Not necessarily. George Brown (the well-known drunk) wanted to call himself Lord George Brown. The College of Heralds objected, and he eventually changed his surname to George-Brown and was allowed to call himself Lord George-Brown of Jevington. Nonetheless the Press generally referred to him as Lord George Brown.
Formalist answer: They become whatever His/Her Majesty is pleased to entitle them. Some Earls have toponymic titles, others surname-bsed (like Earl Grey after whose ancestor the tea is named).
Practical answer: The PM, the Queen, the individual himself, and the College of Heralds (whose duty it is to keep track of this sort of thing) all have input, and where possible the guy who has to bear the title will have his wishes honored when possible. Ordinarily Lord Surname of Placename type titles are given to avoid confusion with other Lords Surname – that is, “Lord Weaver of Epworth” and “Lord Weaver of Carlisle” makes the same sort of distinction as a newspaper’s “Paul Simon the senator” vs. “Paul Simon the singer”.
If you are on your second address to the Queen then Ma’am is pronounced Mam to rhyme with ham. No extra r’s please. 
The Ministry of Justice website provides a succinct explanation of the conventions used for peerage titles of barons (and viscounts).
In practice, it is entirely a matter between the recipient and the Garter King of Arms. Even when they disagree, it rarely goes beyond Garter making disapproving noises and then agreeing to the change-your-name-by-deedpoll option. If the territorial designation is thought to be inappropriate, usually because it is too grand (e.g. the topical ‘Lord Ashcroft of Belize’), Garter just says no. It is not as if the recipient is in any position to force the granting of the letters patent.
Happening to stumble across a copy of Terry Coleman’s Olivier bio yesterday, I idly looked at what it says on the matter. It appears that two issues have been confused:
[ul]Olivier requested that he be “Lord Olivier” without any placename. This was refused, precisely because it did not accord to the formula. (His argument had been that to be lord of somewhere was “pretentious”. While just being some global “Lord Olivier” wouldn’t be?)[/ul]
[ul]Where Sydney Olivier entered the matter was over a separate issue. Coleman claims that the heralds were operating the rule that, to prevent confusion, any use of the name Olivier would have to wait till 100 years after the demise of the previous title. It was this that required a waiver and the permission of the daughters.[/ul]
Any such rule must have eventually been abandoned, possibly because it became unworkable as life peerages came to dominate. Hence we can currently simultaneously have Lord Smith of Finsbury, of Kelvin, of Clifton and of Leigh. Plus Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill.
The final twist is that Sydney Olivier had actually been the actor’s uncle.
The “my” in “my lord” doesn’t mean he actually is your lord, any more than signing a letter to him as “yours truly” would. For that matter, The Queen herself would address him as “my lord” too.
Seems strange to me. With regard to the Queen, if I travel to Canada or the UK, and by some bizarre chance happen to meet her, I’d certainly observe all the requisite honorifics and etiquette because it’s meant to show respect for the country I’m visiting.
But if I meet Lord Emsworth as a social equal–for instance, we belong to the same club and a mutual friend there introduces us, I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that I should call him my lord. I know the P.G. Wodehouse stories aren’t documentaries, but have always assumed his usage of titles and honorifics among the aristocracy, their families, and their servants was more or less accurate. About the only person who called Emsworth “my Lord” was Beach the butler. Even Monica Simmons The Pig Girl called him Lord Emsworth. In Brideshead Revisited it’s the same; only the butler and other servants say “milord” or “milady” to anyone.
Nobody calls a member of the aristocracy (as opposed to a member of the royal family) by their title if they meet them in an informal situation. If you met a lord at a party, you probably wouldn’t even be told that he is a lord.
Rereading APB’s Ministry of Justice cite does suggest a different interpretation of the Olivier example.
In their typography, Sydney Olivier was BARON OLIVIER of Ramsden, while Laurence Olivier was BARON OLIVIER OF BRIGHTON. And their use of BRIGHTON does suggest a degree of deliberation in their choice.
But it also does suggest that Coleman, as the authorised biographer, may be talking bollocks.
The thread above that stated that both Princes William and Harry are technically commoners was correct when written, but now that William is also Duke of Cambridge he is a peer. It’s rumored that Prince Harry will be made Duke of Sussex, most likely when he marries, although, if he procrastinates for a very long time but behaves himself, it could be sooner. At that point, he will also be a peer. It’s unlikely that any of the other grandchildren of the Queen will be given titles. Of course, legal status and precedence are two different things and the royal grandchildren’s precedence ranking is higher than many peers.
The high level Royals, yes, but I quaffed beers with a Baronet right here in California. Nice guy.
And this “commoner” thing is only a technicality and mostly only in the UK. In other nations, any direct descendant would be a “royal” and those with noble blood but no title would be called a “Gentleman”.
I just call him Buck.
:mad:
And when I was a teen-ager living in Honolulu, I got to have dinner once with a genuine Samoan High Talking Chief. In my very own home!
You do know that all this is just high faluting nonsense. For almost any situation Ma’am and Sir will suffice. If you are writing a formal letter, then maybe the proper address is required, but verbally - just don’t believe what you see in TV drama.
In the workplace, how do you address your boss, or the CEO? Some places expect Ma’am or sir, but in the UK at least, this has become rare outside militaristic organisations like the police and fire service. Way back in the 80s, it was suggested to me that I should call a new boss sir. I simply avoided calling him anything after that.
We like our royals, even if we take the piss out of some of them. All those lords and ladies are just part of our heritage like stately homes and castles. They are nice to look at (well some are) but have little impact on our lives. Giving Knighthoods or Damehoods to people is a cheap way to reward them, and they do have to put some effort in to qualify.
Serious question: What makes someone your 'better". I am Canadian and would never use a term such as Lord or Lady to address someone. I would always use Mr. or Ms. I would never curtsy, either. I extend my hand. I fail to understand why someone with an inherited title is a “better” and why people of the UK are so eager to hold them in esteem regardless of their lifestyles and values.
Hopefully you never have to go to court in a province where that’s still the expect form of address for a judge.
It’s discourteous to do so when you already know they aren’t ‘Mister’. If, after introduction they invite you to call them something else, that’s different. Small children aren’t expected to master the complexities of it, but adults can and should.
(Most titles that currently exist aren’t inherited ones these days).
Yes: here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_peer#Titles_and_forms_of_address