage article and/or the courtesy title article. Perhaps we ought to use the courtesy title link and shift much of this off the viscount article. That way it can be more about the title and its history and its various national uses rather than an awful lot about the pecularities of the British peerage. hereAlci12 17:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't like the term "peculiarity", I prefer "custom" or "tradition", as it's less derogatory. JJ

[edit] Equivalent western titles

The following phrase was removed: (here, by law, the official translation, as Burggraf in German, of the title vicomte in French, the other official language!)

The reasons for the removal include:

• non-encyclopedic tone
• improper grammar

If it is felt that this phrase should be reinserted please address the previous two reasons for removal before proceeding. ndyguy 15:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)