I must say that was an extremely good point! It is the same fact i react to in this thread, noble titles i general today are totally pointless and gives no power but they are accepted and looked upon as “rised high above everyone else” but suddenly when it is a lord of the manor-title (same thing, same principle, just lower rank) then everyone is hysterical and screams out about how stupid it is and that it dosent give any prestige what so ever.
**Todays lords of the manor are just as much gentry as counts and earls are nobility. It is the same thing, just lower rank.[/**QUOTE]
Yes, exactly! I know that it is bein said that a lord of the manor is no more a lord than a landlord but that today goes for all titles in the modern world. And a lot of the new Lords of the Manor are members of the Manorial Society and moves within a small circle of peers and others members of the modern gentry so it should be associated with the upper class.
So if your parents has a lord of the manor-title, i would say you have a gentry family background, just like if your parents are peers you have a noble background. After what i can see the aristocratic titles consists of two main categories; the nobility (peers) and the landed gentry-titles, like Knight, Baronett and Lord of the Manor.
But i feel that the Manorial Society advertises the part with being granted coat of arms very wrong: Mr.Smith once said that all real lords of the manor has the right to a coat of arms no matter what, and that is after what i can see a completely lie!
I don’t think they are, really at this point, at least not in Britain. People pay attention to the royal family, but most people aren’t going to care if somebody’s a baron or even an earl.
If you start running around bragging that you’re gentry now because you bought some Lord of the Manor title on the internet and start demanding people call you Lord Velly or something, all that’s going to happen is that people are going to think you’re pretentious.
Okay, i do not even live in Britain so i am sure you know more about this than i. I had the impression that titles like baron or earl would define a persons social status completely but i guess things has become more modern…
Of course that would be stupid, but my point was just that it is just as much a “prestige-title” as a noble title, just lower rank, i just wanred to say that it seems stupid that a earl is fabulous blue blood and a lord of the manor is just hopeless. But i guess your point is that titles at all in the modern century is pointless and that both a lord of the manor and a earl demanding special treatment and rights today because of their title is pretensious?
The difference is you bought it, as distinct from ‘you inherited it’. Just like ‘you made your money’ as distinct from ‘you inherited it from generations back’. ‘New money’ vs. ‘old money’. Of course new money becomes old money, in the end, after several generations.
Yes i never thought of it like that. The difference is in other words not that *the title * carry no class-prestige itself, but the fact that it is a bought title, and not an inherited title. But than i guess that someone who inherits a lord of the manor title (or two or three; i guess the old families often have a lot of them) can more easy be defined as country gentry, or upper class than someone who buys it? But again, as you say, new money/titles becomes old in the end.
Do they have Lord of the Manor-titles in other countries, or only in Great Britain? I belive i saw somewhere that it is a Manorial Society in Estonia as well, do they have real lordships of the manor?
The “Gentry” used to be wealthy landowners, with or without a title.
Sorry ALESSAN, but as far as I know yeomen would most definitely not been considered gentry.
The term its self is pretty much archaic, anyone using the term would get very strange looks over here to say the least.
While we have the Royals and the hereditary nobility, we also have Peerages bestowed by the government for life but not hereditary, who take a seat in our upper house (The house of Lords) of parliament.
They’re almost always long served politicians, their purpose is to examine legislation passed by the lower house, amend it, delay it or veto it (but the veto can be overruled if its a serious enough subject).
The idea is, that unlike their colleagues in the lower house, who have to grub for votes to keep their job, and who as a result might make decisions based on populism rather then what is actually practicable, or best for the nation,they make a more informed decision and reign back their less experienced colleagues.
We also have Knighthoods and various other awards given out to amongst others, actors, writers and sportsmen/women and people who have devoted themselves to charities .
But the actual concept of "Gentry"in my experience no longer exists.
Yes thay do, and i actually belive that the lord of the manor-title in Estonia has a bit more gentry-status since lords of the manor there actually owns a property (and often a manor) that they are lord of.
But i am wondering about one thing, does typical gentry titles like baronet and laird have higher status than lords-of-the-manor?
I researched that and i found out that a Lord of the Manor-title in Estonia is the same thing as the title of “Laird” in Scotland… It is not what the people in Great Britain associates with a Lord of the Manor-title, same word but different meaning. In England you only get the title, in Estonia you also get the property - corporeal hereditament - you are buying a Lairdship.
Anyone know if you can buy lairdships in Scotland?
But what i cant wrap my haed around is if Scottish feudal barons are nobles or not? Wikipedia clearly states that they are by following:
In showing that Scottish feudal baronies are titles of nobility, reference may be made, amongst others, to Lyon Court in the Petition of Maclean of Ardgour for a Birthbrieve by Interlocutor dated 26 February 1943 which "Finds and Declares that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and have both in this Nobiliary Court, and in the Court of Session, been recognised as “titled” nobility, and that the estait of the Baronage (The Barones Minores) is of the ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland
But is that relevant now? I mean, in 43 the title still was connected to the property and it was surely long before the tenure abolition act. Or is the reference still valid?
When i read about people in the dictionaries/encyklopedias see people with titles like Duke, Count and Earl (and the women they marry) being described as “is a British aristocrat”, would that also go for a person with a Scottish feudal baron-title? Are they defined as aristocrats?
It is not to unlogical, since if a female commoner who marries a peer gets her husbands status and becomes noble by definition, it is not any more weird that a person who gets a scottish feudal baron-title (buys it or inherits it) also fall under the noble-definition.
Yes, i would define them as aristocrats, they belong to the nobility since they have a noble title (maybe not part of the peerage, but certainly the nobility). But i do not understand the part with Court Lyon not wanting to recognize new barons as barons, but the title still is noble.
I’m a big supporter of an appointed Lords, and I hope it remains so. Clegg’s plans for electing it give me the chills.