Image of commoner Isobel Crawley greeting peer Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham in Downton Abbey
Having grown up on the wrong side of the pond, proper forms of address in British royalty and the peerage have always baffled me. I am constantly being corrected by my readers *blush*, and crave a simple explanation (if it exists). Janeite and etiquette maven Laura Wallace to the rescue. She offers this excellent primer in relation to the characters in Downton Abbey, and those in Jane Austen’s novels who are above the landed gentry who dominate her novels. Enjoy!
Laurel Ann (a lovely name: mine is “Laura Ann”) asked me to contribute an article about the titles and forms of address used in “Downton Abbey,” the new period drama currently being broadcast on Masterpiece Classic.
“Downton Abbey” is, as others have noted, a beautifully written (and acted, and filmed) drama series bearing several similarities to Pride and Prejudice, but with, shall we say, upgrades. It is set almost exactly one hundred years later, a last moment of elegance before great changes, just as P&P described a world as yet unaltered by the industrial revolution. It is also, like Austen’s novels, focused on a house and a family at the center of village life. But where Austen’s novels are about the landed gentry, with a very few titles sprinkled about, Fellowes’s story is about an aristocratic family of great wealth and long lineage, and the difficulties of keeping an estate together for the future in twentieth century England.
The key to understanding the driving force underlying the estate owner’s determination to pass his patrimony to his successor intact are the relationships of the people involved, in some cases dead people who are mentioned in passing, or not at all. But this also has to be discussed in the context of who the estate owner is and his position in his world.
I will give each character, their titles and forms of address, and try to explain how they fit into the general scheme of the British honours system, and also any Austen characters of a similar rank.
The British peerage system is divided into five main ranks: Duke, Marquess (sometimes spelled “Marquis”), Earl, Viscount, and Baron. Above dukes are the members of the royal family, with the sovereign at the top. Below barons are two ranks of non-peers: Baronets and Knights. Not being peers, they do not hold a seat in the House of Lords (a privilege which ended with the twentieth century). These two ranks both use the title “Sir” with the given name (never with only the surname), and a baronetcy is passed down through the family like a hereditary peerage. A knighthood, on the other hand, is for life only.
Sir Walter Elliot (Anthony Head), Baronet with his three daughters in Persuasion (2007)
Sir Walter Elliot of Kellynch Hall in Persuasion is the baronet who will be most familiar to Austen readers. He is yet another man stricken with only daughters and no sons to pass his titles and estates to, so that they will go to a cousin, leaving his daughters comparatively impoverished.
At Downton Abbey, the Earl of Grantham is a peer, the present head of his family and estate, with a wife, three daughters, and various relations and visitors:
The Earl of Grantham: Robert, addressed as “Lord Grantham.” Servants address him as “my lord” (notice that Bates corrects himself from “sir”—which is how he had addressed him as an officer when he was his batman— to “my lord”) and refer to him as “his lordship.” His surname, Crawley, is not ordinarily used, nor is “Lord” ever paired with “Robert.” Peers use their title as if it were a surname: he would sign his letters “Grantham” (to his friends and family) or “Robert Grantham;” close family and friends might refer to him that way. His wife calls him “Robert” (referring to him as “Lord Grantham” to others), and his daughters call him “Papa” (ditto). These forms of address are the same for marquesses, viscounts, and barons, but not for dukes.
The Countess of Grantham: Cora, addressed as “Lady Grantham.” All other usage as for her husband (except for “Grantham” alone), but in feminine form: “my lady,” “her ladyship,” “Cora Grantham,” never “Lady Cora.” Her husband and mother in law call her “Cora” and refer to her in conversation with each other as “Cora”— but presumably would not in conversation with anyone else. (The same for marchionesses, viscountesses, and baronesses, but not duchesses.)
Lady Mary Crawley: as a daughter of an earl, she uses the “Lady Given name” style, but never “Lady Crawley.” She does not use “Grantham.” Servants address her as “Lady Mary” or “my lady,” and refer to her as “Lady Mary” or “her ladyship.” Her sisters, Lady Edith and Lady Sybil, follow the same usage. If they marry any peer, or the son of a marquess or duke, they will take their married title from him. If they marry anyone else ranking below the younger son of a marquess, they will keep their “Lady Given name” style, merely changing their surname, with two exceptions: if they marry the eldest son of an earl, they take his courtesy title as if he were a peer; and if they marry the son of a viscount, they may choose whether to keep their “Lady Given name” style or take their husband’s style. When Lady Mary meets her distant cousin Matthew, she asks him and his mother to call her “Cousin Mary,” and her sisters presumably follow suit with them. (Compare Mr. Collins’s use of “Cousin” as a title in P&P, where the Bennet sisters do not reciprocate.) Her immediate family members call her “Mary,” but no one else except her very closest friends (and eventual husband) would leave out the “Lady.”
Lady Rosamund Painswick: the earl’s sister. As the daughter of an earl, when she married an untitled gentleman, she kept her “Lady Given name” style but changed her surname.
In Austen, and perhaps the most famous daughter of an earl in all literature, there is Lady Catherine de Bourgh. She married Sir Lewis de Bourgh, who, whether he was a baronet or a knight, ranked lower than an earl’s heir, so she keeps her “Lady Catherine” style after marriage, as did her sister, Lady Anne Darcy.
The Dowager Countess of Grantham: Violet, the earl’s (widowed) mother, who lives nearby in her Dower House. She is addressed as “Lady Grantham,” just as the current countess is, but is usually referred to as “The Dowager” or “The Dowager Lady Grantham” (or even more formally as “The Dowager Countess”) to distinguish her from her daughter-in-law. Her son calls her “Mama” and her granddaughters “Granny.” Her daughter-in-law apparently calls her “Lady Grantham.” The servants address her as “my lady” and refer to her as “her ladyship,” “The Dowager,” or “The Dowager Countess.”
It’s odd that Mrs. Crawley, when introduced to the dowager, offers her hand and says, “what shall we call each other?” Mrs. Crawley otherwise seems to have good instincts and well-bred manners, but this appears to be a poor judgment on her part. First, since Lady Grantham outranks her so significantly, it is for her to offer her hand to Mrs. Crawley if she chooses, not the other way around. And second, I can’t imagine what Mrs. Crawley expects: does she think she’ll be asked to call the dowager “Granny?” The only way this vignette makes any sense to me is if there is some dialogue immediately preceding that’s been cut where Cora and/or Robert invite her to address them as “Cousin” (which seems likely, since Lord Grantham refers to her later as “Cousin Isobel”). Regardless of the reasons, this opening shot in Lady Grantham’s campaign against the usurper is as funny as it is rude. No one knows better than an elderly aristocratic lady how to be really rude! (And given her razor-sharp tongue, I’m not convinced that her “what is a week end?” query isn’t a quip rather than an innocent question. I wouldn’t put it past her to say it just to put the despised interloper in his place.)
If the earl had a son, he would bear a courtesy title of one of his father’s subsidiary titles, usually a viscount. We don’t know what Lord Grantham’s actual subsidiary titles are, though. Heirs who are not eldest sons (or grandsons) of the present earl do not get this courtesy title.
If the earl had had more than one son, the younger ones would have the title of “The Hon.” prefixed before their given and surnames, but would be addressed simply as “Mr. Crawley” because “The Hon.” is not used in speech. They would be referred to and addressed as “Mr. Given name” (or “Master Given name” while children) by and to the servants. Although their sisters get to use “Lady,” they would not get to use “Lord.” That is reserved for the younger sons of marquesses and dukes (whose daughters also are “Lady”). “The Hon.,” however, is used by younger sons of earls and by all children of viscounts and barons.
Mr. James Crawley: the earl’s first cousin and heir presumptive, since the earl has no sons. He was the son of the earl’s uncle, a younger brother of his father, who would have been “The Hon. Given name Crawley” as the younger son of an earl (the current earl’s grandfather). Since he was the heir, we know that the earl had no surviving brothers, or deceased brothers who fathered sons (because if any had survived, he would be the heir). The household staff, who knew Mr. James from his childhood, called him “Master James” as a child, then “Mr. James.” He would have been addressed and referred to as “Mr. Crawley” by most people.
Mr. Patrick Crawley: James’s only son, the next in line for the earldom after James. Likewise called “Master Patrick” by servants in his youth, he would have been addressed and referred to as “Mr. Crawley” by most people, or “Mr. Patrick” to distinguish him from his father. He was privately betrothed to Lady Mary (his second cousin), thus allowing the present earl’s (future) grandson to eventually inherit.
The heir to Downton, third cousin once removed, Matthew Crawley (Dan Stevens)
Mr. Matthew Crawley: the earl’s third cousin, once removed, and after the deaths of James and Patrick, the heir presumptive to the earldom. He is descended from a previous earl: the great-great-grandfather of the present earl, who would be Matthew’s 3rd great grandfather (the extra generation being the “once removed”). Since he is the heir, we know that the earl had no surviving paternal uncles or great-uncles, or deceased ones who fathered sons (and so forth). He is now being considered as a match for Lady Mary (his fourth cousin), and has been brought to live on the estate so that he can learn about his patrimony. He is addressed by most people as “Mr. Crawley” (or, less formally, “Crawley”), and the family address him as “Cousin Matthew,” while Lord Grantham calls him just “Matthew” in a paternal way. The servants address him as “sir.”
Mrs. Crawley: Matthew Crawley’s (widowed) mother, Isobel. Matthew calls her “Mother,” the servants call her “madam” or “ma’am,” and Lord Grantham and Lady Edith call her “Cousin Isobel:” presumably other members of the family do as well (except for Granny, of course). Everyone else calls her “Mrs. Crawley.”
The Duke of Crowborough: a suitor of Lady Mary’s, he is addressed by members of society as “Your Grace” upon first introduction, and thereafter as “Duke” (or, less formally, “Crowborough”) and as “Your Grace” by everyone else, and referred to as “the Duke.” We never even learn his given name.
Sir Anthony Strallan: a neighbor, and a baronet or knight. We haven’t met him yet, so I’m not sure of his exact rank. He would be addressed as “Sir Anthony” by everyone, or, less formally, “Strallan” by friends and family.
The Hon. Evelyn Napier: The son and heir of Viscount Branksome (a peer whom we have not met), and a suitor of Lady Mary’s. He is “The Hon.” because he is the son of a Viscount (but does not get a “courtesy peerage” title, which is only for the heirs of earls, marquesses, and dukes). He is addressed as “Mr. Napier,” because “The Hon.” is never used in speech, and less formally by friends and family as just “Napier.” (In Austen, the Dowager Viscountess Dalrymple and her daughter The Hon. Miss Carteret are featured to set off Sir Walter’s snobbishness, and the text demonstrates that “The Hon.” is used in the newspaper and on calling cards, but never at any other time. We never learn Miss Carteret’s given name.)
Mr. Kemal Pamuk: an attaché at the Turkish Embassy, who apparently has no English-equivalent rank other than “Mr.”
I haven’t found any obvious errors in the styles and usages of names and titles in this production, which is unusual, to say the least. I haven’t noticed any of those modern usages that tend to creep into Austen adaptations, like male acquaintances addressing each other by their first names rather than surnames in Persuasion and Mr. Darcy’s mother being referred to as “Mrs. Darcy” by Mrs. Reynolds in the 1995 P&P during Lizzy’s tour of Pemberley. I am happy, gentle reader (or viewer, as the case may be).
Laura A. Wallace is a musician, attorney, and writer living in Southeast Texas. She is a devotee of Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer and is the author of British Titles of Nobility: An Introduction and Primer to the Peerage (1998).
Downton Abbey continues with episode three on Sunday, January 23rd, 2011 at 9:00 pm ET (check your local listings).
Further reading
Text © 2011 Laura A. Wallace, images courtesy © Carnival Film & Television Limited 2010 for MASTERPIECE and PBS
Aia HY
Christina B.
Br. Paul Byrd, OP
RegencyRomantic
Katie P.
Lisa Galek
Lucy Warriner
Sarah Emsley
shelleydewees
Virginia Claire
Veronica Monique
Kimberly (Reflections of a Book Addict)
Ah the dramas created by the intricacy’s of etiquette. Poor Mrs Crawley. She didn’t know, and was, to give her her due, trying to be polite in her way.
If anybody in this country ever gets an honour from the Queen such as an OBE or a knighthood or some such thing they are invited for a rehearsal. The Queens courtiers give them a lesson in etiquette. how to walk, address the Queen, bow etc etc. They have to practice. Poor Mrs Crawley was not given her lesson apparently. Not her fault at all.
In fact, if you see some dialogue before the exchange between Mrs Crawley and the Dowager, one can see that in asking ‘What shall we call each other?’ she was being slightly ironic, given the round of elaborate introductions which went before.
I may have been too harsh on Mrs. Crawley. I don’t really think she is ignorant, but was trying to highlight how inconsistent this scene is when compared to the rest of her behavior, which is usually very correct, and shows that she understands any undercurrents (such as her visitors’ kindness to Moseley). I mean, she’s hardly a Mrs. Elton, but I couldn’t really explore it in greater depth since my essay was already over 2000 words and poor Laurel Ann had initially asked me for 500-750 words.
On more reflection, I agree that there could be some gentle sarcasm here, but overall I’m inclined to think that this might in fact be an error in direction. I think that they added the rebuffed hand as a visual clue to the tension that modern viewers would pick up on. If you leave out the hand, and add back in some cut dialogue where Robert invites her to address him as “Cousin,” I think it then becomes a case of Mrs. Crawley taking her cue (as she should) from her host, whose manners are gracious and easy–while the dowager’s certainly are not.
Thanks for the explanation. It was well done.
Thank you for explaining all of this so thoroughly. I’ve managed to piece together the proper way to address the peerage over the years; “Wives and Daughters” was particularly helpful in this. But trying to understand the difference in the use of ‘my lady’ and ‘her ladyship’ has always left me confused. Now no more!
Can’t wait for tomorrow’s episode.
“My lady” and “her ladyship” are used by servants, tenants, and the lower orders, but wouldn’t be used by anyone considered part of society, except to be excessively polite, almost in a self-deprecating way.
There are always gray areas, and shades of meaning, and exceptions, of course. It is not easy to pin down any hard and fast rules.
To go back to the previous discussion, Mrs. Crawley, although clearly not aristocratic and much lower in rank than the earl and his family, would not use “my lord” or “my lady.” She has been invited into the house as a guest and a member of society. Even the dowager doesn’t go so far as to suggest “my lady” (though servants and the lower classes would sometimes address her as “Lady Grantham” too).
There’s a further wrinkle in that people adjust the way they refer to someone according to the way the person they’re talking to would address them. The simplest example is when Lady Grantham refers to her mother-in-law as “Granny” when talking to her daughters–this is something nearly everyone does. So if Mrs. Crawley were to say to Moseley: “Her ladyship is very kind, isn’t she?” it wouldn’t follow that she herself would address her as “my lady.”
This was an excellent, easy to follow breakdown. I usually remember titles, but the styles are confusing at times. As an Austenesque author, I particularly appreciated the reminder that Darcy’s mother should be Lady Anne Darcy, not Mrs. Darcy. Likewise, if Colonel Fitzwilliam happens to have a sister, she would be Lady First Name, rather than Miss First Name.
Thanks for all your kind comments. There is so much in “Downton Abbey” that begs for discussion. I’ve really fallen in love with the production.
I wrote another 2000 words about the entail. Guess I need to re-start my own blog. :-)
And speaking of introductions, has anyone else noticed what a lack of bowing and curtseying there is in this production compared to Austen? Does that reflect a true change in manners over the course of the nineteenth century, or just a preference of directors and producers?
Laura I think you have done a brilliant job explaining all these social niceties and intricacies.
Any production can only be an interpretation in all it’s aspects. Julian Fellowes’s script is fictional and can only be an interpretation of how the Edwardians would have spoken and interrelated.
I think it is also good to remember that we are dealing with people and not robots programmed to perform in a certain way. Humans are flexible and adaptable and quirky and change things.
The main point of Downton is about the seismic changes in society created by the sinking of the Titanic, and that did create a change in society on it’s own, but also with the impending world war. Looking back at history is also about looking at our selves. We too are going through seismic changes with Iran, Afghanistan and the world economic crisis.We are grinding the gears of our present society and fast and some uncomfortable changes are happening to us. By looking at Downton are we really looking at ourselves?
A very instructive piece of information. I doubt I’ll be able to remember the particulars ten minutes from now but it certainly made things clearer. Thanks for sharing.
Wonderful explanation of an amazingly complicated subject!!
Greetings from a fellow Texan. This helpful post reminded me of some of the 19th century novels, like Dostoevsky’s, in which there might be a frontispiece like a map of every character in the book and their relationships to the others!
Having just watched episode 3, I’m going to switch to a new subject. The subject is roses. The sweet (and predictable) award by the Dowager Countess Grantham of the best bloom prize to a respected villager is taken directly from the 1942 classic film Mrs. Miniver. Not very original but still satisfying.
And no one know better than Maggie Smith how to play really rude!
Thanks for this delightful ramble through the intricacies of the British peerage and titles.
I remember how surprised I was in the Lord Peter Wimsey mysteries when Lord Peter married Harriet Vane and she became Lady Peter Wimsey or Lady Peter — it sounded so odd. Lord Peter of course is the younger son of a duke. His older brother inherited the dukedom.
I am loving Downton Abbey so much, I am having separation anxiety as we approach the final episode. Happily I hear there will be a season 2.
[...] A Downton Abbey Etiquette Primer [...]
[...] A Downton Abbey Etiquette Primer [...]
[...] A Downton Abbey Etiquette Primer [...]
Thanks to all commenters!
I saw a headline today about Hugh Bonneville comparing receiving the script for the new season of Downton Abbey “like getting a Christmas present.” I think they’re filming now!
Re: Lady Peter Wimsey. I thought that sort of thing sounded odd too until I realized that it’s no different from Mrs. Peter Wimsey.
[...] Read Laura’s excellent article on etiquette and forms of address in Downton Abbey [...]
I suppose so that it’s less of a mouthful, dukes, marquesses and earls are often referred to (and addressed by those who know them socially) as Lord X.
I’m writing from Yorkshire where our local Marquesses (Hillsborough and Zetland) are often spoken of as Lord Zetland and Lord Hillsborough. The fact that they both live in country houses in Yorkshire is also a reminder that there is often no connection between a title and the location of the holder’s estate – Hillsborough is in Northern Ireland and Zetland is an archaic spelling of Shetland, and archipelago off the north coast of Scotland.
Similarly the Dukes of Devonshire have always been seated in Derbyshire, although in that case I have heard it suggested that they were originally to be Dukes of Derbyshire. However, an existing peer, the Earl of Derby objected, presumably because if the Cavendishes were given the Dukedom of Derbyshire, the Stanleys could never be promoted in the peerage from Earl of Derby to Duke of Derby – the titles would have been too similar. All sides were satisfied when a three of letters on the vellum of the letters patent were scratched out and Derbyshire became Devonshire!
Pretty neat. In the press notes, it has that Robert was “Viscount Downton” before succeeding as Earl of Grantham. A question, if Matthew were die, what would that mean for Mary? She still would be the Earl, but could her son be? Would she get Downton Abbey and her mother’s fortune if the Crawley male-line died out?
If the heir Matthew died, according to English primogeniture, Mary could not inherit the title. The estate is entailed to a male only. It would go to the next male heir in the line of succession. We don’t know who that is, and I hope we never need to.
If Matthew was the last in the male-line of the 1st Earl of Grantham’s legitimate descendants so there wasn’t another cousin around the corner, the Earldom would become extinct. 3rd Earl Kitchener has no male heirs, but his niece is Julian Fellowes’s wife and Fellowes wants his wife to inherit the title. Think it safe bet they won’t kill off the character, but if Matthew died, what about Cora’s father’s fortune and Downton Abbey itself? The title is gone, but the money and the house don’t vanish. Wouldn’t it go to Mary?
Oh, almost forgot. Thanks for answering my comment and really neat website.
Plus I heard how if somebody who isn’t British meets the Queen, that person doesn’t bow since he or she isn’t a subject. Does that apply to peerage system to? Would a non-Brit have to “My ladyship” or just the Brits?
Corey, I’m not sure if that is true. I think it is a form of courtesy to “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” and treat the peerage with the same respect as their countrymen. It may not be necessary, but it is nice.
Are we certain that James Crawley’s father was the son of an Earl? I’ve just a rando theory based on when Violet mentions that her mother-in-law lived in Crawley House in Downton village rather in the Dower House that her mother-in-law was never actually Countess of Grantham. Perhaps Violet’s husband successed to the Earldom of Grantham from his grandfather or his father’s elder brother rather then his father? Therefore Violet’s mother-in-law wouldn’t have entitled to Dower House explaining why she lived at Crawley House. Again, just a rando theory.
Miss Wallace speaks so authoritatively from Texas, that renowned hive of scholarship, particularly on the anomalies of the English taxonomy of titles, that one is lulled into taking her word as gospel. Others would differ, particularly with regard to Matthew Crawley. The heir to an Earl has the right to a “courtesy title,” as Miss Wallace uses the term, although very true it would be invoked only on the more formal occasions, and only if there were not any spare titles going unused in the family (of which, for example, that Saxe-Coburg and Gotha–Windsors, my left foot!–lot camping out on the British throne seem to have an inexhaustible supply), the heir’s title becomes the default “Honourable.” Here is where Miss Wallace runs amok. The heir, merely as a sort of bookmark, if nothing else, has the courtesy title whether or not he is the biological son of the present holder of the title. While Matthew Crawley would not dream of putting “the Hon.” on his card, were he to be presented at court, it would be as The Honourable Matthew Crawley, simply to designate him as a non-commoner for the convenience of all present. And no, this stuff is not really so esoteric, but once one grasps the rudiments, a quite useful system for keeping track of the social order and infinitely more succinct than the weird American custom of using some algorhytm of the manufacturer of the automobile parked in one’s driveway factored with whether or not one shops at Whole Foods. Actually, it is delightfully simple by comparison.
Geoff, one assumes from your stance that you are British. National cynicism only works if it is funny. You should pay closer attention to the Dowager Countess of Grantham. She understands the concept beautifully.
Of course the Dowager Countess is brilliant! Am I, however, to take that you are not amused by my remarks?
I was also quite serious about the practicality of the matter. Returning to the unlikely scene of Matthew Crawley in the presence of the Monarch, “The Honourable” before his name literally means that he is a gentleman of honour and may reasonably be expected to behave accordingly. Such information is infinitely useful when encountering an unknown personage.
I am editing a novel that is the author’s interpretation of Pride and Prejudice (and I’m sure there are many such books out there already). I need a quick and accurate answer to this question, which I have searched for online and just don’t have the time to dig more deeply into due to the editing deadline!
My question is, when a member of the landed gentry (a Lord Murray) writes a letter to a member of the royal family (Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany), how would he have written the salutation of the letter and still be within proper etiquette and protocol? This letter is being written in 1791, so we’re talking about the 18th century, not 19th, written when Elizabeth Bennet is a newborn.
Thanks to anyone who knows for certain and can write that in their response, no matter where you’re located geographically.
Janet :-)
[...] up with the Crawley family as they enter the Roaring Twenties Jazz Age. Here’s a wonderful link: Downton Abbey Etiquette Primer. Tells us the ins and outs of how to talk to an earl and such. Who knew it was so complex to just [...]