Why is Tennyson named “Alfred Lord Tennyson”? Is the “Lord” a name or title? If it is title, why is it stuck in between his name?
WRS
My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that he was the first Lord Tennyson.
Alfred Tennyson was created a peer in 1884 as Baron Tennyson, of Aldworth in the County of Sussex and of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight. Thereafter, his proper title would have been Lord Tennyson. I suppose the form Alfred, Lord Tennyson is used to distinguish him from subsequent Lords Tennyson. For example, his son Hallam succeeded to the title on the death of his father.
For some reason, they do this backwards-naming thing with Catholic cardinals, too: “John, Cardinal Whatever” rather than “Cardinal John Whatever.”
I’m curious though why we always see that particular configuration where Alfred, Lord Tennyson is concerned - I can’t think of another lord who is named that way. Is he just the most well-known?
IIRC the poet should be George Gordon Lord Byron but most people abbreviate.
(Maybe it’s a poet thing rather than a lord thing?)
Lord Byron’s title was hereditary, whereas Lord Tennyson’s was newly created. I don’t know if that makes a difference to the way they were called.
It was (and remains) standard English usage to identify a person who holds a title based on his/her surname as "Firstname, Title Lastname" just as someone who holds a title not based on his/her surname is, "Firstname Lastname, Title Title" – and both semi-appositives hold true whether or not you’re talking about British nobility or anything else. “Dan Rather, CBS News Anchorman” is as accurate an example as “Edward Marmaduke Howard, Duke of Norfolk.”
What marks “Alfred, Lord Tennyson” as odd is that other than Cardinals, it’s relatively uncommon West of the Pond to hear of anyone who has a title matching his surname, and the rare exceptions tend to be famous people granted life ennoblements for which Title Surname is equally accurate. Technically, Lord Olivier is as equally properly referred to as “Lawrence, Lord Olivier” – but there are no other Lord Oliviers around (ancestors, descendents, or holders of another surname-based title, like Lord Grey of Ruthin vs. Lord Grey of Somerset) from whom the famous actor must be distinguished.
But plain old Alfred Tennyson, whose grief at the death of his beloved Henry Hallam coincided with Queen Victoria’s at her Prince Albert’s, was first knighted by her as Sir Alfred Tennyson and then made Baron Tennyson [trailing a string of goods waggons already spelled out by Cunctator], and hence Alfred, (First) Lord Tennyson.
From what I can remember, the correct styling for a Cardinal is, without exception, (all names before last name) Cardinal (last name). Hence, Francis Cardinal George, Francis Cardinal Arinze, Joseph Cardinal Raztinger, and the hypothetical John Tom Dick Harry Cardinal Joe. (It annoys me to no end when people don’t apply this. I have even seen traditionalist Catholic publications violating this rule. Grrrr.) The explanation for this - and I have no idea where I first read it - is that the Cardinals are princes of the Church and, thus, may be styled as princes.
But His Royal Highness Charles is called “HRH Charles, Prince of Wales,” not “HRH Charles Prince Windsor (or whatever his formal surname is).” HM The Queen is not “HM Elizabeth Queen Windsor.”
Could you please explain again when one is styled “(Names) Title (Surname)” and when one is styled “Title (Name(s and Surname))” (such as HM The Queen Elizabeth the Second) or “(Name(s and Surname)), Title of N.” (such as HRH Charles, Prince of Wales)?
WRS
When the title is the surname, e.g., George Wolfwater is created 1st Baron Wolfwater, he becomes George, Lord Wolfwater. An exact parallel with how Cardinals are designated.
When the title is geographic, or inherited through the female line by someone with a different surname, the full name precedes the title. If, for example, the 5th Lord Wolfwater dies leaving only a daughter, and her son inherits the title, he becomes Roderick Smythe, (6th) Lord Wolfwater. Edgar Rice Burroughs’ most famous character was surnamed Clayton, but inherited the Earldom of Greystoke, and so was John Clayton, Lord Greystoke. (Properly that should have been John Clayton, Earl of Greystoke, but ERB was writing adventure novels, not comedies of manners about the peerage.)
The Royal Family does not use their surname in connection with titles, so he is HRH Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales. The Windsor which would follow after the George is omitted, since the HRH at the beginning clues you in as to which Charles this might be.
How about Charles, Earl Spencer (Princess Di’s brother). From what I’ve heard, he doesn’t have a son, so he is likely to be the last Earl Spencer.
Thank you! All of my questions on this issue seemed to be answered for now.
WRS
The current Earl Spencer has two sons - one by his first wife and another by his second. Even if he died without any sons, I suspect that there would still be collateral male heirs who could inherit the earldom.
Unrelated to the British peerage, but related to the issue of titles and telling titled people apart:
At my college graduation, the Commencement speaker (the French Ambassador) spoke at length about the Marquis Gilbert de la Fayette, whom I think he also referred to as the 15th Marquis de Lafayette. It had never really occured to me that the Marquis de Lafayette that the college had been named for was really one in a long string of 'Marquis’es de Lafayette.
Obviously, the Marquis Gilbert de la Fayette is the one associated with the American Revolution and who got named an honorary U.S. Citizen a few years ago. And just in case you are curious, his full name was Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette according to at least a half dozen websites that came up when I typed “Marquis Gilbert Lafayette” into Google.
To expand Cunctator’s point about Tennyson being just ‘Lord Tennyson’, the usual way of refering to a peer during their lifetime is by their title alone. No first name and no surname, unless the surname is part of the title. Nor any ordinal number. As there can only be one person with that exact title at any one time, there is no reason for confusion. (If there was more than one Tennyson peerage held by different people, Alfred would have been referred to as ‘Lord Tennyson of Aldworth’ to clarify things.) A first name and/or the ordinal number only become necessary when the person is dead.
The form Lord [first name] [surname/title] is always wrong for a peer because that would mean that they might be confused with the younger son of a duke or marquess - oh, the shame of it! - as they do get to call themselves Lord [first name] [surname]. Continuing the literary theme, a example of that would be Lord Alfred Douglas, as he was a son of the 9th Marquess of Queensberry.
This does now confuse people. From a time not so very long ago when it was rare for anyone’s full first names to be used, people now become very uncomfortable when they need to refer to people who do not seem to have first names. It is easy to make the assumption that the first name must fit in somewhere.
The point about Tennyson is that he falls into the category of someone who was already a genuine celebrity superstar before he became a peer. Calling him ‘Alfred, Lord Tennyson’ made it clear that you were indeed referring to the Poet Formerly Known As ‘Alfred Tennyson’. Byron, in contrast, had inherited his peerage as a child and so had always been famous as ‘Lord Byron’.
If the OP is still confused –
His name is Alfred Tennyson. In this usage, “Alfred” is his given name and “Tennyson” is his family name,
His title is Baron Tennyson. Here, “Baron Tennyson” is a title. “Tennyson” is not being used as a family name. Forget the fact that it is identical to his actual family name. It is not a coincidence that the two are the same, but there is no reason they had to be the same. While a title may be created with the family name in mind, they are not based on the family name and a word’s use as a title is irrelevant to its use as a name.
Titles of nobility became common long before family names did. Thus, if Tennyson had been born a few centuries earlier, he would simply have a given name, “Alfred,” and no family name. Say he was then granted the title “Baron Whatsis.” Then he would be properly referred to as “Alfred, Baron Whatsis.”
However, in English custom, you never address a baron directly as “Baron X.” You address him as “Lord X.” Thus, upon meeting Alfred, you would address him as “Lord Whatsis.” Following from this, Alfred would commonly be referred to in the third person as “Lord Whatsis,” with the understanding that his title was really “Baron Whatsis.” Thus, you get the construction “Alfred, Lord Whatsis.”
Bring that forward a few centuries and you get the form “Alfred, Lord Tennyson.” It doesn’t matter that “Tennyson” also happens to be his family name. By the way, it’s not incorrect just to call him “Alfred Tennyson,” because that is, after all, his actual name.
It goes further than this. Prince Charles doesn’t really have a family name in the same way that the rest of us do. His actual name really is “Charles Philip Arthur George,” period. His real name is not “Charles Mountbatten-Windsor” in the same way that Tennyson’s real name was “Alfred Tennyson.” His younger brother has chosen to start using the name “Edward Windsor,” but that’s the result of a conscious choice, one we have no indication that Charles has made until Charles and Camilla start issuing invitations with the legend “Mr. and Mrs. Windsor.”
Can I make it more complicated? When you add women, you have to start distinguishing between titles they are born with, and titles they marry into.
For example, the late Diana Spencer was the daughter of an earl. This did not make her a member of the peerage, she was considered a commoner (eligible to sit in the House of Commons), but she had the courtesy title “Lady.” (Lord and Lady are meaningless titles used with daughters and younger sons of nobility.) Because she was born with this title, she used it in front of her name, “Lady Diana Spencer.”
Then she got married. Her husband has the title “Prince of Wales.” She therefore became a princess. But, because she married into this, it comes after her name, “Diana, Princess of Wales.” In contrast, the Queen’s daughter was born a princess, so her title goes in front of her name, “Princess Anne.”
So for a different example, we have John Spencer-Churchill, Duke of Marlborough. He was correctly referred to, and signed documents, as “Marlborough.” (After he died, one could insert that he was the 7th duke.) He had two sons. The elder, George, was nobility and eventually became the 8th Duke. While waiting, he had the title “Earl of Sunderland.” Thus he was fully titled George Spencer-Churchill, Earl of Sunderland, and referred to as Sunderland.
The younger, Randolph, was a commoner (served with distinction in the house of commons), had the courtesy title 'Lord," and dropped the “Spencer.” He was properly called Lord Randolph Churchill. He married Jennie Jerome, who had no title of her own, and she was properly called “Lady Randolph Churchill.” Their son, Winston Churchill, and no title of any kind, and his wife, Clementine, was properly referred to as “Mrs. Winston Churchill.”
The assumption is that women marry their husband’s title, either up or down. Men keep their own throughout their lives. The only exception to this is a Queen Regnant, who always keeps her own rank. (Prince Philip was born a prince of Greece - a long and complex story - so his title of Prince goes in front of his name.) He became HRH by decree of George VI.
What you say here implies that it is correct to refer to “Prince Charles of Wales,” because that’s his own title, not his spouse’s, but that isn’t right either. It’s “Charles, Prince of Wales,” too, just as it was “Diana, Princess of Wales.” He also happens to be “Prince Charles,” because his mother’s the queen, but that’s a separate title.
Philip was required to give up his Greek/Danish titles before he was allowed to marry Princess Elizabeth. Later, Elizabeth decreed that he would have the right to be called “Prince Philip.” Thus, he his Prince Philip, not in his own right, but because his wife said he could be.
Not quite. I was simplifying, because my main point was about her. He was born Prince Charles, and will always be a prince. The title, “Prince of Wales” was given to him. (I think he was a teenager, or very early twenties.) So he is Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. She was Diana, Princess of Wales. (This despite the constant refrain of “Princess Diana.” Wrong, wrong, wrong.")
Is this right? It was my understanding that a woman who had a title by birth kept the title even if she married a man of lower rank. However, a title a woman inherited would go with her first name (“Lady Jane”) while a title she married into would go with her married surname (“Lady Doe”).