Talk:Baronet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals, a collaborative effort to improve, organise, and standardise Wikipedia's coverage of national honours systems. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page

Contents

[edit] Baronet = knight?

Baronets use the title "Sir" before their name, just as other knights do. This is the first introduction of the idea that a baronetcy is a species of knighthood. Assuming this is actually so, shouldn't we mention this before that line? Marnanel 22:07, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Baden-Powell

Robert Baden-Powell was granted a Baronet in 1922 and the Baron Baden-Powell is now a peerage title in the United Kingdom. I included Robert Baden-Powell on the small list of notables in the article because he did indeed have the Baronet, though the title is now a peerage title. It's all a bit confusing/conflicting, but I think he warrants inclusion unless there's a good reason not to. --ABQCat 19:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Surely the two are separate: a baronetcy cannot "become" anything, it remains a baronetcy. That a baronetcy has become merged with peerage still means each hereditary title exists, although the lesser might not be mentioned. And presumably, although I know of no such case off the top of my head, it is possibly for the peerage title and the baronetcy to "demerge", as it were, although the only way I can think of this happening is if there were no sons and the peerage and baronetcy had different rules for inheritance in such an eventuality. I believe the current Rothschild barony (of Tring) is similarly merged with an earlier baronetcy.
Kneeslasher 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I put species back in because a baronetcy isn't quite like a knighthood, and type would suggest that it's on the level of the Thistle or something. Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Understood, though I'm not sure that anyone will pick up on that distinction without further explanation (as evidenced by the fact that I didn't think that "type" would be saying anything different. Ddye 13:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] baronets and knights

A baronetcy is entirely different from a knighthood - to write that it is a species is a confusing misnomer. It is a class of its own, solely within the British honours system. It is based on the idea of knighthood, hence the post-nominal 'Sir', but otherwise it is wholly separate, as well as having a place in the order of precedence higher than most knighthoods.

[edit] Dames

I think perhaps we ought to mention somewhere that the correct (but never used) form for a baronet's wife is Dame and that Lady is a social, if pervasive and historic, courtesy title not a matter of law or creation Alci12.

[edit] Cost of a Baronetcy

"King James I erected the hereditary Order of Baronets in England on 22 May 1611, for the settlement of Ireland. He offered the dignity to 200 gentlemen of good birth, with a clear estate of 1,000 Pounds a year, on condition that each one should pay a sum equivalent to three years' pay to 30 soldiers at 8d per day per man into the King's Exchequer."

Can anyone translate these figures into modern values? Are we talking 100s, 1,000s, or millions of £? Avalon 04:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've answered my own question. According to How Much is that Worth Today £1,000 in 1611 is about £144,000 today. Avalon 20:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
But Lloyd George collared much more than that when he sold a few of them. Kittybrewster 23:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms of a Baronet

Is a baronet entitled to supporters on their achievement of arms, as peers and knights are? I realise this information is more about heraldry than titles per se, but I haven't been able to find confirmation of this anywhere. Walton monarchist89 13:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No he is not entitled (peers are, knights are not) although some are given that additional honour. Kittybrewster 14:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I may have been misinformed, but the texts on heraldry that I've consulted say that Knights of the Garter (in English heraldry) are entitled to supporters on either side of the shield, just as peers are. Walton monarchist89 10:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Correct. The right to supporters belongs to members of the Royal Family, peers, Knights and Ladies of the Garter, Knights and Ladies of the Thistle and Knights and Dames Grand Cross and Knights Grand Commanders of the junior orders. But not other knights and baronets - although some enjoy them. Kittybrewster 11:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] baronetesses

How many baronetcies can pass to women? —Tamfang 06:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dunbar, now Hope-Dunbar of Baldoon 1664
Maxwell, now Stirling-Maxwell, of Pollock 1682
Dallyell of the Binn 1685
Dunbar of Hempriggs 1706
In 1976 Lord Lyon said that, without examining the Patent of evey Scottish Baronetcy, he was not in a position to confirm that only these four can pass through the female line. Kittybrewster 13:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality Requirement

Does one have to be a British citizen - or otherwise a subject of Her Majesty through holding another type of British nationality, or citizenship of a Commonwealth Realm - in order to be granted a baronetcy? JAJ 23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In th early days a number of foreigers were awarded baronetcies. They include Van Tromp, a Dutch admiral. Of these, only Boreel of Amsterdam is extant. Kittybrewster 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been racking my brains over this as I'm certain examples exist. The notion of 'hon' knighthoods is C19. Before that a knighthood was a knighthood and mutual recognition existed across Europe. Ordinary non-hon knighhoods are easy to find but as for the baronetcy the best I can find is bb comments agreeing that a swede + a dutchman did get one.Alci12 14:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel as though I've encountered a baronetcy settled on a Dutchman, but I'm not sure. It would have been in the 17th century. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sir Joseph van Colster, 1st Baronet, of Amsterdam, Holland (1645), Sir John Frederick van Freisendorf, 1st Baronet, of Hirdech, Sweden (1661), and Sir Gelebrand Sas van Bosch, 1st Baronet, of Holland (1680). Choess 17:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Give that man a banana! Well found. I presume they are all extinct  :-)Alci12
Sporeel (Dutch) and Jejeebhoy (Indian) are not extinct. - Kittybrewster 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I meant the above mentioned but point taken nevertheless Alci12 12:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done some digging around. It turns out that a total (I think) of five baronetcies (3 for Parsees, 1 for a Hindu and one for a Muslim) were created for ethnic Indians. I think four are still extant, the Parsee ones certainly are and I think the fourth Muslim baronet was embroiled with the Indian Goverment over his estates as late as 1967. Any further information on these baronetcies would certainly be welcome.
Kneeslasher 23:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porritt

I'm dubious about having him in the "Baronets who do not use their baronetcy" catagory. I've seen him introduced on the BBC twice this week, and easily enough found in press articles, addressed with his title which if he was one of those people who 'strictly' don't use their title seems very odd.Alci12 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction Length

The length of the first section introduction is a bit long. Most think of the first paragraph of an encyclopedic entry to be a summary of sort before you get into the meat of the article. I'm I in the minority of this view or is there a way to tidy it up by maybe creating another section heading? 205.157.110.11 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just do it - Kittybrewster 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cost of a Baronetage 2

In view of the current "Cash for Honours" scandal, it would be interesting to know what the rate of charge for a baronetage has been, over the years since James Stuart introduced the title, purely as a fundraising device. There seem to have been a lot of very wealthy men created baronets, in the 19th C.

Was it a standard practice to create a baronet after they had given a specific service? The ODNB on Sir Robert Nicholas Fowler says

" He received a baronetcy from Lord Salisbury in 1885, a common honour for a former lord mayor, and in the next election, in July 1886, he was returned unopposed."

Was there a list of jobs that gained this honour, or was a substantial payment? Is there a good history book that will tell me about this? The article lacks much by way of citations.

=== Vernon White (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The Lord Mayor of London was customarily made a Baronet (from 1889 anyway, excepting 1910-12) until John Major discontinued the practice. Also Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretaries (eg Sir Derrick Gunston, Sir George Harvie Watt, Sir Knox Cunningham. Source: Sir Martin Lindsay of Dowhill, Bt (1979). The Baronetage,, 2nd edition.  - Kittybrewster 09:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean Harold Wilson. While JM did recommend the last baronetcy (thatcher) the last regular baronetcies were under Alec Douglas Home( overlapping into 65 under Wilson). Baronetcies were pretty common for top generals, ministers and later newspaper barons merchants and brewers. It was sometimes called the 'beerage' in the late c19 Alci12 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remainder

I've altered special clauses to remainders as they all seemd to relate to succession which is a remainder. There are a few baronets where precedence is assigned (rather than the normal by date system) I suppose that might be considered a special clause but only matters for a handful of examples. Alci12 17:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs developing

"Originally baronets also had other rights, including the right to have their eldest son knighted on his 21st birthday. However, beginning in the reign of George IV these rights have been gradually revoked (by Order in Privy Council which was not competent to make such an Order revoking a right granted by a Sovereign), on the grounds that sovereigns should not be bound by acts made by their predecessors."

Since the award of any knighthood is an exercise of preogative power the refusal to grant is, irrespective of the promise of knighthood in patents prior to ~1827, rather moot. Alci12 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of title

In the case of foreign borents, can they use the title "Sir" and "Lady" even they are not the citizens of the UK and commonwealth countries?--219.79.184.92 16:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Jejeebhoy Baronets and Sporeel Baronets do so. - Kittybrewster 17:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

No, only if UK/Commonwealth citizen. User:Green01 6:09, Jan. 30 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Inheriting a baronetcy

I have always understood that the title of baronet can only be passed to an eldest son and that if a baronet fails to produce a male heir (or that heir is disinclined to pursue the matter) the title will become extinct. Since it seems unlikely that many new baronetcies will be granted in the future the number of baronetcies can only decline and eventually the title will disappear altogether. Is this correct? - 81.145.241.123

You never know. We live in extremely interesting times for hereditary titles in general. We need to see what happens when the next few Prime Ministers (especially Conservative ones) retire.
Kneeslasher 20:09, 27 December 2006

(UTC)

Thanks. However I wasn't really speculating on whether there will be new baronetcies created (Indeed you never know) but whether a baronetcy (unlike a dukedom for example) becomes extinct in the absence of a son. Do you know the answer? - 81.145.241.123

It does not seem to be the case with Sir Edmund Backhouse, 2nd Baronet, whose successor was a nephew. See note on talk page Talk:Sir Edmund Backhouse, 2nd Baronet === Vernon White (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The answer is a resounding NO. See for example the Arbuthnot of Kittybrewster baronets potential succession if the present incumbent has no son. - Kittybrewster 21:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Without looking it up my understanding was that any male descendants of the original creation can inherit. So even if all the males in the 20th century finally died out, and the baronetcy was created, say, in 1800, then there may be male descendants of the first baronet throughout the 19th century who have escaped notice in the 20th, being so far removed, but who will still have a claim if everyone else in between has failed and could be traced. David Lauder 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knights?

Most of the older writers refer to baronets as "knights-baronets". Is this incorrect? What does it say on the patents? (I could go and look at one but I am hoping that kittybrewster might look at his!) David Lauder 14:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

...the dignity state and degree of a BARONET ... - Kittybrewster 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Pah, As I'd added the LP you could have seen it in the article itself. However that really only tells us the modern form not the historic. Looking at the LG I can see the baronet usage at least as far back as the 1660s though I can't comment beyond that. [ed.] Reading this back David I was reading the LG a few days ago which reminded me of an older use ~ the Right Honorable Sir George Jeffreys Knight and Baronet, Lord Chief Justice of His Majesties Court of Kings Bench, Alci12 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a confusion is arising between 'knight' baronet and Knight banneret? Certainly, the history on this page is confusing. The article begins by stating (correctly) that the rank of baronet was invented by James VI & I. But under the 'history' section, it describes baronets created in the 14th and 15th centuries! They certainly sound like bannerets from the information given. The fact that some were paid for is not extraordinary: it could conceivably refer to the knight's fee. A baronetcy is a rank of nobility, not chivalry. But don't follow the information given at Knight banneret too conscientiously: the article needs serious work to make it accurate and comprehensive. I'll try and improve it when I get time. Gwinva 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revoking rights

However, beginning in the reign of George IV, these rights have been gradually revoked (by Order in Privy Council, which was not competent to make such an Order revoking a right granted by a Sovereign), on the grounds that sovereigns should not be bound by acts made by their predecessors.

I don't understand this bit. The rights were revoked by an instrument which was not competent to do so? Marnanel 13:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/Talk%7EBaronet_488f.html"