So when do I use “Sire”?
Oh-oh sassyfrass, looks like you pissed off the Scots! 
Actually, Celyn, my impression was that the OP’s use of “English” instead of “British” in that sentence was inspired by the specific context of Shakespearean England. And thus the “blah, blah” was meant more or less as shorthand for “Yes, I’m aware that the modern-day state in which the monarchy and aristocracy I’m talking about here are preserved is called the United Kingdom rather than England.”
Note, in support of this interpretation, that the OP correctly used “British” rather than “English” in the thread title.
Well, that’s enough of my interpretations for one evening I think; good night, gentles all.
When you aren’t talking about the bitch.
His rubber ducky is, however, bent, owing to an unfortunate incident at a truckstop in Tupelo.
This is what a CB is:
“My lord”? Just as we’ve discussed, he’s not my lord. I don’t work in his house or on his estate, and I’m not feudally bound to him in return for a small province inclusive of people, buildings and animals.
If I meet him as a social equal, which these days is just about everyone except his grounds and house servants, if any, wouldn’t I simply go on calling him Lord Greenback, as I might address his younger brother Mr. Whatever? Then, as noted eventually Greenback, on the same circumstance as when I might drop the Mr. in talking to his brother?
Also, eldest sons of higher peers, almost invariably have and may be known by their own titles, like the Earl of Brideshead in Brideshead Revisited, but those are only courtesy titles. Those individuals are legally still commoners, so even before the changes they were allowed to be MPs. It’s mentioned near the end of the novel as something which the Earl might have done as a career, but had come to nothing.
Is he a Life Peer?
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but these days don’t most Life Peers use their birth last name as their titles, like Baron Olivier and Lord Black?
No, no not at all. 
She’s stern in the sense of having a somewhat forbidding visage, and a mentalist in that she is not wired up in quite the same way as most other people. I suspect all of the Royals will be like this, product of bizarre upbringing I suppose, and it’s hard to describe her otherness, it’s just there. She is very nice though, and surprisingly chatty.
The commoner thing is a bit odd, really, and often misunderstood*: technically Princes William and Harry are commoners.
*not by you I hasten to add.
You can call me anything you like sweet-cheeks.
Point taken, though. I’m going to guess that you are more comfortable with newsgroup-style threading?
Someone who urinates.
No, I’ve seen other styles of threading, but I’ve been on the SDMB long enough that I know its style much better.
I did actually have this wrong; I thought as Charles’ sons they would be considered princes by blood; in short that Royalty is a slightly different animal than just plain old Nobility. It’s true that Princess Anne’s children are commoners, but I thought that was because she herself married a commoner and declined to have a title bestowed on her husband and children. Interestingly, even though Peter and Zara Phillips are commoners they retain their places in the line of succession to the throne, 11 and 12 respectively.
And, as someone here pointed out recently, the ones who get peed on are the peeees.
Oh, come on. The Chuck and Di Show was the best soap opera on TV, and it didn’t cost us a dime! If I choose to play what I consider to be an entertaining parlor game, where’s the harm? If I quote Star Trek episodes chapter and verse, no one thinks ill of it.
It depends on whether or not there is already a peerage with that name. You are not supposed to have two Lord Smiths, but for heraldic purposes, “Lord Smith” and “Lord Smith of York” are two distinct titles.
Laurence Olivier wanted to be plain old “Baron Olivier”. But there had already been a life peer named Olivier, and he had a couple of children who were still living. They didn’t want him using their father’s title, so he became “Baron Olivier of Brighton”.
All Great Officers, all ex-royalty and all Knights and other Peers Llaurels and Pelicans) swear fealty. Some SCA royalty invite the entire populace to do so.
Anyone who is a Prince is by definition not a commoner. But yes, there are Royal children or those who have only a courtesy title who are commoners.
Not necessarily. Tony Banks decided to call himself Lord Stratford.
This seems a little confused. The conventional formula is that you are Baron So-and-So of Somewhere. Thus even the already mentioned Tony Banks became the, slightly cumbersome and redundant, Lord Stratford of Stratford in the London Borough of Newham.
In the Olivier case, the previous Lord Olivier had started as Sydney Olivier and become govenor of Jamaica. And his title, following the formula, was actually Baron Olivier of Ramsden. Since he only had daughters, the title died out when he did in 1943. They may indeed have been unhappy when Sir Larry was raised to the peerage, but there’d only really have been a problem if he’d also wanted to be Baron Olivier of Ramsden - rather unlikely surely.
The original’s family are quite possibly still unhappy that any casual reference to “Lord Olivier” is now automatically taken to be the actor, but there was no concesssion to their feelings in him being more fully Lord Olivier of Brighton.
In recent times we’ve had Lord Harris of High Cross, Lord Harris of Greenwich, Lord Harris of Harringay, and Lord Harris of Peckham
Does the recipient of a Life Peerage have to style himself Lord Surname of Whatsit, or are they allowed to choose something else? It stands to reason that if the person’s surname is already an old, well known title, they’d want to use something else. I know that with Earls and higher, the family name is usually distinct from the title, like Clarence The Earl of Emsworth and his younger brother Galahad Threepwood in the Wodehouse stories, but with Barons I’m not so sure.