Use of Sir as a title of honor
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
Use of Sir as a title of honor
Dear Newsgroup ~
Sir William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke (died 1219), was one of the most
noteworthy knights of the Middle Ages. The deeds of William Marshal
were recorded for posterity a few years after his death in the Histoire
de Guillaume le Mareschal, a verse account of 19,214 lines in rhyming
couplets, written in Middle French. The writer, only known to us as
John, was commissioned to compose the poem by the Earl's family. The
writer was familiar to William and could have been an eyewitness to
some of the later exploits of the English knight.
For references to "Sire Hubert du Bourg" [Sir Hubert de Burgh] and to
"Sire Richard, le fils du roi Jean" [Sir Richard, the son of king
John"] in the French text of the Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal,
see the following weblinks:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2 ... pagination. Click on
left on pg. 245.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2 ... pagination. Click on
left on pg. 246
For an English translation of the French text, see the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... 1SSI&hl=en
The online Etymology Dictionary states that the word, sir, first
surfaced in 1297 as a title of honor of a knight or baronet (until 17c.
also a title of priests). Yet obviously its usage predates 1297 by
many decades.
This raises several questions:
Question 1: When did Sir/Sire as a title of honour for a knight or
priest first originate?
Question 2: Did Sir/Sire used for a layman in the early 1200's always
refer to a knighted individual?
Question 3: What was the Latin word used for the French word, Sire, and
for the English word, Sir.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Sir William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke (died 1219), was one of the most
noteworthy knights of the Middle Ages. The deeds of William Marshal
were recorded for posterity a few years after his death in the Histoire
de Guillaume le Mareschal, a verse account of 19,214 lines in rhyming
couplets, written in Middle French. The writer, only known to us as
John, was commissioned to compose the poem by the Earl's family. The
writer was familiar to William and could have been an eyewitness to
some of the later exploits of the English knight.
For references to "Sire Hubert du Bourg" [Sir Hubert de Burgh] and to
"Sire Richard, le fils du roi Jean" [Sir Richard, the son of king
John"] in the French text of the Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal,
see the following weblinks:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2 ... pagination. Click on
left on pg. 245.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2 ... pagination. Click on
left on pg. 246
For an English translation of the French text, see the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... 1SSI&hl=en
The online Etymology Dictionary states that the word, sir, first
surfaced in 1297 as a title of honor of a knight or baronet (until 17c.
also a title of priests). Yet obviously its usage predates 1297 by
many decades.
This raises several questions:
Question 1: When did Sir/Sire as a title of honour for a knight or
priest first originate?
Question 2: Did Sir/Sire used for a layman in the early 1200's always
refer to a knighted individual?
Question 3: What was the Latin word used for the French word, Sire, and
for the English word, Sir.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter MEAZEY
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Douglas,
I'm afraid the references you give here are to a translation into modern
(19th century) French prose. They don't prove that "sire" was used in
the original 13th century poem. Does anybody have this to hand ?
Or do we carry on talking in a vacuum ?
Regards,
Peter Meazey.
I'm afraid the references you give here are to a translation into modern
(19th century) French prose. They don't prove that "sire" was used in
the original 13th century poem. Does anybody have this to hand ?
Or do we carry on talking in a vacuum ?
Regards,
Peter Meazey.
-
Gjest
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
In modern usage, William, Earl of Pembroke would not be referred to as
"Sir William", as the higher title (Earl) is not used with the lower
(knight). Similarly, we do not see in early English the description
"knight" when referring to a peer [unless he is only considered to be a
peer by modern doctrine - e.g. the later Argenteins or the Greys].
Other than translations, it would be interesting to know whether early
English texts gave the accolade "Sir" to peers who were also knights.
Given that these are references in French, how can one state that the
proper translation into English is not "Lord Hubert de Burgh" and "Lord
Richard, son of King John"?
Perhaps this English translation would be more useful if it were of
contemporary (i.e. mediaeval) date?
Sorry to appear obtuse, but why "obviously"? Other than citations of a
French text using the word "Sire" - which can be translated as Lord -
what earlier English references are known to us?
Interestingly, the usage of "Sir" for clergymen appears to have lasted
longer than is often cited; for instance in the Isle of Man, the vicar
of Santan, who died on 25 September 1690, is referred to on his
tomb-stone as "Sir Hugh Cosnahan".
You have identified the nub of it here - if this could be proven, we
would have a useful tool, for the every appearance of "dominus" in
reference to a layman would tell us that he had been knighted.
Dear Newsgroup ~
Sir William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke (died 1219), was one of the most
noteworthy knights of the Middle Ages.
In modern usage, William, Earl of Pembroke would not be referred to as
"Sir William", as the higher title (Earl) is not used with the lower
(knight). Similarly, we do not see in early English the description
"knight" when referring to a peer [unless he is only considered to be a
peer by modern doctrine - e.g. the later Argenteins or the Greys].
Other than translations, it would be interesting to know whether early
English texts gave the accolade "Sir" to peers who were also knights.
The deeds of William Marshal
were recorded for posterity a few years after his death in the Histoire
de Guillaume le Mareschal, a verse account of 19,214 lines in rhyming
couplets, written in Middle French. The writer, only known to us as
John, was commissioned to compose the poem by the Earl's family. The
writer was familiar to William and could have been an eyewitness to
some of the later exploits of the English knight.
For references to "Sire Hubert du Bourg" [Sir Hubert de Burgh] and to
"Sire Richard, le fils du roi Jean" [Sir Richard, the son of king
John"]
Given that these are references in French, how can one state that the
proper translation into English is not "Lord Hubert de Burgh" and "Lord
Richard, son of King John"?
in the French text of the Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal,
see the following weblinks:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2 ... pagination. Click on
left on pg. 245.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2 ... pagination. Click on
left on pg. 246
For an English translation of the French text, see the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... 1SSI&hl=en
Perhaps this English translation would be more useful if it were of
contemporary (i.e. mediaeval) date?
The online Etymology Dictionary states that the word, sir, first
surfaced in 1297 as a title of honor of a knight or baronet (until 17c.
also a title of priests). Yet obviously its usage predates 1297 by
many decades.
Sorry to appear obtuse, but why "obviously"? Other than citations of a
French text using the word "Sire" - which can be translated as Lord -
what earlier English references are known to us?
Interestingly, the usage of "Sir" for clergymen appears to have lasted
longer than is often cited; for instance in the Isle of Man, the vicar
of Santan, who died on 25 September 1690, is referred to on his
tomb-stone as "Sir Hugh Cosnahan".
This raises several questions:
Question 1: When did Sir/Sire as a title of honour for a knight or
priest first originate?
Question 2: Did Sir/Sire used for a layman in the early 1200's always
refer to a knighted individual?
You have identified the nub of it here - if this could be proven, we
would have a useful tool, for the every appearance of "dominus" in
reference to a layman would tell us that he had been knighted.
Question 3: What was the Latin word used for the French word, Sire, and
for the English word, Sir.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
"Peter MEAZEY" <meazey@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:45255FF3.80206@wanadoo.fr...
The text is in the first two volumes of the edition, and a translation in
the third.
The original versions of the two lines cited occur in volume 2 - on p. 263
("sire Hubert be Bure" in line 17354) and on p. 264 ("Sire Ric. li filz le
rei", line 17377).
But "Sire" was used in vernacular texts earlier than this, and I don't see
any indication that the title of honour refers specifically to knighthood
here.
Peter Stewart
news:45255FF3.80206@wanadoo.fr...
Douglas,
I'm afraid the references you give here are to a translation into modern
(19th century) French prose. They don't prove that "sire" was used in the
original 13th century poem. Does anybody have this to hand ?
Or do we carry on talking in a vacuum ?
The text is in the first two volumes of the edition, and a translation in
the third.
The original versions of the two lines cited occur in volume 2 - on p. 263
("sire Hubert be Bure" in line 17354) and on p. 264 ("Sire Ric. li filz le
rei", line 17377).
But "Sire" was used in vernacular texts earlier than this, and I don't see
any indication that the title of honour refers specifically to knighthood
here.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Peter Stewart schrieb:
It seems to me that one potential way to show that "dominus" etc did
NOT necessarily mean a knightood when used as a prefix in relation to a
layman would be to identify an instance of its use in reference to
someone subsequently known to have been the subject of a distraint of
knighthood fine - i.e. for failing to become a knight despite being
qualified to do so.
Alternatively, an analogy might be drawn from identifying an occasion
where an unmarried laywoman is referred to as "domina", as I have
attempted with the Gregory citation elswhere.
Michael Andrews-Reading
"Peter MEAZEY" <meazey@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:45255FF3.80206@wanadoo.fr...
Douglas,
I'm afraid the references you give here are to a translation into modern
(19th century) French prose. They don't prove that "sire" was used in the
original 13th century poem. Does anybody have this to hand ?
Or do we carry on talking in a vacuum ?
The text is in the first two volumes of the edition, and a translation in
the third.
The original versions of the two lines cited occur in volume 2 - on p. 263
("sire Hubert be Bure" in line 17354) and on p. 264 ("Sire Ric. li filz le
rei", line 17377).
But "Sire" was used in vernacular texts earlier than this, and I don't see
any indication that the title of honour refers specifically to knighthood
here.
It seems to me that one potential way to show that "dominus" etc did
NOT necessarily mean a knightood when used as a prefix in relation to a
layman would be to identify an instance of its use in reference to
someone subsequently known to have been the subject of a distraint of
knighthood fine - i.e. for failing to become a knight despite being
qualified to do so.
Alternatively, an analogy might be drawn from identifying an occasion
where an unmarried laywoman is referred to as "domina", as I have
attempted with the Gregory citation elswhere.
Michael Andrews-Reading
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Dear Newsgroup ~
In an effort to answer the three questions that I have posed, it would
be helpful I think if we were able to view a cross section of medieval
charters in which the Latin word "dominus" precedes a layman's given
name. I present herewith my first example.
Below is an abstract of a Latin charter taken from the published Thame
Cartulary, No. 39. Here we find a reference to the "noble man Sir
Edmund Earl of Cornwall," or in Latin, "nobilis vir dominus Edmundus
comes Cornubie." This is a rather typical address for a man of Earl
Edmund's rank in medieval society. Earl Edmund was a first cousin of
King Edward I of England. As we can see below, he is addressed as "Sir
Edmund."
Date: 25 August 1281.
"In dei nomine Amen Presenti pagina pateat uniuersis quod cum inter
religiosos uiros nostre diocesis fratrem Ricardum abbatem et conuentum
de Thame ordinis Cisterciensis ex parte vna et fratrem Willelmum
abbatem et conuentum Oseneye ordinis sancti Augustini ex altera super
quibusdam decimis et aliis iuribus parochialibus de loco seu area de
Northoseneya quam infra limites parochie dictorum abbatis et conuentus
Oseneye nobilis vir dominus Edmundus comes Cornubie monachis prefati
ordinis Cisterciensis imperpetuum deo seruituris ibidem sub certis
finibus et terminis designatis pio proposito nuper dedit suborta
[esset] materia questionis predictis abbati et conuentui de Thame ..."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
In an effort to answer the three questions that I have posed, it would
be helpful I think if we were able to view a cross section of medieval
charters in which the Latin word "dominus" precedes a layman's given
name. I present herewith my first example.
Below is an abstract of a Latin charter taken from the published Thame
Cartulary, No. 39. Here we find a reference to the "noble man Sir
Edmund Earl of Cornwall," or in Latin, "nobilis vir dominus Edmundus
comes Cornubie." This is a rather typical address for a man of Earl
Edmund's rank in medieval society. Earl Edmund was a first cousin of
King Edward I of England. As we can see below, he is addressed as "Sir
Edmund."
Date: 25 August 1281.
"In dei nomine Amen Presenti pagina pateat uniuersis quod cum inter
religiosos uiros nostre diocesis fratrem Ricardum abbatem et conuentum
de Thame ordinis Cisterciensis ex parte vna et fratrem Willelmum
abbatem et conuentum Oseneye ordinis sancti Augustini ex altera super
quibusdam decimis et aliis iuribus parochialibus de loco seu area de
Northoseneya quam infra limites parochie dictorum abbatis et conuentus
Oseneye nobilis vir dominus Edmundus comes Cornubie monachis prefati
ordinis Cisterciensis imperpetuum deo seruituris ibidem sub certis
finibus et terminis designatis pio proposito nuper dedit suborta
[esset] materia questionis predictis abbati et conuentui de Thame ..."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
Dear Douglas,
Where, other than in your translation, is he addressed as "Sir
Edmund"????
The document is Latin, and he is referred to as "nobilis vir dominus
Edmundus comes Cornubie". I would be interested to know why the
logical translation - the noble and powerful lord Edmund Earl of
Cornwall" - should not apply?
(That formula, in the standard "noble and puissant lord should be
well-known to anyone familiar with English peerage history:
e.g. from A2A, Lincs RO, Ancaster papers:
5ANC8/15 - date: 17th Century
[from Scope and Content] At the beginning: Du tres noble et
puissant Seigneur Robert Comte de Linsey
West Sussx RO, Goodwood Estate Papers:
The most Noble and Puissant George Gordon second Marquis of Huntly...
Beheaded by the Covenanters March 2d Anno M.DCXXVIII. - ref.
GOODWOOD/PD49 - date: nd [?17th century])
Regards, Michael
Dear Newsgroup ~
In an effort to answer the three questions that I have posed, it would
be helpful I think if we were able to view a cross section of medieval
charters in which the Latin word "dominus" precedes a layman's given
name. I present herewith my first example.
Below is an abstract of a Latin charter taken from the published Thame
Cartulary, No. 39. Here we find a reference to the "noble man Sir
Edmund Earl of Cornwall," or in Latin, "nobilis vir dominus Edmundus
comes Cornubie." This is a rather typical address for a man of Earl
Edmund's rank in medieval society. Earl Edmund was a first cousin of
King Edward I of England. As we can see below, he is addressed as "Sir
Edmund."
Date: 25 August 1281.
"In dei nomine Amen Presenti pagina pateat uniuersis quod cum inter
religiosos uiros nostre diocesis fratrem Ricardum abbatem et conuentum
de Thame ordinis Cisterciensis ex parte vna et fratrem Willelmum
abbatem et conuentum Oseneye ordinis sancti Augustini ex altera super
quibusdam decimis et aliis iuribus parochialibus de loco seu area de
Northoseneya quam infra limites parochie dictorum abbatis et conuentus
Oseneye nobilis vir dominus Edmundus comes Cornubie monachis prefati
ordinis Cisterciensis imperpetuum deo seruituris ibidem sub certis
finibus et terminis designatis pio proposito nuper dedit suborta
[esset] materia questionis predictis abbati et conuentui de Thame ..."
Dear Douglas,
Where, other than in your translation, is he addressed as "Sir
Edmund"????
The document is Latin, and he is referred to as "nobilis vir dominus
Edmundus comes Cornubie". I would be interested to know why the
logical translation - the noble and powerful lord Edmund Earl of
Cornwall" - should not apply?
(That formula, in the standard "noble and puissant lord should be
well-known to anyone familiar with English peerage history:
e.g. from A2A, Lincs RO, Ancaster papers:
5ANC8/15 - date: 17th Century
[from Scope and Content] At the beginning: Du tres noble et
puissant Seigneur Robert Comte de Linsey
West Sussx RO, Goodwood Estate Papers:
The most Noble and Puissant George Gordon second Marquis of Huntly...
Beheaded by the Covenanters March 2d Anno M.DCXXVIII. - ref.
GOODWOOD/PD49 - date: nd [?17th century])
Regards, Michael
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1160086071.021999.313520@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
The simplest proceeding would be to look up "sir" in the OED, to find the
earliest instance of its proven use to designate a knight. Then if anyone
can find an earlier occurrence this will be much easier to follow than a
scramble to produce random instances. Clearly "dominus" can't be prescribed
as "sir", in any context or word order, before the usage can be demonstrated
in English.
As for trying a survey of the documentary sources here, this would be a
waste of everyone's time & efforts: a useful survey of this kind must be
complete and systematic in order to be conclusive, and that is far beyond
the capacities of the newsgroup even with all its members dropping everthing
else for this research. However, the OED has been compiled from exhaustive
study of the surviving vernacular sources, with contributions by countless
readers from the 19th century onwards. Whyever try to reinvent their
findings?
As for the examples offered, none so far has any probative value that I can
see. Michael is surely right in preferring "lord" to "sir" for "dominus"
used for a great figure in the 13th century - some doubt as to the better
translation might come in by the late 14th century, but hardly before then I
think.
If _L'histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal_ is to be cited in evidence, this
ought to be from a thorough reading of the work, not just a second-hand
exercise in word spotting from a modern translation. Why for starters would
its author refer to Patrick, earl of Salisbury as "Li quens Patriz de
Salesbire" (line 146)? Was he not a knight? Or if he was, why not "Sire
Patriz"?
Peter Stewart
news:1160086071.021999.313520@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart schrieb:
"Peter MEAZEY" <meazey@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:45255FF3.80206@wanadoo.fr...
Douglas,
I'm afraid the references you give here are to a translation into
modern
(19th century) French prose. They don't prove that "sire" was used in
the
original 13th century poem. Does anybody have this to hand ?
Or do we carry on talking in a vacuum ?
The text is in the first two volumes of the edition, and a translation in
the third.
The original versions of the two lines cited occur in volume 2 - on p.
263
("sire Hubert be Bure" in line 17354) and on p. 264 ("Sire Ric. li filz
le
rei", line 17377).
But "Sire" was used in vernacular texts earlier than this, and I don't
see
any indication that the title of honour refers specifically to knighthood
here.
It seems to me that one potential way to show that "dominus" etc did
NOT necessarily mean a knightood when used as a prefix in relation to a
layman would be to identify an instance of its use in reference to
someone subsequently known to have been the subject of a distraint of
knighthood fine - i.e. for failing to become a knight despite being
qualified to do so.
Alternatively, an analogy might be drawn from identifying an occasion
where an unmarried laywoman is referred to as "domina", as I have
attempted with the Gregory citation elswhere.
The simplest proceeding would be to look up "sir" in the OED, to find the
earliest instance of its proven use to designate a knight. Then if anyone
can find an earlier occurrence this will be much easier to follow than a
scramble to produce random instances. Clearly "dominus" can't be prescribed
as "sir", in any context or word order, before the usage can be demonstrated
in English.
As for trying a survey of the documentary sources here, this would be a
waste of everyone's time & efforts: a useful survey of this kind must be
complete and systematic in order to be conclusive, and that is far beyond
the capacities of the newsgroup even with all its members dropping everthing
else for this research. However, the OED has been compiled from exhaustive
study of the surviving vernacular sources, with contributions by countless
readers from the 19th century onwards. Whyever try to reinvent their
findings?
As for the examples offered, none so far has any probative value that I can
see. Michael is surely right in preferring "lord" to "sir" for "dominus"
used for a great figure in the 13th century - some doubt as to the better
translation might come in by the late 14th century, but hardly before then I
think.
If _L'histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal_ is to be cited in evidence, this
ought to be from a thorough reading of the work, not just a second-hand
exercise in word spotting from a modern translation. Why for starters would
its author refer to Patrick, earl of Salisbury as "Li quens Patriz de
Salesbire" (line 146)? Was he not a knight? Or if he was, why not "Sire
Patriz"?
Peter Stewart
-
William Black
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1160084819.506006.211820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Probably none.
Anyone got a full OED? That will have the first apearance in English and
the context.
Almost certainly a baronet, a hereditary form of knighthood created by
James I.
There's no doubt what that the word 'dominus' means. It always refers to a
man to whom oaths of loyalty are sworn. The term is used in that context
from AD 789. The term is so widely used as to be almost meaningless except
that it implies some sort of overlordship.
In French the word for a horseman and the appellation for a knight are the
same word, 'chevalier'.
However in early texts it is usually unclear if they mean a mounted servant
or a knight. Later the term for a mounted but not 'gentle' servant came
into use and we are then able to differentiate between the two groups.
I do need to add here that the word 'knight' derives from the word for a
servant.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
news:1160084819.506006.211820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
The online Etymology Dictionary states that the word, sir, first
surfaced in 1297 as a title of honor of a knight or baronet (until 17c.
also a title of priests). Yet obviously its usage predates 1297 by
many decades.
Sorry to appear obtuse, but why "obviously"? Other than citations of a
French text using the word "Sire" - which can be translated as Lord -
what earlier English references are known to us?
Probably none.
Anyone got a full OED? That will have the first apearance in English and
the context.
Interestingly, the usage of "Sir" for clergymen appears to have lasted
longer than is often cited; for instance in the Isle of Man, the vicar
of Santan, who died on 25 September 1690, is referred to on his
tomb-stone as "Sir Hugh Cosnahan".
Almost certainly a baronet, a hereditary form of knighthood created by
James I.
Question 2: Did Sir/Sire used for a layman in the early 1200's always
refer to a knighted individual?
You have identified the nub of it here - if this could be proven, we
would have a useful tool, for the every appearance of "dominus" in
reference to a layman would tell us that he had been knighted.
There's no doubt what that the word 'dominus' means. It always refers to a
man to whom oaths of loyalty are sworn. The term is used in that context
from AD 789. The term is so widely used as to be almost meaningless except
that it implies some sort of overlordship.
In French the word for a horseman and the appellation for a knight are the
same word, 'chevalier'.
However in early texts it is usually unclear if they mean a mounted servant
or a knight. Later the term for a mounted but not 'gentle' servant came
into use and we are then able to differentiate between the two groups.
I do need to add here that the word 'knight' derives from the word for a
servant.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
-
Gjest
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
William Black schrieb:
No, definitely just a parish priest - although there was an hereditary
element to that post in this family's case. They are ancestral to the
Rt Hon Anthony Blair, MP.
Regards, Michael
mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1160084819.506006.211820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
The online Etymology Dictionary states that the word, sir, first
surfaced in 1297 as a title of honor of a knight or baronet (until 17c.
also a title of priests). Yet obviously its usage predates 1297 by
many decades.
Sorry to appear obtuse, but why "obviously"? Other than citations of a
French text using the word "Sire" - which can be translated as Lord -
what earlier English references are known to us?
Probably none.
Anyone got a full OED? That will have the first apearance in English and
the context.
Interestingly, the usage of "Sir" for clergymen appears to have lasted
longer than is often cited; for instance in the Isle of Man, the vicar
of Santan, who died on 25 September 1690, is referred to on his
tomb-stone as "Sir Hugh Cosnahan".
Almost certainly a baronet, a hereditary form of knighthood created by
James I.
No, definitely just a parish priest - although there was an hereditary
element to that post in this family's case. They are ancestral to the
Rt Hon Anthony Blair, MP.
Regards, Michael
-
William Black
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1160126866.281514.90080@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
That doesn't mean he didn't inherit a baronetcy somewhere.
By 1690 these things were very structured indeed.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
news:1160126866.281514.90080@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
William Black schrieb:
mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1160084819.506006.211820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
The online Etymology Dictionary states that the word, sir, first
surfaced in 1297 as a title of honor of a knight or baronet (until
17c.
also a title of priests). Yet obviously its usage predates 1297 by
many decades.
Sorry to appear obtuse, but why "obviously"? Other than citations of
a
French text using the word "Sire" - which can be translated as Lord -
what earlier English references are known to us?
Probably none.
Anyone got a full OED? That will have the first apearance in English
and
the context.
Interestingly, the usage of "Sir" for clergymen appears to have lasted
longer than is often cited; for instance in the Isle of Man, the vicar
of Santan, who died on 25 September 1690, is referred to on his
tomb-stone as "Sir Hugh Cosnahan".
Almost certainly a baronet, a hereditary form of knighthood created by
James I.
No, definitely just a parish priest - although there was an hereditary
element to that post in this family's case. They are ancestral to the
Rt Hon Anthony Blair, MP.
That doesn't mean he didn't inherit a baronetcy somewhere.
By 1690 these things were very structured indeed.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
William Black questions the use of 'Sir' for parish priests in the late
seventeenth century.
The latest example that I can immediately think of, but I don't have any way
of searching for such usage in my notes, is this entry in the Lamplugh
Parish Register (in Cumberland): It is the only use of 'Sir' in the register
1581-1812:
1654 baptism
May 3 Elizabeth d. of Matthew Fearon, bapt. by Sir Anthony Bragg
Chris
seventeenth century.
The latest example that I can immediately think of, but I don't have any way
of searching for such usage in my notes, is this entry in the Lamplugh
Parish Register (in Cumberland): It is the only use of 'Sir' in the register
1581-1812:
1654 baptism
May 3 Elizabeth d. of Matthew Fearon, bapt. by Sir Anthony Bragg
Chris
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
In message of 6 Oct, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
I happen have one of those photoreduced versions of the full OED and
they give various meanings and earliest uses of 'Sir':
A. The word appeared in various forms from 1297: sir, sere, sur, sure,
sore, scher, schyr, schir.
B. The explicit term for a knight or (much later) baronet is noted as
first appearing in 1297 in R Glos (Rolls) 10822
OED goes on to identify 11 separate uses and meanings of the word, which
I am not quoting (yet).
Now for 'Dominus' which, being Latin, is not in the OED. However the
OED does have rather a lot on 'Lord' including this introductory
paragraph on its meaning:
In its primary sense the word (which is absent from the other Teut.
langs) denotes the head of a household in his relation to the servants
and dependants who 'eat his bread' (cf OE 'hlaf-aeta' [apologies for
lack of accents and dipthongs], lit 'breadeater', a servant); but it
had already acquired a wider application before the literary period of
OE. The development of sense has been largely influenced by the
adoption of the word as the customary rendering of L. dominus.
Later in the 2+ pages given to this word there is:
In early use was employed vaguely for any man in an exalted position in
a kingdom or commonwealth, and in a narrower sense applied to the feudal
tenants holding directly of the king by military or other honourable
service.
Nowhere in this article can I see a suggestion that 'lord', the
translation of 'dominus', meant 'knight'.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
<snip>
The simplest proceeding would be to look up "sir" in the OED, to find
the earliest instance of its proven use to designate a knight. Then if
anyone can find an earlier occurrence this will be much easier to
follow than a scramble to produce random instances. Clearly "dominus"
can't be prescribed as "sir", in any context or word order, before the
usage can be demonstrated in English.
I happen have one of those photoreduced versions of the full OED and
they give various meanings and earliest uses of 'Sir':
A. The word appeared in various forms from 1297: sir, sere, sur, sure,
sore, scher, schyr, schir.
B. The explicit term for a knight or (much later) baronet is noted as
first appearing in 1297 in R Glos (Rolls) 10822
OED goes on to identify 11 separate uses and meanings of the word, which
I am not quoting (yet).
Now for 'Dominus' which, being Latin, is not in the OED. However the
OED does have rather a lot on 'Lord' including this introductory
paragraph on its meaning:
In its primary sense the word (which is absent from the other Teut.
langs) denotes the head of a household in his relation to the servants
and dependants who 'eat his bread' (cf OE 'hlaf-aeta' [apologies for
lack of accents and dipthongs], lit 'breadeater', a servant); but it
had already acquired a wider application before the literary period of
OE. The development of sense has been largely influenced by the
adoption of the word as the customary rendering of L. dominus.
Later in the 2+ pages given to this word there is:
In early use was employed vaguely for any man in an exalted position in
a kingdom or commonwealth, and in a narrower sense applied to the feudal
tenants holding directly of the king by military or other honourable
service.
Nowhere in this article can I see a suggestion that 'lord', the
translation of 'dominus', meant 'knight'.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
a.spencer3
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eg58hl$t7f$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
Any possibility that they might be Anglicisations of the RC 'monseigneur'?
Surreyman
news:eg58hl$t7f$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1160126866.281514.90080@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
William Black schrieb:
mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1160084819.506006.211820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
The online Etymology Dictionary states that the word, sir, first
surfaced in 1297 as a title of honor of a knight or baronet (until
17c.
also a title of priests). Yet obviously its usage predates 1297
by
many decades.
Sorry to appear obtuse, but why "obviously"? Other than citations
of
a
French text using the word "Sire" - which can be translated as
Lord -
what earlier English references are known to us?
Probably none.
Anyone got a full OED? That will have the first apearance in English
and
the context.
Interestingly, the usage of "Sir" for clergymen appears to have
lasted
longer than is often cited; for instance in the Isle of Man, the
vicar
of Santan, who died on 25 September 1690, is referred to on his
tomb-stone as "Sir Hugh Cosnahan".
Almost certainly a baronet, a hereditary form of knighthood created
by
James I.
No, definitely just a parish priest - although there was an hereditary
element to that post in this family's case. They are ancestral to the
Rt Hon Anthony Blair, MP.
That doesn't mean he didn't inherit a baronetcy somewhere.
By 1690 these things were very structured indeed.
Any possibility that they might be Anglicisations of the RC 'monseigneur'?
Surreyman
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Thanks, Tim - this neatly sums up the observations that have informed
historians and genealogists for the past century or so.
Since "sir" explicitly designated a knight for the first time on record in
1297, the transition from this occurrence into a convention for translating
"dominus" as a specifically knightly & clerical style can reasonably be
supposed to have taken many decades, probably until late in the following
century - maybe around the same time that territorial surnames begin to
appear frequently without the possessive form, in other words when English
vernacular entered into polite usage of the establishment in writing,
especially the documents of courtiers. Even then, we can't say the
equivalence was precise and exclusive.
Trying to oversimpify definitions into narrow rules and fixed codes of
speech or translation is always futile. Medieval people observed such rules
sporadically at best, and then only when widely promulgated, naturally in
writing for written contexts; in these cases the guideline statements
usually survive as unmistakable evidence,
Peter Stewart
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:94d183714e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
historians and genealogists for the past century or so.
Since "sir" explicitly designated a knight for the first time on record in
1297, the transition from this occurrence into a convention for translating
"dominus" as a specifically knightly & clerical style can reasonably be
supposed to have taken many decades, probably until late in the following
century - maybe around the same time that territorial surnames begin to
appear frequently without the possessive form, in other words when English
vernacular entered into polite usage of the establishment in writing,
especially the documents of courtiers. Even then, we can't say the
equivalence was precise and exclusive.
Trying to oversimpify definitions into narrow rules and fixed codes of
speech or translation is always futile. Medieval people observed such rules
sporadically at best, and then only when widely promulgated, naturally in
writing for written contexts; in these cases the guideline statements
usually survive as unmistakable evidence,
Peter Stewart
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:94d183714e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 6 Oct, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
snip
The simplest proceeding would be to look up "sir" in the OED, to find
the earliest instance of its proven use to designate a knight. Then if
anyone can find an earlier occurrence this will be much easier to
follow than a scramble to produce random instances. Clearly "dominus"
can't be prescribed as "sir", in any context or word order, before the
usage can be demonstrated in English.
I happen have one of those photoreduced versions of the full OED and
they give various meanings and earliest uses of 'Sir':
A. The word appeared in various forms from 1297: sir, sere, sur, sure,
sore, scher, schyr, schir.
B. The explicit term for a knight or (much later) baronet is noted as
first appearing in 1297 in R Glos (Rolls) 10822
OED goes on to identify 11 separate uses and meanings of the word, which
I am not quoting (yet).
Now for 'Dominus' which, being Latin, is not in the OED. However the
OED does have rather a lot on 'Lord' including this introductory
paragraph on its meaning:
In its primary sense the word (which is absent from the other Teut.
langs) denotes the head of a household in his relation to the servants
and dependants who 'eat his bread' (cf OE 'hlaf-aeta' [apologies for
lack of accents and dipthongs], lit 'breadeater', a servant); but it
had already acquired a wider application before the literary period of
OE. The development of sense has been largely influenced by the
adoption of the word as the customary rendering of L. dominus.
Later in the 2+ pages given to this word there is:
In early use was employed vaguely for any man in an exalted position in
a kingdom or commonwealth, and in a narrower sense applied to the feudal
tenants holding directly of the king by military or other honourable
service.
Nowhere in this article can I see a suggestion that 'lord', the
translation of 'dominus', meant 'knight'.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:eJqVg.2755$9K1.603@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
The Anglicisation of this style is conventionally "Monsignor", used for
cardinals until the 17th century when "Eminence" was invented to distinguish
their rank, as well as for papal chaplains and other honoured clerics before
and since. Ordinary parish priests didn't qualify for this mark of respect,
and don't to the present day.
A currently famous example of the style "Sir" in the 16th century is Sir
Christopher Trychay, an undistinguished parish priest at Morebath in Devon,
from the book by Eamon Duffy. There are plenty of others, in Shakespeare and
later.
Peter Stewart
news:eJqVg.2755$9K1.603@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
Any possibility that they [occurrences of "Sir" for priests] might be
Anglicisations of the RC 'monseigneur'?
The Anglicisation of this style is conventionally "Monsignor", used for
cardinals until the 17th century when "Eminence" was invented to distinguish
their rank, as well as for papal chaplains and other honoured clerics before
and since. Ordinary parish priests didn't qualify for this mark of respect,
and don't to the present day.
A currently famous example of the style "Sir" in the 16th century is Sir
Christopher Trychay, an undistinguished parish priest at Morebath in Devon,
from the book by Eamon Duffy. There are plenty of others, in Shakespeare and
later.
Peter Stewart
-
jonathan kirton
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honour for Dominus / Domino
Dear Newsgroup,
I have been following the discussion with regard to the
exact interpretation of the
latin 'dominus / domino' with considerable interest, in
particular because an example
arises in a case in which I am particularly interested.
I have been trying to trace the activities of Gilbert de
Kirketon of Screveton, Notts.
for some time. He is identified firstly in 1207 by
Robert Thoroton in his "Antiquities
of Nottinghamshire", (pgs. 244 - 253), as "..Gilbert , the
clerk who possessed the church
of Kirketon between Screveton and Car Colston, but nearer
to Screveton..." (Thoroton
had a special interest in the Kirketon / Kirton family of
Screveton, since members of
his own Thoroton family came eventually to own Kirketon /
Kirton Hall at Screveton.)
"The Pipe Rolls of the counties of Nottingham. and Derby,
from the earliest times to
the end of the reign of King Edward I ." (1307) state that
at that time and in that area
the term "clerk" implied a lawyer or an attorney. (St.
Wilfrid's Parish Church, located
just off the road between Screveton and Car Colston, but
nearer to Screveton, built
circa 1150, still exists, but Kirketon / Kirton Hall was
dismantled in about 1823-4.)
On 1 Feb., 1228 (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 12 Henry III,
Vol. 2, pgs. 176 & 177)
we find Gilbert de Kirketon directed to assume the position
of co-custodian and / or
co-constable of several castles in Westmorland and area,
which had previously been
in the possession of the late Robert de Veteri Ponte, who
had been the Lord of
Westmorland, and hereditary High Sheriff of that county, but
had recently died.
By 6 July, 1229 (Cal. of Patent Rolls, 13 Henry III, Vol.
2 , p. 296) we find that Gilbert
is evidently in place in Appleby, Westmorland, and that he,
with 3 others are to be
the "justices" to assist again in the forming of a new
barrier near Appleby.
At about this time it seems that John de Veteri Ponte,
son and heir of Robert, was
for some reason unavailable, so that Gilbert assumed the
interim position of High
Sheriff, probably with his second son, John de Kirketon,
who had come to the north
with his father, as his Under Sheriff (ref.: the official
Shrievalty List of the County of
Westmorland, as distributed by the Cumbria Record Office,
for the year 1241.)
This evidently lasted until 1234, when John de Veteri
Ponte was able to assume
his hereditary position as High Sheriff, which he held
until 1241 - 2. (ibid.)
In about 1230 Gilbert was clearly still present at Appleby,
when his name, written
as "Maitre Gilberto de Kyrketon" is mentioned as a witness
to "Jurdan, vicar of
St. Laurence, Appleby." (ref.: Nicholson & Burns, "History of
Westmorland & Cumberland"
(1777), Vol. 1, p.323) (Note that the term "Maitre" is
the usual form of address for
a lawyer in Norman-French, and still is today in French
speaking Quebec)
Once again on 4 Aug., 1241 (Cal. of Patent Rolls, 25
Henry III, Vol. 3, p. 255, m. 5),
Gilbert de Kirketon & Henry de Souleby are "appointed,
during pleasure, to the
custody of the castles of Appleby and Brough under
Stainmore (Burgo) and all the
lands late of John de Veteri Ponte; and mandate to the
tenants to be intendant to
them." (It seems that John de Veteri Ponte, whose
wife was Sibyl or Sibella de
Ferrers (dau. of William Ferrers, Earl of Derby) was still
living in 1241, and did not
die until about 1255.)
In 1240 we find a statement that: "The Parishes of St.
Michael's and St. Lawrence's
at Appleby, Westmorland have been confirmed by Sylvester,
Bishop of Carlisle,
Testibus Domino Gilberto de Kyrketon. Actum Lundon
(sic)." (ref.: Nicholson & Burns,
ibid,, (1777), Vol. 1, p. 323)
My assumption has always been that "Domino" in this case
was a term of respect,
could it be something else ?
It is reasonably certain that while Gilbert was active in
Westmorland he acquired
a coat of arms: "Argent, a fesse and a chevron in chief,
gules", which blazon is
associated with the name Kirketon / Kirton in Westmorland in
the following works:-
"A Complete Body of Heraldry" by Joseph Edmondson. published
1780.
"The British Herald" by Thomas
Robson. published 1830.
"Burke's General Armory "
"The Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological
Society Extra
Series", Vol. XXX, by R. S. Boumphrey, C. Roy Hudlestone, and
T. Hughes, 1975,
page 178.
It is evident that Gilbert eventually returned to Screveton,
and his descendants
there, and subsequently in Biddenham, Beds., and later at
Thorp Mandeville in
Northamptonshire, and in London, and in Hampshire, and in
Essex continued to
use variations and quarterings of this blazon for many
years to come.
I have never seen any reference that suggested that Gilbert
had been knighted,
but several of his descendants were lawyers, attorneys or
barristers.
I would be most interested in any comment by this group.
Jonathan Kirton, Canada
I have been following the discussion with regard to the
exact interpretation of the
latin 'dominus / domino' with considerable interest, in
particular because an example
arises in a case in which I am particularly interested.
I have been trying to trace the activities of Gilbert de
Kirketon of Screveton, Notts.
for some time. He is identified firstly in 1207 by
Robert Thoroton in his "Antiquities
of Nottinghamshire", (pgs. 244 - 253), as "..Gilbert , the
clerk who possessed the church
of Kirketon between Screveton and Car Colston, but nearer
to Screveton..." (Thoroton
had a special interest in the Kirketon / Kirton family of
Screveton, since members of
his own Thoroton family came eventually to own Kirketon /
Kirton Hall at Screveton.)
"The Pipe Rolls of the counties of Nottingham. and Derby,
from the earliest times to
the end of the reign of King Edward I ." (1307) state that
at that time and in that area
the term "clerk" implied a lawyer or an attorney. (St.
Wilfrid's Parish Church, located
just off the road between Screveton and Car Colston, but
nearer to Screveton, built
circa 1150, still exists, but Kirketon / Kirton Hall was
dismantled in about 1823-4.)
On 1 Feb., 1228 (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 12 Henry III,
Vol. 2, pgs. 176 & 177)
we find Gilbert de Kirketon directed to assume the position
of co-custodian and / or
co-constable of several castles in Westmorland and area,
which had previously been
in the possession of the late Robert de Veteri Ponte, who
had been the Lord of
Westmorland, and hereditary High Sheriff of that county, but
had recently died.
By 6 July, 1229 (Cal. of Patent Rolls, 13 Henry III, Vol.
2 , p. 296) we find that Gilbert
is evidently in place in Appleby, Westmorland, and that he,
with 3 others are to be
the "justices" to assist again in the forming of a new
barrier near Appleby.
At about this time it seems that John de Veteri Ponte,
son and heir of Robert, was
for some reason unavailable, so that Gilbert assumed the
interim position of High
Sheriff, probably with his second son, John de Kirketon,
who had come to the north
with his father, as his Under Sheriff (ref.: the official
Shrievalty List of the County of
Westmorland, as distributed by the Cumbria Record Office,
for the year 1241.)
This evidently lasted until 1234, when John de Veteri
Ponte was able to assume
his hereditary position as High Sheriff, which he held
until 1241 - 2. (ibid.)
In about 1230 Gilbert was clearly still present at Appleby,
when his name, written
as "Maitre Gilberto de Kyrketon" is mentioned as a witness
to "Jurdan, vicar of
St. Laurence, Appleby." (ref.: Nicholson & Burns, "History of
Westmorland & Cumberland"
(1777), Vol. 1, p.323) (Note that the term "Maitre" is
the usual form of address for
a lawyer in Norman-French, and still is today in French
speaking Quebec)
Once again on 4 Aug., 1241 (Cal. of Patent Rolls, 25
Henry III, Vol. 3, p. 255, m. 5),
Gilbert de Kirketon & Henry de Souleby are "appointed,
during pleasure, to the
custody of the castles of Appleby and Brough under
Stainmore (Burgo) and all the
lands late of John de Veteri Ponte; and mandate to the
tenants to be intendant to
them." (It seems that John de Veteri Ponte, whose
wife was Sibyl or Sibella de
Ferrers (dau. of William Ferrers, Earl of Derby) was still
living in 1241, and did not
die until about 1255.)
In 1240 we find a statement that: "The Parishes of St.
Michael's and St. Lawrence's
at Appleby, Westmorland have been confirmed by Sylvester,
Bishop of Carlisle,
Testibus Domino Gilberto de Kyrketon. Actum Lundon
(sic)." (ref.: Nicholson & Burns,
ibid,, (1777), Vol. 1, p. 323)
My assumption has always been that "Domino" in this case
was a term of respect,
could it be something else ?
It is reasonably certain that while Gilbert was active in
Westmorland he acquired
a coat of arms: "Argent, a fesse and a chevron in chief,
gules", which blazon is
associated with the name Kirketon / Kirton in Westmorland in
the following works:-
"A Complete Body of Heraldry" by Joseph Edmondson. published
1780.
"The British Herald" by Thomas
Robson. published 1830.
"Burke's General Armory "
"The Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological
Society Extra
Series", Vol. XXX, by R. S. Boumphrey, C. Roy Hudlestone, and
T. Hughes, 1975,
page 178.
It is evident that Gilbert eventually returned to Screveton,
and his descendants
there, and subsequently in Biddenham, Beds., and later at
Thorp Mandeville in
Northamptonshire, and in London, and in Hampshire, and in
Essex continued to
use variations and quarterings of this blazon for many
years to come.
I have never seen any reference that suggested that Gilbert
had been knighted,
but several of his descendants were lawyers, attorneys or
barristers.
I would be most interested in any comment by this group.
Jonathan Kirton, Canada
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below are eighteen more examples. All of the men are addressed as
"dominus," all identified as knights.
1. "nobilis vir dominus Reginaldus de Pompone miles"
2. "Nobilis vir Dominus Otto de Grandissono miles"
3. "nobilis vir dominus Ludouicus de Bloys et de Treslongue, miles
Iherosolimitanus"
4. "nobilis vir dominus Johannes de Montmorency miles quondam dominus
de Nangiaco"
5. "Achardi de Maceio Militis, Nobilis vir, dominus Iocerannus"
6. "nobilis vir dominus Guillelmus de Malta, miles"
7. "nobilis vir dominus Abbus de Barresio, miles"
8. "nobilis vir dominus Symon de Harlem. miles"
9. "nobilis vir dominus Johames Atulphi de Massilia miles"
10. "nobilis vir dominus Goffridus de Iamvilla miles dominus dictae
civitatis"
11. "nobilis vir dominus Guillelmus de Malta, miles"
12. "nobilis vir dominus Martinus de Wilder miles Yherosolimitanus"
13. "nobilis vir dominus Nicola de Homodeo de Randacio miles"
14. "nobilis vir dominus Jordanus de ínsula, miles"
15. "Nobilis vir dominus Girardus de Verdunelli, miles"
16. "nobilis vir, dominus Albertus de de Urchiis, miles, dominus
ejusdem loci"
17. "nobilis vir dominus Matheus de Fraxinis miles"
18. "nobilis vir Dominus Eliseus de Loduno Miles"
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Below are eighteen more examples. All of the men are addressed as
"dominus," all identified as knights.
1. "nobilis vir dominus Reginaldus de Pompone miles"
2. "Nobilis vir Dominus Otto de Grandissono miles"
3. "nobilis vir dominus Ludouicus de Bloys et de Treslongue, miles
Iherosolimitanus"
4. "nobilis vir dominus Johannes de Montmorency miles quondam dominus
de Nangiaco"
5. "Achardi de Maceio Militis, Nobilis vir, dominus Iocerannus"
6. "nobilis vir dominus Guillelmus de Malta, miles"
7. "nobilis vir dominus Abbus de Barresio, miles"
8. "nobilis vir dominus Symon de Harlem. miles"
9. "nobilis vir dominus Johames Atulphi de Massilia miles"
10. "nobilis vir dominus Goffridus de Iamvilla miles dominus dictae
civitatis"
11. "nobilis vir dominus Guillelmus de Malta, miles"
12. "nobilis vir dominus Martinus de Wilder miles Yherosolimitanus"
13. "nobilis vir dominus Nicola de Homodeo de Randacio miles"
14. "nobilis vir dominus Jordanus de ínsula, miles"
15. "Nobilis vir dominus Girardus de Verdunelli, miles"
16. "nobilis vir, dominus Albertus de de Urchiis, miles, dominus
ejusdem loci"
17. "nobilis vir dominus Matheus de Fraxinis miles"
18. "nobilis vir Dominus Eliseus de Loduno Miles"
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
William Black
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1160151852.257798.209580@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below are eighteen more examples. All of the men are addressed as
"dominus," all identified as knights.
1. "nobilis vir dominus Reginaldus de Pompone miles"
2. "Nobilis vir Dominus Otto de Grandissono miles"
3. "nobilis vir dominus Ludouicus de Bloys et de Treslongue, miles
Iherosolimitanus"
4. "nobilis vir dominus Johannes de Montmorency miles quondam dominus
de Nangiaco"
5. "Achardi de Maceio Militis, Nobilis vir, dominus Iocerannus"
6. "nobilis vir dominus Guillelmus de Malta, miles"
7. "nobilis vir dominus Abbus de Barresio, miles"
8. "nobilis vir dominus Symon de Harlem. miles"
9. "nobilis vir dominus Johames Atulphi de Massilia miles"
10. "nobilis vir dominus Goffridus de Iamvilla miles dominus dictae
civitatis"
11. "nobilis vir dominus Guillelmus de Malta, miles"
12. "nobilis vir dominus Martinus de Wilder miles Yherosolimitanus"
13. "nobilis vir dominus Nicola de Homodeo de Randacio miles"
14. "nobilis vir dominus Jordanus de ínsula, miles"
15. "Nobilis vir dominus Girardus de Verdunelli, miles"
16. "nobilis vir, dominus Albertus de de Urchiis, miles, dominus
ejusdem loci"
17. "nobilis vir dominus Matheus de Fraxinis miles"
18. "nobilis vir Dominus Eliseus de Loduno Miles"
So?
That they are all described as both 'dominus' and 'miles' implies that the
titles were exclusive.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
news:1160151852.257798.209580@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below are eighteen more examples. All of the men are addressed as
"dominus," all identified as knights.
1. "nobilis vir dominus Reginaldus de Pompone miles"
2. "Nobilis vir Dominus Otto de Grandissono miles"
3. "nobilis vir dominus Ludouicus de Bloys et de Treslongue, miles
Iherosolimitanus"
4. "nobilis vir dominus Johannes de Montmorency miles quondam dominus
de Nangiaco"
5. "Achardi de Maceio Militis, Nobilis vir, dominus Iocerannus"
6. "nobilis vir dominus Guillelmus de Malta, miles"
7. "nobilis vir dominus Abbus de Barresio, miles"
8. "nobilis vir dominus Symon de Harlem. miles"
9. "nobilis vir dominus Johames Atulphi de Massilia miles"
10. "nobilis vir dominus Goffridus de Iamvilla miles dominus dictae
civitatis"
11. "nobilis vir dominus Guillelmus de Malta, miles"
12. "nobilis vir dominus Martinus de Wilder miles Yherosolimitanus"
13. "nobilis vir dominus Nicola de Homodeo de Randacio miles"
14. "nobilis vir dominus Jordanus de ínsula, miles"
15. "Nobilis vir dominus Girardus de Verdunelli, miles"
16. "nobilis vir, dominus Albertus de de Urchiis, miles, dominus
ejusdem loci"
17. "nobilis vir dominus Matheus de Fraxinis miles"
18. "nobilis vir Dominus Eliseus de Loduno Miles"
So?
That they are all described as both 'dominus' and 'miles' implies that the
titles were exclusive.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honour for Dominus / Domino
In message of 6 Oct, jonathankirton@sympatico.ca (jonathan kirton) wrote:
The respect as in the OED article, quoted previously, is indeed that
towards the head of a house. If you take the normal translation of
'domino' to mean 'lord', then this phrase is lord Gilbert of Kyrketon or
possibly Gilbert lord of Kyrketon. As such it simply indicates that he
was lord of that territory and had responsibility and authority for
looking after it. (It does not mean that he was a peer of parliament
as summonses for that did not start until 1264.)
If he was witnessing charters he is likely to have put his seal on them.
If you are very lucky the seal may have survived and, even luckier, it
may still be in a good enough condition to make a guess of the image
thereon.
I have gone through all the visitations that I have for the above
counties and cannot find a single pedigree, though there is one is the
'miscellaneous pedigree' section of the Essex visitation. There are at
least two Kirton coats of arms and neither are as above.
The Dictionary of British Arms, medieval ordinary, vol I, p. 62 gives the
arms of various Kerketons, Kirtons and Kyrtons as:
Gules three bars ermine
In vol II, p. 166 of the same, there are some Kirketons with the arms:
Argent three eagles displayed sable.
Vols III and IV have yet to be published, though are expected over the
next three years or so.
I am not commenting for the group! These are just my views.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
I have been following the discussion with regard to the exact
interpretation of the latin 'dominus / domino' with
considerable interest, in particular because an example arises
in a case in which I am particularly interested.
I have been trying to trace the activities of Gilbert de
Kirketon of Screveton, Notts. for some time. He is
identified firstly in 1207 by Robert Thoroton in his
"Antiquities of Nottinghamshire", (pgs. 244 - 253), as "..Gilbert
, the clerk who possessed the church of Kirketon between
Screveton and Car Colston, but nearer to Screveton..."
(Thoroton had a special interest in the Kirketon / Kirton
family of Screveton, since members of his own Thoroton family
came eventually to own Kirketon / Kirton Hall at Screveton.)
"The Pipe Rolls of the counties of Nottingham. and Derby,
from the earliest times to the end of the reign of King
Edward I ." (1307) state that at that time and in that area
the term "clerk" implied a lawyer or an attorney. (St.
Wilfrid's Parish Church, located just off the road between
Screveton and Car Colston, but nearer to Screveton, built
circa 1150, still exists, but Kirketon / Kirton Hall was
dismantled in about 1823-4.)
On 1 Feb., 1228 (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 12 Henry III, Vol.
2, pgs. 176 & 177) we find Gilbert de Kirketon directed to
assume the position of co-custodian and / or co-constable of
several castles in Westmorland and area, which had previously
been in the possession of the late Robert de Veteri Ponte,
who had been the Lord of Westmorland, and hereditary High
Sheriff of that county, but had recently died.
By 6 July, 1229 (Cal. of Patent Rolls, 13 Henry III, Vol. 2 ,
p. 296) we find that Gilbert is evidently in place in
Appleby, Westmorland, and that he, with 3 others are to be
the "justices" to assist again in the forming of a new
barrier near Appleby.
At about this time it seems that John de Veteri Ponte, son
and heir of Robert, was for some reason unavailable, so that
Gilbert assumed the interim position of High Sheriff, probably
with his second son, John de Kirketon, who had come to the
north with his father, as his Under Sheriff (ref.: the
official Shrievalty List of the County of Westmorland, as
distributed by the Cumbria Record Office, for the year 1241.)
This evidently lasted until 1234, when John de Veteri Ponte
was able to assume his hereditary position as High Sheriff,
which he held until 1241 - 2. (ibid.)
In about 1230 Gilbert was clearly still present at Appleby,
when his name, written as "Maitre Gilberto de Kyrketon" is
mentioned as a witness to "Jurdan, vicar of St. Laurence,
Appleby." (ref.: Nicholson & Burns, "History of Westmorland &
Cumberland" (1777), Vol. 1, p.323) (Note that the term
"Maitre" is the usual form of address for a lawyer in
Norman-French, and still is today in French speaking Quebec)
Once again on 4 Aug., 1241 (Cal. of Patent Rolls, 25 Henry
III, Vol. 3, p. 255, m. 5), Gilbert de Kirketon & Henry de
Souleby are "appointed, during pleasure, to the custody of the
castles of Appleby and Brough under Stainmore (Burgo) and all
the lands late of John de Veteri Ponte; and mandate to the
tenants to be intendant to them." (It seems that John de
Veteri Ponte, whose wife was Sibyl or Sibella de Ferrers
(dau. of William Ferrers, Earl of Derby) was still living in
1241, and did not die until about 1255.)
In 1240 we find a statement that: "The Parishes of St.
Michael's and St. Lawrence's at Appleby, Westmorland have been
confirmed by Sylvester, Bishop of Carlisle, Testibus Domino
Gilberto de Kyrketon. Actum Lundon (sic)." (ref.: Nicholson &
Burns, ibid,, (1777), Vol. 1, p. 323)
My assumption has always been that "Domino" in this case was
a term of respect, could it be something else ?
The respect as in the OED article, quoted previously, is indeed that
towards the head of a house. If you take the normal translation of
'domino' to mean 'lord', then this phrase is lord Gilbert of Kyrketon or
possibly Gilbert lord of Kyrketon. As such it simply indicates that he
was lord of that territory and had responsibility and authority for
looking after it. (It does not mean that he was a peer of parliament
as summonses for that did not start until 1264.)
It is reasonably certain that while Gilbert was active in
Westmorland he acquired a coat of arms: "Argent, a fesse and
a chevron in chief, gules",
If he was witnessing charters he is likely to have put his seal on them.
If you are very lucky the seal may have survived and, even luckier, it
may still be in a good enough condition to make a guess of the image
thereon.
which blazon is associated with
the name Kirketon / Kirton in Westmorland in the following
works:- "A Complete Body of Heraldry" by Joseph Edmondson.
published 1780. "The British Herald" by
Thomas Robson. published 1830. "Burke's General Armory "
"The Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological
Society Extra Series", Vol. XXX, by R. S. Boumphrey, C. Roy
Hudlestone, and T. Hughes, 1975, page 178. It is evident that
Gilbert eventually returned to Screveton, and his descendants
there, and subsequently in Biddenham, Beds., and later at
Thorp Mandeville in Northamptonshire, and in London, and in
Hampshire, and in Essex continued to use variations and
quarterings of this blazon for many years to come.
I have gone through all the visitations that I have for the above
counties and cannot find a single pedigree, though there is one is the
'miscellaneous pedigree' section of the Essex visitation. There are at
least two Kirton coats of arms and neither are as above.
The Dictionary of British Arms, medieval ordinary, vol I, p. 62 gives the
arms of various Kerketons, Kirtons and Kyrtons as:
Gules three bars ermine
In vol II, p. 166 of the same, there are some Kirketons with the arms:
Argent three eagles displayed sable.
Vols III and IV have yet to be published, though are expected over the
next three years or so.
I have never seen any reference that suggested that Gilbert
had been knighted, but several of his descendants were
lawyers, attorneys or barristers.
I would be most interested in any comment by this group.
I am not commenting for the group! These are just my views.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Dear Newsgroup ~
Here are still more examples, only in English this time. The men below
are addressed as "Sir" and are further identified as knights. If set
in Latin, such references would be " Dominus .... miles," instead of
"Sir ..... knight."
1. "Sir Michael de Spichwik knight" Date: 1262.
2. "Sir Stephen de Segrave, knight" Date: 1272-1301.
3. "Sir Eustace de Hache, knight" Date: c. 1281.
4. "Sir John de Sothyll', knight" Date: 1289.
5. "Sir John of Thornhill knight" Date: 1296.
6. "Thomas son of Sir John de Heton, Knight" Date: 1304.
7. "Sir William le Forcer, knight" Date: 1326.
8. "Sir John de Buttone, knight" Date: 1329.
9. "Sir John de Boyvill; knight" Date: 1329.
10. " Sir John de Hanlo, Knight" Date: 1330.
11. "Sir John de Bisschopesdon', knight" Date: 1333.
12. "Sir Simon Basset, knight" Date: 1336.
13. "Sir Peter FytzWaren, knight" Date: 1338.
14. "Sir Ralph de Middelnye knight" Date: 1340.
15. "Sir Bartholemew Bateman, knight" Date: 1341.
16. "Sir John de Ralegh knight" Date: 1373.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Here are still more examples, only in English this time. The men below
are addressed as "Sir" and are further identified as knights. If set
in Latin, such references would be " Dominus .... miles," instead of
"Sir ..... knight."
1. "Sir Michael de Spichwik knight" Date: 1262.
2. "Sir Stephen de Segrave, knight" Date: 1272-1301.
3. "Sir Eustace de Hache, knight" Date: c. 1281.
4. "Sir John de Sothyll', knight" Date: 1289.
5. "Sir John of Thornhill knight" Date: 1296.
6. "Thomas son of Sir John de Heton, Knight" Date: 1304.
7. "Sir William le Forcer, knight" Date: 1326.
8. "Sir John de Buttone, knight" Date: 1329.
9. "Sir John de Boyvill; knight" Date: 1329.
10. " Sir John de Hanlo, Knight" Date: 1330.
11. "Sir John de Bisschopesdon', knight" Date: 1333.
12. "Sir Simon Basset, knight" Date: 1336.
13. "Sir Peter FytzWaren, knight" Date: 1338.
14. "Sir Ralph de Middelnye knight" Date: 1340.
15. "Sir Bartholemew Bateman, knight" Date: 1341.
16. "Sir John de Ralegh knight" Date: 1373.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Matt Tompkins
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I think most medieval historians familiar with thirteenth century
charters would accept what Douglas says above as a fair summary of the
rough rule of thumb they all use it, which is that unless the
circumstances indicate otherwise it usually means Sir. It's not
difficult to come across published statements of this - here are a
couple of examples taken from two of Peter Coss' books.
The Origins of the English Gentry (Cambridge, 2003), p. 69, in a
discussion of the changing nature of knighthood in the first half of
the 13th century:
'Among the expressions of this was the separation of knights from
others in charter witness lists so that the knights and the greater
lords, and only they, were designated 'dominus' or sir.'
Lordship, Knighthood and Locality: a Study in English Society
c.1180-c.1280 (Cambridge, 1991). Several pages (214-6 et seq.) are
devoted to the meaning of dominus in charter lists. Here are two
extracts:
'Before the 1230s, however, the inclusion of either dominus or miles
in witness lists seems comparatively rare though, as we shall see, both
do occur. Such evidence is not without its problems. In cases where
the title dominus is given to only one individual, or even to two,
there is always the possibility that this is given out of courtesy, to
indicate primacy. It may, for example, be given to the sheriff, or to a
magnate's steward. It seems more than likely, however, that in such
circumstances the individual so singled out is in fact a knight.
Indeed, the other witnesses may be knights, too, even though this is
not indicated.'
.... ...
'In many cases, then, we find the use of dominus but without the
designation of miles after the name. The possibility has always to be
faced that dominus may be indicating something other than knighthood.
There is, of course, the use of dominus to designate a cleric. Where
an individual is clearly the lord of an estate, however, it is most
probable that his knighthood is being indicated. It is likely that
even early in the century the social nicety of allowing a non-knightly
lord of the manor to call himself 'lord of X' but not 'Sir Y'
was already being observed, in which case dominus before the name of a
non-cleric must generally suggest knighthood.'
I gather a complete article devoted to the question, in which a similar
conclusion is arrived at, can be found in D. Fleming, 'Milites as
attestors to charters in England', Albion xxii (1990), 185-98, though I
haven't read it myself.
Matt Tompkins
Dear William ~
Insofar as medieval English and Scottish records are concerned, when a
person is called "domino Johanne filio Hugonis" in a Latin charter, the
correct rendering is "Sir John Fitz Hugh" (or if you prefer "Sir John
son of Hugh").
The word domino/dominus is usually correctly rendered as "Sir" by
modern historians and archivists, but not always. In the case of the
charter I cited, it appears that the archivist was not aware that
"domino" should be rendered "Sir."
I might note that both knights and priests were addressed in records in
the medieval period as domino/dominus [that is, Sir]. Priests were
very seldom lords of manors.
I think most medieval historians familiar with thirteenth century
charters would accept what Douglas says above as a fair summary of the
rough rule of thumb they all use it, which is that unless the
circumstances indicate otherwise it usually means Sir. It's not
difficult to come across published statements of this - here are a
couple of examples taken from two of Peter Coss' books.
The Origins of the English Gentry (Cambridge, 2003), p. 69, in a
discussion of the changing nature of knighthood in the first half of
the 13th century:
'Among the expressions of this was the separation of knights from
others in charter witness lists so that the knights and the greater
lords, and only they, were designated 'dominus' or sir.'
Lordship, Knighthood and Locality: a Study in English Society
c.1180-c.1280 (Cambridge, 1991). Several pages (214-6 et seq.) are
devoted to the meaning of dominus in charter lists. Here are two
extracts:
'Before the 1230s, however, the inclusion of either dominus or miles
in witness lists seems comparatively rare though, as we shall see, both
do occur. Such evidence is not without its problems. In cases where
the title dominus is given to only one individual, or even to two,
there is always the possibility that this is given out of courtesy, to
indicate primacy. It may, for example, be given to the sheriff, or to a
magnate's steward. It seems more than likely, however, that in such
circumstances the individual so singled out is in fact a knight.
Indeed, the other witnesses may be knights, too, even though this is
not indicated.'
.... ...
'In many cases, then, we find the use of dominus but without the
designation of miles after the name. The possibility has always to be
faced that dominus may be indicating something other than knighthood.
There is, of course, the use of dominus to designate a cleric. Where
an individual is clearly the lord of an estate, however, it is most
probable that his knighthood is being indicated. It is likely that
even early in the century the social nicety of allowing a non-knightly
lord of the manor to call himself 'lord of X' but not 'Sir Y'
was already being observed, in which case dominus before the name of a
non-cleric must generally suggest knighthood.'
I gather a complete article devoted to the question, in which a similar
conclusion is arrived at, can be found in D. Fleming, 'Milites as
attestors to charters in England', Albion xxii (1990), 185-98, though I
haven't read it myself.
Matt Tompkins
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Dear Matt ~
Thank you for your good post. I appreciate the time and effort you
took to share Mr. Coss's extensive comments with the newsgroup. That
was very thoughtful of you to do.
Not surprisingly, I agree with Peter Coss's comments. His analysis of
the matter is very reasonable.
One of Mr. Coss's statements particularly bears repeating:
"It seems more than likely, however, that in such circumstances the
individual so singled out [as dominus] is in fact a knight.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thank you for your good post. I appreciate the time and effort you
took to share Mr. Coss's extensive comments with the newsgroup. That
was very thoughtful of you to do.
Not surprisingly, I agree with Peter Coss's comments. His analysis of
the matter is very reasonable.
One of Mr. Coss's statements particularly bears repeating:
"It seems more than likely, however, that in such circumstances the
individual so singled out [as dominus] is in fact a knight.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Paul J Gans
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
In soc.genealogy.medieval Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Forgive me, but what you need are examples of "miles" who
are not in a lordship position being identified as "dominus".
Then and only then can you conclude that "dominus" means
knight without further connotation.
---- Paul J. Gans
Dear Matt ~
Thank you for your good post. I appreciate the time and effort you
took to share Mr. Coss's extensive comments with the newsgroup. That
was very thoughtful of you to do.
Not surprisingly, I agree with Peter Coss's comments. His analysis of
the matter is very reasonable.
One of Mr. Coss's statements particularly bears repeating:
"It seems more than likely, however, that in such circumstances the
individual so singled out [as dominus] is in fact a knight.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Forgive me, but what you need are examples of "miles" who
are not in a lordship position being identified as "dominus".
Then and only then can you conclude that "dominus" means
knight without further connotation.
---- Paul J. Gans
-
William Black
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:eg6i34$7bu$1@reader1.panix.com...
Well, within the context of both time and place of the examples anyway.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
news:eg6i34$7bu$1@reader1.panix.com...
In soc.genealogy.medieval Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com
wrote:
Dear Matt ~
Thank you for your good post. I appreciate the time and effort you
took to share Mr. Coss's extensive comments with the newsgroup. That
was very thoughtful of you to do.
Not surprisingly, I agree with Peter Coss's comments. His analysis of
the matter is very reasonable.
One of Mr. Coss's statements particularly bears repeating:
"It seems more than likely, however, that in such circumstances the
individual so singled out [as dominus] is in fact a knight.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Forgive me, but what you need are examples of "miles" who
are not in a lordship position being identified as "dominus".
Then and only then can you conclude that "dominus" means
knight without further connotation.
Well, within the context of both time and place of the examples anyway.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
All of the examples below are modern versions, as is quite obvious from the
standard othography, and as such have no bearing whatever on the point at
issue.
A new excess of unsystematic research has been touched upon by attempting a
Google search for all instances of "dominus" - quite useless for any purpose
except serendipity - although a new level of candour may have been touched
by admitting this.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1160157932.961039.173660@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
standard othography, and as such have no bearing whatever on the point at
issue.
A new excess of unsystematic research has been touched upon by attempting a
Google search for all instances of "dominus" - quite useless for any purpose
except serendipity - although a new level of candour may have been touched
by admitting this.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1160157932.961039.173660@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Here are still more examples, only in English this time. The men below
are addressed as "Sir" and are further identified as knights. If set
in Latin, such references would be " Dominus .... miles," instead of
"Sir ..... knight."
1. "Sir Michael de Spichwik knight" Date: 1262.
2. "Sir Stephen de Segrave, knight" Date: 1272-1301.
3. "Sir Eustace de Hache, knight" Date: c. 1281.
4. "Sir John de Sothyll', knight" Date: 1289.
5. "Sir John of Thornhill knight" Date: 1296.
6. "Thomas son of Sir John de Heton, Knight" Date: 1304.
7. "Sir William le Forcer, knight" Date: 1326.
8. "Sir John de Buttone, knight" Date: 1329.
9. "Sir John de Boyvill; knight" Date: 1329.
10. " Sir John de Hanlo, Knight" Date: 1330.
11. "Sir John de Bisschopesdon', knight" Date: 1333.
12. "Sir Simon Basset, knight" Date: 1336.
13. "Sir Peter FytzWaren, knight" Date: 1338.
14. "Sir Ralph de Middelnye knight" Date: 1340.
15. "Sir Bartholemew Bateman, knight" Date: 1341.
16. "Sir John de Ralegh knight" Date: 1373.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Use Of Sir As A Title Of Honor
You folks who love to indulge in these perpetually idiotic, insipid and
puerile arguments about semantics -- particularly involving THREE entirely
different languages [English, French, Latin (and historical variants of all
three)] -- are surely some of the most ignorant BUT ENTERTAINING people on
USENET.
So PLEASE DO keep it up.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
puerile arguments about semantics -- particularly involving THREE entirely
different languages [English, French, Latin (and historical variants of all
three)] -- are surely some of the most ignorant BUT ENTERTAINING people on
USENET.
So PLEASE DO keep it up.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Comments interspersed:
"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1160160589.628751.227480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How does Cross establish the direct equivalence of Latin "dominus" with
English "sir" rather than with "lord"? This is the nub of the discussion,
and yet another arbitrary statement without evidence doesn't illuminate it.
Once again, apparently a mere impression is parlayed into an assumption: how
does Cross attempt to substantiate "It seems" in the second-last sentence
above?
So why according to Cross is the word "miles" added to qualify "dominus" if
the latter already signifies knighthood in the first place?
Perhaps someone can summarise this including enough evidence and/or analysis
from the author to take this discussion forward instead of rounding another
circle.
Peter Stewart
"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1160160589.628751.227480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear William ~
Insofar as medieval English and Scottish records are concerned, when a
person is called "domino Johanne filio Hugonis" in a Latin charter, the
correct rendering is "Sir John Fitz Hugh" (or if you prefer "Sir John
son of Hugh").
The word domino/dominus is usually correctly rendered as "Sir" by
modern historians and archivists, but not always. In the case of the
charter I cited, it appears that the archivist was not aware that
"domino" should be rendered "Sir."
I might note that both knights and priests were addressed in records in
the medieval period as domino/dominus [that is, Sir]. Priests were
very seldom lords of manors.
I think most medieval historians familiar with thirteenth century
charters would accept what Douglas says above as a fair summary of the
rough rule of thumb they all use it, which is that unless the
circumstances indicate otherwise it usually means Sir. It's not
difficult to come across published statements of this - here are a
couple of examples taken from two of Peter Coss' books.
The Origins of the English Gentry (Cambridge, 2003), p. 69, in a
discussion of the changing nature of knighthood in the first half of
the 13th century:
'Among the expressions of this was the separation of knights from
others in charter witness lists so that the knights and the greater
lords, and only they, were designated 'dominus' or sir.'
How does Cross establish the direct equivalence of Latin "dominus" with
English "sir" rather than with "lord"? This is the nub of the discussion,
and yet another arbitrary statement without evidence doesn't illuminate it.
Lordship, Knighthood and Locality: a Study in English Society
c.1180-c.1280 (Cambridge, 1991). Several pages (214-6 et seq.) are
devoted to the meaning of dominus in charter lists. Here are two
extracts:
'Before the 1230s, however, the inclusion of either dominus or miles
in witness lists seems comparatively rare though, as we shall see, both
do occur. Such evidence is not without its problems. In cases where
the title dominus is given to only one individual, or even to two,
there is always the possibility that this is given out of courtesy, to
indicate primacy. It may, for example, be given to the sheriff, or to a
magnate's steward. It seems more than likely, however, that in such
circumstances the individual so singled out is in fact a knight.
Indeed, the other witnesses may be knights, too, even though this is
not indicated.'
Once again, apparently a mere impression is parlayed into an assumption: how
does Cross attempt to substantiate "It seems" in the second-last sentence
above?
... ...
'In many cases, then, we find the use of dominus but without the
designation of miles after the name. The possibility has always to be
faced that dominus may be indicating something other than knighthood.
There is, of course, the use of dominus to designate a cleric. Where
an individual is clearly the lord of an estate, however, it is most
probable that his knighthood is being indicated. It is likely that
even early in the century the social nicety of allowing a non-knightly
lord of the manor to call himself 'lord of X' but not 'Sir Y'
was already being observed, in which case dominus before the name of a
non-cleric must generally suggest knighthood.'
So why according to Cross is the word "miles" added to qualify "dominus" if
the latter already signifies knighthood in the first place?
I gather a complete article devoted to the question, in which a similar
conclusion is arrived at, can be found in D. Fleming, 'Milites as
attestors to charters in England', Albion xxii (1990), 185-98, though I
haven't read it myself.
Perhaps someone can summarise this including enough evidence and/or analysis
from the author to take this discussion forward instead of rounding another
circle.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Use Of Sir As A Title Of Honor
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4CVg.166$uE6.863@eagle.america.net...
Point taken - but the fact is that semantics go into personal databases
along with more interesting and worthwhile information.
In this case the object is to assist people in deciding whether to use
peculiar forms of identification such as "Sir John, duke of Bedford", put
forward by one contributor, or to follow the convention of omitting "Sir" on
the grounds that "sire" or "dominus" in the original document was just a
general honorific for lordly status, not a token of knighthood or a
necessary part of the received style of the individual to his
contemporaries.
Peter Stewart
news:e4CVg.166$uE6.863@eagle.america.net...
You folks who love to indulge in these perpetually idiotic, insipid and
puerile arguments about semantics -- particularly involving THREE entirely
different languages [English, French, Latin (and historical variants of
all
three)] -- are surely some of the most ignorant BUT ENTERTAINING people on
USENET.
Point taken - but the fact is that semantics go into personal databases
along with more interesting and worthwhile information.
In this case the object is to assist people in deciding whether to use
peculiar forms of identification such as "Sir John, duke of Bedford", put
forward by one contributor, or to follow the convention of omitting "Sir" on
the grounds that "sire" or "dominus" in the original document was just a
general honorific for lordly status, not a token of knighthood or a
necessary part of the received style of the individual to his
contemporaries.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
Please note that the author cited by Matt Tompkins and correctly named by
him is Peter Coss, not Cross as I misread his surname.
I am still left wondering if Coss meant to argue that "dominus" actually
indicated a knight or simply that knights shared with their feudal superiors
the generalised honorific "dominus".
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:wfCVg.42641$rP1.10781@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
him is Peter Coss, not Cross as I misread his surname.
I am still left wondering if Coss meant to argue that "dominus" actually
indicated a knight or simply that knights shared with their feudal superiors
the generalised honorific "dominus".
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:wfCVg.42641$rP1.10781@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Comments interspersed:
"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1160160589.628751.227480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear William ~
Insofar as medieval English and Scottish records are concerned, when a
person is called "domino Johanne filio Hugonis" in a Latin charter, the
correct rendering is "Sir John Fitz Hugh" (or if you prefer "Sir John
son of Hugh").
The word domino/dominus is usually correctly rendered as "Sir" by
modern historians and archivists, but not always. In the case of the
charter I cited, it appears that the archivist was not aware that
"domino" should be rendered "Sir."
I might note that both knights and priests were addressed in records in
the medieval period as domino/dominus [that is, Sir]. Priests were
very seldom lords of manors.
I think most medieval historians familiar with thirteenth century
charters would accept what Douglas says above as a fair summary of the
rough rule of thumb they all use it, which is that unless the
circumstances indicate otherwise it usually means Sir. It's not
difficult to come across published statements of this - here are a
couple of examples taken from two of Peter Coss' books.
The Origins of the English Gentry (Cambridge, 2003), p. 69, in a
discussion of the changing nature of knighthood in the first half of
the 13th century:
'Among the expressions of this was the separation of knights from
others in charter witness lists so that the knights and the greater
lords, and only they, were designated 'dominus' or sir.'
How does Cross establish the direct equivalence of Latin "dominus" with
English "sir" rather than with "lord"? This is the nub of the discussion,
and yet another arbitrary statement without evidence doesn't illuminate
it.
Lordship, Knighthood and Locality: a Study in English Society
c.1180-c.1280 (Cambridge, 1991). Several pages (214-6 et seq.) are
devoted to the meaning of dominus in charter lists. Here are two
extracts:
'Before the 1230s, however, the inclusion of either dominus or miles
in witness lists seems comparatively rare though, as we shall see, both
do occur. Such evidence is not without its problems. In cases where
the title dominus is given to only one individual, or even to two,
there is always the possibility that this is given out of courtesy, to
indicate primacy. It may, for example, be given to the sheriff, or to a
magnate's steward. It seems more than likely, however, that in such
circumstances the individual so singled out is in fact a knight.
Indeed, the other witnesses may be knights, too, even though this is
not indicated.'
Once again, apparently a mere impression is parlayed into an assumption:
how does Cross attempt to substantiate "It seems" in the second-last
sentence above?
... ...
'In many cases, then, we find the use of dominus but without the
designation of miles after the name. The possibility has always to be
faced that dominus may be indicating something other than knighthood.
There is, of course, the use of dominus to designate a cleric. Where
an individual is clearly the lord of an estate, however, it is most
probable that his knighthood is being indicated. It is likely that
even early in the century the social nicety of allowing a non-knightly
lord of the manor to call himself 'lord of X' but not 'Sir Y'
was already being observed, in which case dominus before the name of a
non-cleric must generally suggest knighthood.'
So why according to Cross is the word "miles" added to qualify "dominus"
if the latter already signifies knighthood in the first place?
I gather a complete article devoted to the question, in which a similar
conclusion is arrived at, can be found in D. Fleming, 'Milites as
attestors to charters in England', Albion xxii (1990), 185-98, though I
haven't read it myself.
Perhaps someone can summarise this including enough evidence and/or
analysis from the author to take this discussion forward instead of
rounding another circle.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:wfCVg.42641$rP1.10781@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
The paper by Donald Fleming does not arrive at a similar conclusion - or
maybe it does and that of Peter Coss has not been accuratley represented,
since he did not take issue with Fleming in citing this work. As mentioned
before, I am still left wondering if Coss meant to argue that "dominus"
actually indicated a knight or simply that knights shared with their feudal
superiors the generalised honorific "dominus". This alternative reading of
the quotatons provided by Matt Tompkins can be taken to sum up the opinion
put forward by Fleming.
He began by quoting a footnote of Sir Frank Stenton as follows:
"the word 'miles' is rarely added as a mark of distinction to the names of
individuals granting or attesting charters of the twelfth century. In the
course of the thirteenth century it becomes customary for the principal lay
witnesses of a charter to be distinguished as 'milites', and to many clerks
of this age knighthood entitled a witness to the prefix 'dominus' in front
of his name."
Fleming endorsed this view - "investigation of the word 'miles' as it
appears in charters proves Stenton right" (p. 186), and later "The evidence
of witness lists strongly suggests that the term 'miles' attached to an
attestor's name became a mark of status during the thirteenth century" (p.
187).
He discussed 'dominus' in this context, stating (pp. 191-193): "From roughly
1220 onward, 'miles' is associated in the charters with another descriptor
of patently high connotation - the word 'dominus'. This term was redolent of
the power to command, though it could apply equally well to holders of many
kinds of authority....Of the ninety-one thirteenth-century witness lists
[i.e. in a database of 839 dating from 1101 to 1300] that employ both terms,
sixty-four (70%) contain at least one individual who was certainly both
'miles' and 'dominus', and the possibility exists for the other charters as
well. Indeed it is possible that the common pattern
'dominis'-names-'militibus' in witness lists may imply that all the
individuals between the two descriptors bore both titles. Yet scribes
sometimes carefully distinguish between 'milites' who were 'domini' and
those who were not. Moreover, while many men who attested as 'milites' also
claimed the title 'dominus', there were many 'domini' who were never knights
(e.g. ecclesiastical dignitaries). The close association between 'milites'
and 'domini' emphasizes the relatively high rank of English knights after
1220, but lords and knights were never identical groups."
Changing practice in France was found to be similar (p. 196): "in general
French documents around the year 1200 cease to distinguish between lords and
knights, according the title 'dominus' to 'milites' indiscriminately...The
adoption of 'dominus' as a common title among the knights marks the end of
social division between them and the magnates, and the fusion of both
classes into a single noble order".
The conclusion, focusing again on England (pp. 197-198), is that
"thirteenth-century scribes naturally chose to accord the title 'dominus' to
any lord of a manor: this was the level of effective lordship over
men...This social ascent of knightly tenants helps to explain why 'miles'
became a title that attestors to acts wished to associate with their names -
as knights became 'domini', the prestige of the term 'miles' grew. This
answer, however, is still partial. English knightly attestors did not
commonly style themselves as 'milites' before the thirteenth century; the
mere fact of their social ascent does not explain why they chose 'miles',
rather than simply 'dominus' as their honorific. A full account of that
choice might embrace many considerations: a desire by a class less likely to
render personal, military service to emphasize its military function, a wish
to distinguish themselves from other sorts of 'domini' (particularly
clerics) and most importantly the ideology of chivalry developed in the
twelfth century."
Thanks to the SGM reader who kindly sent me a scanned file of Fleming's
article.
Peter Stewart
news:wfCVg.42641$rP1.10781@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Comments interspersed:
"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1160160589.628751.227480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
I gather a complete article devoted to the question, in which a similar
conclusion is arrived at, can be found in D. Fleming, 'Milites as
attestors to charters in England', Albion xxii (1990), 185-98, though I
haven't read it myself.
Perhaps someone can summarise this including enough evidence and/or
analysis from the author to take this discussion forward instead of
rounding another circle.
The paper by Donald Fleming does not arrive at a similar conclusion - or
maybe it does and that of Peter Coss has not been accuratley represented,
since he did not take issue with Fleming in citing this work. As mentioned
before, I am still left wondering if Coss meant to argue that "dominus"
actually indicated a knight or simply that knights shared with their feudal
superiors the generalised honorific "dominus". This alternative reading of
the quotatons provided by Matt Tompkins can be taken to sum up the opinion
put forward by Fleming.
He began by quoting a footnote of Sir Frank Stenton as follows:
"the word 'miles' is rarely added as a mark of distinction to the names of
individuals granting or attesting charters of the twelfth century. In the
course of the thirteenth century it becomes customary for the principal lay
witnesses of a charter to be distinguished as 'milites', and to many clerks
of this age knighthood entitled a witness to the prefix 'dominus' in front
of his name."
Fleming endorsed this view - "investigation of the word 'miles' as it
appears in charters proves Stenton right" (p. 186), and later "The evidence
of witness lists strongly suggests that the term 'miles' attached to an
attestor's name became a mark of status during the thirteenth century" (p.
187).
He discussed 'dominus' in this context, stating (pp. 191-193): "From roughly
1220 onward, 'miles' is associated in the charters with another descriptor
of patently high connotation - the word 'dominus'. This term was redolent of
the power to command, though it could apply equally well to holders of many
kinds of authority....Of the ninety-one thirteenth-century witness lists
[i.e. in a database of 839 dating from 1101 to 1300] that employ both terms,
sixty-four (70%) contain at least one individual who was certainly both
'miles' and 'dominus', and the possibility exists for the other charters as
well. Indeed it is possible that the common pattern
'dominis'-names-'militibus' in witness lists may imply that all the
individuals between the two descriptors bore both titles. Yet scribes
sometimes carefully distinguish between 'milites' who were 'domini' and
those who were not. Moreover, while many men who attested as 'milites' also
claimed the title 'dominus', there were many 'domini' who were never knights
(e.g. ecclesiastical dignitaries). The close association between 'milites'
and 'domini' emphasizes the relatively high rank of English knights after
1220, but lords and knights were never identical groups."
Changing practice in France was found to be similar (p. 196): "in general
French documents around the year 1200 cease to distinguish between lords and
knights, according the title 'dominus' to 'milites' indiscriminately...The
adoption of 'dominus' as a common title among the knights marks the end of
social division between them and the magnates, and the fusion of both
classes into a single noble order".
The conclusion, focusing again on England (pp. 197-198), is that
"thirteenth-century scribes naturally chose to accord the title 'dominus' to
any lord of a manor: this was the level of effective lordship over
men...This social ascent of knightly tenants helps to explain why 'miles'
became a title that attestors to acts wished to associate with their names -
as knights became 'domini', the prestige of the term 'miles' grew. This
answer, however, is still partial. English knightly attestors did not
commonly style themselves as 'milites' before the thirteenth century; the
mere fact of their social ascent does not explain why they chose 'miles',
rather than simply 'dominus' as their honorific. A full account of that
choice might embrace many considerations: a desire by a class less likely to
render personal, military service to emphasize its military function, a wish
to distinguish themselves from other sorts of 'domini' (particularly
clerics) and most importantly the ideology of chivalry developed in the
twelfth century."
Thanks to the SGM reader who kindly sent me a scanned file of Fleming's
article.
Peter Stewart