I’ve always been fascinated how queries on Brit royal lineages, successions, etc. have such a dedicated group here in GQ as core posters and that the threads get such high readership.
With that in mind, I have two separate queries about the following paragraphs in today’s Daily Mirror, the only reference to the topic of his name, per se, in a long obituary article written for and read by untold millions of (presumably) normally educated Daily Mirror readers:
The following year it was revealed that Princess Margaret was expecting a baby - the future Viscount Linley - and shortly afterwards the Queen brought Mr Armstrong-Jones fully into the royal fold by conferring an aristocratic title on him.
His title, Earl of Snowdon, was chosen because of his family associations with Carnarvonshire, where his father was a deputy lord lieutenant.
“His title, Earl of Snowdon, was chosen because of his family associations with Carnarvonshire” leaves me entirely in the dark. I have no clue why the post-because has anything to do with the pre-because.
As to the sociological question: since the paragraphs got past an editor, I presume (as I implied in the beginning) that (almost) everyone else besides me does get it. Is this true? Or, more fine grain, what does an “average” Brit understand already so he gets it, say while he reads this in the subway on the ride home?
And yes I know they/you guys call it tube.
Snowdon is a mountain (the highest in Wales), and is in the historical county of Carnarvonshire.
Most people in the UK will be vaguely familiar with the idea of titles, even though of course they have no relevance to the lives of most of the population. But you might read in the newspaper about Lord X of such-and-such place and it won’t seem like total gibberish.
It’s straightforward geography. Snowdon is in Carnarvonshire. It would be like saying “his title, the Earl of Yellowstone, was chosen due to his family associations with North-West Wyoming”.
I will add that I (and I am sure most Britons) am fairly in the dark about the various titles, of which there are lots.
As I understand it, Anthony Armstrong-Jones was called “Lord Snowdon” because he held the title of Earl of Snowdon, but the title “lord” also applies to barons, viscounts and others that I am not sure about. For instance the composer Andrew Lloyd Webber was given the title Baron Lloyd-Webber (with a hyphen) of Sydmonton, but he gets called Lord Lloyd-Webber, not Lord Sydmonton.
So I’m not too sure why Snowdon wasn’t called Lord Armstrong-Jones, or Lloyd-Webber isn’t called Lord Sydmonton, but I’m sure there are reasons for it.
But the TLDR version is, the royal family wanted to give him a title so he wouldn;t be a commoner, and they chose Lord Snowdon because it had historic pedigree, sounded good and his family had heritage close to Snowdon the mountain.
I don’t think you can necessarily draw that conclusion – newspapers in the US publish lots of stories that incorporate references to obscure terms and concepts that the “average” American reader likely doesn’t understand except only superficially (e.g., the electoral college). Just because it gets past an editor is not an indication of what the average reader understands.
Also, not trying to nitpick, but the story you linked to is from the Daily Mail, not the Daily Mirror – both are tabloid newspapers that tend to sensationalist stories, so I don’t know what conclusion you can draw about the readership vis a vis the “average Brit.”
Thnx so far. The “Lord Yellowstone from Wyoming” part (both in regard to my query 1 and query 2) is what I was wondering about, and certainly query 1 answered, I wasn’t asking how much average Daily Mail readers know off the bat about this or that royal’s name or any one title.
So it boils down to geography of Wales.
You guys learned that in school? In travel ads? Nature documentaries?
The title is quite commonly different for the family name for many British royalty, usually referring in times gone by to the geographic name of their lands and estate(s).
I heard the story once that a businessman who became quite rich through manufacturing, bought a lordship - a common thing for the last century or more. (i.e. Conrad Black chose the title Lord Black of Crossharbour, whatever that means) He chose as his title name the name of the major street in front of his factory, so that from then onward people would think the street was named after him.
If you are aware that “Earl of xyz” implies that xyz is a place name - something that seems obvious to me, but may not be to someone not British, or with different interests or whatever - then it’s clear from context that Snowdon is a place in Carnarvonshire.
Knowing where those places are isn’t particularly relevant to understanding the sentence.
It depends partly on when the title was acquired, along with any associated land holdings.
Many land holdings were called ‘honours’, so for example the honours of Pontefract was, and is a large land holding around Pontefract. OK, this seems a bit obvious, however here is where things change.
Honours were basically the gift of the monarch, and they could be awarded to their favourites either for favours or for services, and in later times, such as 18thC - quite recently, they might be bought by nobles, or transferred through dynastic marriage
The holder of the honours would usually be a Duke, who would then let this on to their subordinate Earls etc and in turn they would recompense their Duke, and in turn use this land in whatever fashion they chose, so they might build a fancy house, and divide the remainder to gain payment or rents.
The result was that Honours might start out with the geographical Duke, however these possessions might also end up with another Duke whose title was derived from an entirely different part of the country.
Perhaps one of the more extreme version in England would be that of the Duke of Devonshire(the family name is Cavendish), who acquired lands around Ilkley in Yorkshire - which is pretty much the whole length of the country away
By the time Princess Anne got married, no one seemed to think it mandatory that ‘Foggy’ Philips should have a title.
The former Foreign Secretary George Brown wanted to become ‘Lord George Brown’ but was told that was unacceptable and it would have to be ‘Lord Brown of Something’. He eventually changed his surname to ‘George-Brown’ and more or less got his wish.
Titles also don’t have to contain locations in the UK or even in a current area of the British Commonwealth.
E.g., Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, from his victory at El Alamein in Egypt. (Not sure what happened to the “El”.)
This is inheritable title and his son David is the incumbent.
When Americans and such see a title like “Lord Snowden” they think there’s a town/district/estate called Snowden where this person has property, maybe a nice mansion, etc. Instead it can be a mere spot on the map the person maybe never visited.
And geography isn’t needed at all. Take Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher. (Her husband was given a Baronet after she was no longer PM, but she got her own title later.) There is no associated “Thatcher”.
“Armstrong” and “Jones” are both common names. “Earl of Snowdon” sounds much more impressive.
Andrew Lloyd-Webber was famous under that name long before he was ennobled. If you introduce him as “Baron of Sydmonton”, you only impress the snobs. If you introduce him as “Baron Lloyd-Webber”, you can impress not only the snobs, but also the theater fans.
Every peerage is supposed to have a unique title. The oldest and most prestigious titles are territorial, “Lord of Placename”. In the 17th and 18th centuries, “Lord Surname” was often used. However, since many aristocrats come from the same families, it can become difficult to avoid duplication. The construction “Lord Surname of Placename” gives you many more options. From a herald’s perspective, “Lord Smith”, “Lord of York”, “Lord Smith of York”, and “Lord Jones of York” are four distinct titles.
My favorite is the Ross of Bladensburg family, who got their honour from being descended from the general who defeated the Americans at the Battle of Bladensburg, Maryland in the War if 1812.
As far as geography is concerned, the average Brit probably has about as much idea of the geography of the country they live in as the average American does of theirs - ie. not a lot.
The Yellowstone analogy is a good one because I assume that most Americans will have heard of it, just as most Brits will have heard of Snowdon. However, if you showed them a blank outline of the country, I think that only a few would be able to put a finger on where it is- even the correct State or UK country would probably be a stretch.
