After introducing his role, the author then refers to him as either Cork or Admiral Cork. I thought this was a mistake and he should have been referred to as Admiral Boyle. However Wiki also refers to him as Lord Cork or Cork.
Is this correct?
In regard to John Arbuthnot “Jackie” Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone, I have never heard him called Admiral Kilverstone. (Baron rather than an Earl if that makes a difference).
Henry Boyle was Earl of Cork, and therefore, Admiral Cork.
John Fisher was Baron Fisher of Kilverstone, and therefore, Admiral Fisher.
Barons are, as you noted, Baron Lastname (or Baron Lastname of Someplace). Earls are just Earl of Someplace. (He’s referred to as Earl of Cork rather than Earl of Orrey because it’s the senior title).
I will correct myself in pointing out that that’s not always the case for barons…the “Baron Lastname”. For instance, Charles Cavendish, for instance, was named Baron Chesham, and he’d be referred to as Lord Chesham. But in those cases where it is “Baron Lastname”, the person would be Lord Lastname.
A new creation is nearly always “Baron Lastname [of Hishome, when needed to distinguish from other Lastnames]”, always referred to in speech as “Lord Lastname.” The “Baron” usage occurs only when a full statement of his name and titles is called for. But sometimes a man will inherit a baronage through his mother, when the patent does not restrict the title to “heirs male”, at which point “Sir Michael Smythe” becomes “[Lord] Michael Smythe, Baron Prichards, C.M.G.” or “Lord Prichards” in everyday use.
Earls are often given territorial based titles, but occasionally will hold a surname based title. “Lord John Grey”, the Victorian Minister (in this case the “Lord” being courtesy title, the man himself being an aristocratic commoner at law), was the son of Earl Grey, IIRC the namesake for the tea.
To clean up the other peerage ranks, Viscounts nearly always follow the Baron pattern; Marquesses and Dukes are, I believe always, given territorial titles.
Polycarp, I think you’re thinking of Lord John Russell, who was the third son of the Duke of Bedford. The younger sons of Dukes always get “Lord” as a courtesy title, but not the younger sons of Earls - they have to be content with being “Honourable.” The only Lord John Grey that I can think of was a fictional character, but notably, he was a younger son of a Duke in that universe.
By the way, the business of younger sons of Earls is one of the few examples in the British system of nobility where women get better titles than men - the daughters of Earls get the courtesy title of “Lady” (e.g. - Lady Diana Spencer, Lady Constance Threepwood), but their brothers have to be content with being “Honourable” (e.g. “the Hon. Galahad Threepwood”).
Boyle is Henry’s family name, and would only be used by lesser mortals in the family who don’t inherent the main title. ‘Cork’ is his title and takes precedence.
An interesting and slightly mixed up example of this are the Royal princes, William and Harry. Their family name is ‘Windsor’, but their father carries the title (amongst many many others) of ‘Prince of Wales’, so when they joined the military and wanted to be ‘one of the boys’ (as opposed to Their Royal Highnesses Prince William and Prince Harry etc), they both took the name ‘Wales’ as a ‘surname’.
Hence Lieutenant Harry Wales and Flying Officer William Wales (or whatever he is at the moment).