Belgravia – titles explained

The period drama is the best TV to hit our screens this year.  But how do we get our heads around the different aristocratic titles used in the series?

Note: this post contains spoilers.  If you haven’t watched all six episodes yet, do two things.  1) Do not read this post.  2) Book an appointment with a life coach to sort your life out.  You are clearly making bad decisions.

There are probably people who aren’t raving about ITV’s Belgravia.  But I can’t imagine I’d ever speak to those people.

The spectacular production did what period fiction does best.  It granted us escape from the trials of our own world.  It helped us see how much society has changed.  It reminded us that human nature hasn’t.

A few people have asked me about the different styles and titles used in the six-episode epic.  Why is Charles Pope’s grandmother called ‘Lady Brockenhurst’ when his finance is ‘Lady Maria’?  Why is his grandfather a Lord while his grandfather’s brother is not? 

This interest won’t last forever.  I’ll strike while the iron is hot.  Here is a quick guide to the titles and styles wielded by the hit show’s characters.

Like the best period dramas, the show allows us to escape from the trials of our own world

Explaining the styles of Belgravia’s titled characters

(Note: I have not included the Dukes of Wellington or Richmond, both real historical figures, who appear only in the first episode.  I have included Edmund Bellasis due to his significance to the series).

Peregrine Bellasis, Earl of Brockenhurst

An earl is the third highest of the five ranks of hereditary peerage.  It ranks below duke and marquess but above viscount and baron. 

The character would be addressed as ‘Lord Brockenhurst’ by people within his social sphere.  Servants would call him ‘my lord.’  Informally, peers may refer to him as ‘Peregrine Brockenhurst.’  His title is thus used as a surname, even though his actual surname is ‘Bellasis.’ 

We can deduce from the series that Peregrine’s full title is Earl of Brockenhust and Viscount Bellasis.  More on this below.

Caroline Bellasis, Countess of Brockenhurst

The wife of an earl is a countess.  People in her social sphere would refer to her as ‘Lady Brockenhurst’.  Servants would address her as ‘my lady.’ 

In the series, Lady Brockenhurst is the daughter of a duke.  As such her precedence was reduced upon marriage.  A duke’s daughter outranks a countess. 

But this is a technicality.  There weren’t many dukes or marquesses around.  The most important thing was marrying into a great landed family.  Even a title wasn’t essential.  The Earl of Brockenhurst would have been seen as a good match.

Edmund Bellasis, Viscount Bellasis

The eldest sons of an earl uses one of his father’s lesser titles (or subsidiary titles) by courtesy during the lifetime of his father.  As such, Edmund is styled as a ‘Viscount’ even though, strictly speaking, he isn’t one.  He can’t attend the House of Lords.  Technically he’s commoner.  But socially he is treated as if he held the rank.  He would generally be addressed as ‘Lord Bellasis.’

Once acknowledged as heir, Charles Pope would become known as Viscount Bellasis

Charles Pope, Viscount Bellasis

Once recognised as the heir to Lord Brockenhurst, Charles becomes Viscount Bellasis.  This is his father’s second title and the style his father had used. 

Generally, only eldest sons use their father’s subsidiary title (see above).  But because his father is dead, Charles is the heir apparent to the earldom.  He can use the title because the only thing that will prevent him inheriting is if he predeceased his grandfather.

It’s worth noting that even though Charles’s surname is Pope, he could not style himself ‘Viscount Pope.’  Specific titles are created and inherited. You don’t just inherit a rank which can be moulded around your name.

The Hon. Rev. Stephen Bellasis

As a younger son of an Earl, the character is ‘the Honourable Stephen Bellasis.’  Because he is a vicar, he can add ‘Rev’ or ‘Rev’d’ to his style. 

The style of honourable (which is also wielded by the children of viscounts and barons) is only used when referring to an individual.  For example, if one were inviting the character to a social occasion (and if you are, I’d watch your valuables) the envelope would be addressed to ‘The Hon. Rev. Stephen Bellasis.’  However, you would begin the letter ‘Dear Mr Bellasis’ or ‘Dear Rev Bellasis.’

For most of the series, Stephen is the heir to the Earldom of Brockenhurst.  However, he can’t use the title ‘Viscount Bellasis.’  He is not the heir apparent but the heir presumptive. At any stage he could be displaced if his brother had a son.  While this may have seemed unlikely, it remained a theoretical possibility.

Wayward Stephen Bellasis was heir presumptive to the earldom of Brockenhurst for most of the series

The Hon. Mrs Bellasis

The long-suffering wife of Stephen enjoys the style of ‘honourable’ by dint of marriage.  She is ‘the Hon. Mrs Bellasis’ and never ‘the Hon. Grace Bellasis.’  If you met her, you would simply address her as ‘Mrs Bellasis.’  When referring to her or introducing her, you would correctly use the full style.

The (Dowager) Duchess of Richmond

A Duchess is the wife of a Duke, the highest rank of peerage.  On a handful of occasions, some women have been created duchesses in their own right or inherited a dukedom.

By the time we get to the second episode, the Duchess is a widow.  She is therefore styled ‘The Dowager Duchess of Richmond’.  By the mid-20th century, the term ‘dowager’ had become unpopular.  Widowed peeresses use their Christian name to distinguish themselves from the wife of the current title holder.  Had she been born a 100 years later, the character would most likely have been known as Charlotte, Duchess of Richmond. 

A duchess would be addressed as ‘your grace’ by servants and those of a lower social order.  People within her social sphere would call her ‘duchess.’

Lady Maria Grey

The daughters of Earls use the style ‘lady’ before her Christian name.  Note, if not using the full name, it is always ‘Lady Maria’ and never ‘Lady Grey’.  The latter would suggest she was a peeress or the wife of a knight. 

Fun fact: eldest sons of earls use a lordly style, but younger sons are reduced to ‘the honourable.’  All daughters of an earl are styled as ‘lady.’    

The Dowager Countess of Templemore

As a widow of an earl, the character is strictly the ‘Dowager Countess of Templemore’.  However, in day to day life she would be referred to as ‘Lady Templemore.’ 

If she were in the same household as her son’s wife (or visiting), servants may refer to her as ‘the dowager’ in order to distinguish between the two.  But they would address her directly as ‘my lady.’

*

The series main characters, the Trenchards, are of lower status.  They are trying to break into society.  But this is not because they lack titles.

In the 1840s, most of England’s upper-class were untitled.  What mattered was that your family had pedigree and land.  In ‘Pride and Prejudice’ the untitled Mr Darcy is from the upper reaches of society.

The Trenchards are as rich as many of the titled characters.  Even before his pedigree was discovered, Charles Pope would have been able to keep Lady Maria Grey in something resembling the style to which she had become accustomed.  But that’s not the point.

The Trenchards could afford the trappings of the upper class but were not truly accepted among them

The Trenchards had the money – and even the land – to imitate the trappings of the upper class.  But everyone knew how they’d got it.

Working for a living was dirty.  Gentleman didn’t have to.    Younger sons of landowner may have needed an income.  They would find prestigious employment in the church or the army.  At a push, the legal profession might be acceptable.  But trade was unbecoming.  Despite its lucrative rewards.

But all was not lost for the Trenchards.  The upper classes had a short memory.  By the early Victorian era, very few of them truly had pedigree from the high nobility.  Their forefathers had, once upon a time, treaded the path of social progress.  If the Trenchards were able to lose the ‘taint of trade’ they would be accepted as part of the gentry in a generation or two.

Setting Oliver free from the business and dispatching him to the country, as happened in the last episode, is no insult.  By the time his ‘child’ reaches adulthood, there would be clear blue water between him and his grandfather’s business.  He might finally be embraced as a gentleman.

This process was probably more subtle and fluid than I have sketched out above.  You can see hints of it in the literature of the era.  Austen’s Mr Darcy was keen to keep his friend Bingley from marriage to a Bennett girl.   Jane’s family were on the fringes of the gentry. Their behaviour reinforced their modest status.  Darcy could get away with marrying down.  He was from the top-tier of the landed class.  But Bingley had come up only recently.  He was trying to lose the ‘taint of trade’ and needed to cover his blemishes with the best marriage possible. 

None of this knowledge is important.  The character inter-play, gripping narrative and beautiful production all speak for themselves. 

But when you do know your stuff, the more you can appreciate just how well written and researched a series Belgravia is.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/fiction/" rel="category tag">Fiction</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/queen-victoria/" rel="category tag">Queen Victoria</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/royal-titles/" rel="category tag">Royal titles</a> Leave a comment

A few thoughts on Victoria 2&3

Last week I did very well.  After the first episode of ITV’s Victoria, I managed to have a post out within half an hour.

Well, I haven’t quite managed to mimic that success and not only is this post late, it will have to cover my reflections on episodes 2 and 3.

So three episodes in, what are our thoughts?  Well, from a strictly historical point of view, things are getting a little far-fetched.  As I’ve said before, Victoria may have been infatuated with PM Lord Melbourne, but certainly on a conscious level, it was not a sexual thing.  Last night we actually saw the young sovereign propose to the aging man!  As Twitter rushed to point out, this was beyond ridiculous.

That being said there are some really lovely historical touches.  Their portrayal of Prince George of Cambridge (no, not that one – Victoria’s first cousin) was rather welcome and they correctly captured his reluctance to marry the plain Queen.  I also thought they managed the bed chamber crisis pretty effectively last week.

At the end of the day, this is a drama clearly billed as fiction not fact.  It does bother me that many viewers will be unable to separate the truth from the invention – but that’s not actually the fault of the programme maker!  Those of us who dream of a better educated public will just have to carry on blogging, tweeting and doing what we can to tell the amazing stories of our royal forbears, which I still believe are quite interesting in and of themselves without any further fabrication.

Next week the show sees a step change with the introduction of Albert.  I for one will still be watching.

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/queen-victoria/" rel="category tag">Queen Victoria</a> Leave a comment

Review: A few thoughts on episode 1 of ‘Victoria’

victoria-itv-2.jpg

Wanted to bash out some #QuickFireThoughts on the first episode of ITV’s Victoria.  Given that speed is of the essence to keep it topical, I can’t promise this will be my finest literary endeavour.

It was good.

Purists (a camp that I loosely consider myself a member of) will be quick to point out the inaccuracies, and they’re not wrong.  The casting was clearly a victory of viewing figures over accuracy.  Yes, Lord Melbourne was an attractive man, but the countless girls currently going crazy over Rufus Sewell on Twitter might find themselves disappointed if they stepped back in time to 1837.  And of course, even as a young girl, Victoria never had the beauty of Jenna Coleman, but the thrust of the programme was good.

Here’s a few quick observations from me:

  • There were some really nice touches that geeks will appreciate. I don’t know if Conroy specifically tried to encourage Victoria to adopt the name of ‘Elizabeth II’ but it was certainly something discussed in Parliament.
  • I’m assuming – and Twitter agrees – that the ‘upstairs / downstairs’ dynamic was deliberately engineered to fill the void left by Downton Abbey last year. Does anyone know what, if anything, the ‘downstairs’ stories were based on?
  • The Lady Flora sub-plot was quite powerful. It is important to show how potentially spiteful the young Queen could be.
  • Baroness Lehzen was well cast. I liked the early acknowledgement that Victoria was totally constitutionally uneducated.

Of course the big thing that I – and other RoyalHistoryGeeks – will have struggled the most with was Victoria’s ‘attraction’ to Lord M.  Yes, she may have been infatuated and yes, he was dashing, but the relationship surely more closely resembled that of father/daughter.

In summary, the first episode was good and I’ll certainly tune in next week.  Was it totally historically accurate?  No, of course not.  Will it still aid people’s understanding of the history of the era?  Yes, I think it probably will.

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/quickfirethoughts/" rel="category tag">#QuickFireThoughts</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/hanover/" rel="category tag">Hanover</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/queen-victoria/" rel="category tag">Queen Victoria</a> Leave a comment

In defence of Queen Victoria

Victoria

As you can imagine, I like a good Royal documentary as much as the next person.  A few years back, when the Queen celebrated her diamond jubilee, it was a cause of great joy to me that TV makers were inspired to turn their attention to the only other monarch to have marked that milestone.  Victoria.

But as I’ve blogged before, something concerns me about what is entering the public consciousness as a result.  Last week when ‘Queen Victoria’s children’ was re-run, I noticed again that social media was filling up with criticism of the late monarch.

Some of it was justified.  She was a self-centred woman.  She could be callous about and to, her children.  If you made an enemy of her, she was anything but gracious.  But this is only one side of the story; it’s time the other one was told.  To that end, I want to offer a few #QuickFireThoughts.

To start with, when it came to parenting, it should be remembered that her 9 children were no picnic.  The Prince of Wales in particular, indulged in antics that would drive almost any  parent to distraction.  She treated her youngest daughter horrifically when she announced she wanted to marry – but she also eventually embraced her son-in-law and helped advance him in life.  All of this of course should be viewed against the backdrop that she was horrifically parented herself.

Aside from parenting, there were many admirable parts to her personality and character that deserve honourable mention:

  • She was significantly less racist than her contemporaries – Her embracing of Indian servants enraged the establishment, but she would constantly defend them against the glare of the English superiority complex that was rampant.  I’m not suggesting that her world view would survive the scrutiny of 21st century standards, but it was considerably more advanced than those around her.
  • She embraced the underdog – Perhaps aware of her own heritage (she probably always felt like a first-generation immigrant despite being born in England) she was keen to champion the minority.  Be it in her love of Scotland over England or her preference for the Jewish Disraeli over the establishment produced Gladstone, she often acted in a way that people would not expect their ruler to; this has to be to her credit.
  • She placed less stock in hierarchy than most Royals – Perhaps seen most evidently in her relationships with her highland servants, Victoria craved informality in a way that often made other Royals, including her children, uncomfortable.  She was also disturbed by the Germanic practice of morganatic marriages, which was when a continental noble chose to wed someone of lower social status.  Such arrangements meant that a woman marrying a man of higher nobility could not claim his titles and precedence.  She was glad no such practice existed in Britain.
  • She genuinely valued friendship – The close associations she struck up were both unpredictable and frequent.  While she never forgot that she was a Queen-Empress, she coveted connections that would allow people to approach her as something resembling an equal.  Victoria was a woman who wanted at least some people to know her as a human being.

None of this is to suggest that the late matriarch was a forward-thinking liberal.  She was vehemently opposed to women’s rights throughout her reign.  But she was not the cold, callous egomaniac that recent documentaries have portrayed her as.

Or at the very least, that wasn’t all she was.

What do you think geeks?  Am I being too hard on the documentary makers?  Am I too quick to overlook the faults of the Queen-Empress?  Have I over-emphasised her positive character traits?  I want to know what YOU think?

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/quickfirethoughts/" rel="category tag">#QuickFireThoughts</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/hanover/" rel="category tag">Hanover</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/queen-victoria/" rel="category tag">Queen Victoria</a> Leave a comment

Valentine’s day special: Were Victoria and Albert really a love match?

_64854551_queen-victorias-children_62

As a Valentine’s day special, we will take a step back and decide whether Royalty’s greatest love story was really the great romance many of us have always believed it to be…

Studying Royal History is never boring, but it can be intense.  Brother against brother, father killing son, wife betraying husband and cousin rising up against cousin.  Sometimes, you need a bit of light relief.

For me, it was always the love story of Victoria and Albert that gave me that a-plenty.  Two young adults who, however dynastically convenient, fell head over heels in love.  In the innocent throws of passion that followed, they created an idyllic set of children that would serve as a timeless model of exactly what a Royal family should look like.

Such tales don’t just make easy reading; if the modern reader is able to overlook the fact that the two lovers were first-cousins, it is essentially a tale of romance that we can all either relate or aspire to.

But lately, as I’ve been conducting some – albeit fairly light – research around the ‘happy couple,’ I’ve noticed that there’s now a narrative circulating that perhaps all was not as it seemed.  This is something I don’t remember coming across as a teenager, but certainly seems to have been doing the rounds in recent years.

Don’t get me wrong, very little that I read suggests that the conventional view is dead in the water,  but there is a sense that the young Coburgs were not the love story we have been led to believe.  Were much of Victoria’s later platitudes to Albert a product of guilt?  Were they both really the victims of an arranged marriage?  Was it the case that plain Victoria felt a hormonal passion for her striking new husband, but he was more disappointed in his plump, immature and unintelligent bride?

Having decided to #DigALittleDeeper I have concluded that the following observations certainly seem fair:

  • Victoria and Albert’s match was certainly one arranged (or strongly, strongly encouraged) by their family. Their uncle Leopold, had once been in prime position to become Prince Consort of Britain; it was almost certainly his belief that this ambition should be fulfilled by the next generation of his kin.
  • After Albert’s death it does seem the case that Victoria looked back at their marriage through rose-tinted spectacles. Contemporary letters and other sources suggest their marriage could be quite tempestuous and a strain on both parties.
  • It does seem that whatever Victoria’s pleasures, Albert experienced a degree of melancholy in the marriage, particularly in the early years.

However, is any of this really enough to take away from the more romantic tales that have come down to us?  Yes, their marriage was somewhat ‘arranged,’ but this would always be the case for the woman ruling the most powerful Kingdom in Europe.  It should be noted that some of the other potential matches for her were more favourable to other stakeholders, including the UK government.  Victoria and Albert’s personal chemistry was part of what made the match achievable.

It is almost inevitable that following Albert’s untimely death, Victoria would always remember her marriage with more romance than accuracy, but that doesn’t mean she rewrote history.  Were there elements of guilt for the times that she didn’t think herself a good wife?  Probably, but that’s hardly untypical in situations of grief.  While evidence does suggest that there were many tempestuous moments in their marriage, perhaps in a marriage dominated by passion, this shouldn’t surprise us.

As for what was going on in Albert’s head and indeed, his heart, we can of course never truly know.  If indeed his passion did not match that of his wife’s, we would be wise not to draw too much from that.  Victoria was in her own country, her own surroundings and occupied an established role in society.  Not only did Albert not have the security of a well-worn constitutional role, he also had to adapt to leaving all his friends, family and the country he had grown up in.  If he was battling with aspects of mild depression from time to time, it does not make sense to attribute that to how he felt about his marriage.

Besides, there is evidence that suggests his marriage to Victoria was something that excited him on every level.  The love letters he sent to his future bride, testify to a man excited about forthcoming nuptials and everything that this would entail.  Throughout the 1840s, Victoria was rarely free from pregnancy.  True, they both felt a duty to create a new and idyllic Royal family after the scandals of the Hanoverian years, but it’s difficult to think that this scale of reproduction was the product of duty alone.

As with so many things, this is something I would like to research further.  Based on what I can see so far, I won’t be abandoning the romantic notions of this Royal coupling that I have found so comforting over the years.  For once, this is a tale of romance that is rooted in reality.

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/digalittledeeper/" rel="category tag">#DigALittleDeeper</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/hanover/" rel="category tag">Hanover</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/queen-victoria/" rel="category tag">Queen Victoria</a> Leave a comment

The top 10 questions I would love to ask historical figures

Most of the blog so far has been pretty heavy.  Don’t get me wrong, that’s kind of the point.  I need an outlet for my intense musings on the big questions and love discussing such epic matters with others.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a little fun as well.  To that effect, I’ve compiled a list of 10 questions I would love to put to our Royal forebears but, sadly will never be able to.

Here we go:

Elizabeth I – “You were the virgin Queen – I get that.  But what does that actually mean…?”

Richard III – “Come on now…own up.  How close to the truth was Thomas More?”

Queen Anne – “If you knew you were going to be the last monarch to veto an act of Parliament, would you have vetoed a few more?”

Katherine Parr – “Was Seymour worth the wait?”

Mary I – “In hindsight, might it have been worth taking a chill pill?”

Henry VIII – “Catherine Howard.  Adultery.  How did you not see that one coming?”

Margaret Beaufort – “Did you really have a vision telling you to marry Edmund Tudor?”

Princess Beatrice – “What was the juiciest  thing you cut out of Queen Victoria’s diary?”

Henry VI – “Do you think Edward was your boy?”

Richard II – “Seriously.  Dude.  What happened there?”

Okay geeks over to you…what questions would YOU like to put to the Royals of Britain’s past.

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/elizabeth-i/" rel="category tag">Elizabeth I</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-viii/" rel="category tag">Henry VIII</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/margaret-beaufort/" rel="category tag">Margaret Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/plantagenet/" rel="category tag">Plantagenet</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/princes-in-the-tower/" rel="category tag">Princes in the Tower</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/queen-victoria/" rel="category tag">Queen Victoria</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/richard-iii/" rel="category tag">Richard III</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/tudor/" rel="category tag">Tudor</a> 3 Comments

Was Queen Victoria’s childhood as unhappy as she remembered?

FouryearoldVicofKent

The unhappy childhood of Princess Victoria of Kent, the future Queen-Empress, has become legend among fans of Royal history.  But when we have a close look at the facts, is it possible that the prone-to-drama matriarch had exaggerated her early suffering? Continue reading

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/thoroughlyresearched/" rel="category tag">#ThoroughlyResearched</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/hanover/" rel="category tag">Hanover</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/queen-victoria/" rel="category tag">Queen Victoria</a> Tagged <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/hanover/" rel="tag">Hanover</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/queen-victoria/" rel="tag">Queen Victoria</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/queen-victorias-childhood/" rel="tag">Queen Victoria's childhood</a> Leave a comment