GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-02 > 1013887242


From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <>
Subject: Re: BARON VS LORD AND KNIGHT VS SIR
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 19:20:42 GMT
References: <002501c1b6fc$60af7590$4f47fea9@ccqn801>


In message <002501c1b6fc$60af7590$>
(Allen John Mallory) wrote:

> Query 1: Are the terms Baron and Lord equivalent, and if not, how do
> they differ? In other words, are all Barons a Lord, and all Lords a
> Baron?

No. But it differs from country to country. This is what I know of
England.

A baron was a holder of a feudal barony, a tenant-in-chief of the
sovereign. He was not referred to as "Lord", though he might have been
"Lord of".

A "Lord" is any peer, the people who used to have a right to sit in he
house of Lords. Lord Norfolk is the duke of Norfolk, earl marshal. Lord
Laing is a baron Laing, a life peer.

There still are "lords of the manor"; they are just "lord of" and have
no right to sit anywhere.

> Query 2: Are the terms Knight and Sir equivalent, and if not, how do
> you determine appropriate use of each?

No. "Sir" was used in mediaeval times at least for both knights and
priests; that is why knights usually have "knt" after their names.
Subsequent to 1611 we also have baronets who are "Sir" but these are
inherited titles; orignally the eldest son of a baronet was entitled to
be knighted but that was dropped later on. Baronets have "bart" or "bt"
after their names.

Probably a copy of Debrett's or Burke's Peerages would explain this much
better.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org


This thread: