Bogus Titles

Question

Over my years of researching genealogy, from time to time I stumble upon someone laying claim to one title or another, yet they have no right to it. It is rather foolish, really, because there are comprehensive directories published of everyone given a title. When I say 'given', you actually have to earn it, you have to do extraordinary service to your country before you are even considered worthy. Now, whenever I see such a claim, I always run a check, just to see if it is genuine.

Comments

When I registered my business as a corporation, I had to provide a list of the officers' names.  As "president", I suppose I could go around with my nose so high that I can't fit through doorways by using the title "President" instead of my preference of "Ms".

Then again, ugly American that I am, I happen to think that all titles are a joke.  I don't even include that title on my business cards - instead, they identify me as "Principal Engineer", the position to which I appointed myself.

---

Gaile, I'm sure you know that there is a great deal of difference between a Title, that has been awarded, and a name or job description. I had not intended to awaken such 'chip on the shoulder' reactions.

I appreciate that countries with rather less history and tradition, may find it hard to understand, but for some of us these things are important. False and unworthy claims do not obviate the achievements of others, but they are not truthful, and have no basis in historical fact.

---

"... you actually have to earn it, you have to do extraordinary service to your country before you are even considered worthy."

Do you mean the British monarchs styling themselves King of France or are we talking about the people who inherited their titles from somebody 6 or more generations ago?

---

British monarchs would usually call themselves King of France by right of conquest, particularly in a time when the English bowmen were feared throughout Europe. That is why the two fingered sign of defiance is still celebrated today, to show  that we are still capable of drawing a longbow.

In reality, very few titles are actually hereditary, particularly today, most are held just for one lifetime.

---

Gosh, Tim, here we have a one fingered sign of defiance, however as a respectable grandmother, I must pretend not to know what it means.

Actually, I must admit that I - seriously, now - do not really understand any importance attached to titles.  I read about European people who are Lord This or Duchess That or whatever and I figured that titles are no more than the mark of the jet-set.  The whole thing reminds me of Donald Trump's behavior - he thinks because he's got oodles of money, he's better than everyone else and can therefore get away with all kinds of boorish behavior ... and the really sad thing is that he does seem to be able to get away with it.

The way you're talking about titles and people who falsely claim them reminds me of how I feel about people here who falsely claim to have served in the military ... or served during wartimes ... when they really didn't.  There is a wonderful book, written by a team of investigative reporters, on this - it's titled "Stolen Valor".

THANX for putting up with my ignorance.

---

That's O.K., Gaile, it's a popular misconception, thanks to the media, but the majority of the aristocracy are no wealthier than you or I, some are as poor as church mice.

Your mention of ''Stolen Valour'' is much nearer the mark, and I do understand that fully. For those charlatans to be permitted to get away with their pretense is an insult to those that are deserving, like a slap in the face for a war veteran. In the past these titles were awarded for military honour and courage, much as medals are used today. Think of how you would feel about someone stealing a hero's war medals.

---

The title King of France was first claimed by Edward III in 1340 as the sororal nephew of the last direct Capetian. That was before the Hundred Years' War started, had nothing to do with "right of conquest" and only caused endless years of suffering for the common soldiers and the common folk suffering under those common soldiers and finally ended with a win for the French House of Valois. Never the less, the English and later UK monarchs continued to claim the title until 1801.

The statement about heredity of titles vs. honorary titles may be true for Great Britain but certainly does not apply to the rest of Europe, not to speak of the rest of the world.

---

Up until the 20th century most (all?) British peerages were hereditary, life peers are a very recent addition.

If we're talking about other honours, such as the Order of the Garter, then those are only held for the persons lifetime.  Though most recipients would have been from the peerage anyway.

Though I agree that if there are false claims to a title, then that needs to be documented.

There are also plenty of claims of being a descendant of the nobility, often based on no more than the same or similar surname.  Unfortunately some of those have found there way to Wikitree.

---

Well this question got me right riled up.

Having seen people dropping resumes at a career fair with post-nominals they could not have earned but I have; having asked someone when they earned the medal they were wearing and then listening to a load of ____ come out of their mouth, since I knew when and why those precise medals were awarded; people trying to take advantage of discounts that I know they are not entitled to - discounts that I am entitled to but don't claim because the business is struggling to keep it's doors open.

I won't even get into the people at bars trying to impress others.

---

I once met someone claiming to be the grandson (perhaps great grandson - it was awhile ago) of Wilhelm II, the last Kaiser of Germany.

I don't think he liked the questions I was asking to ascertain exactly how he was descended from the Kaiser?

---

I certainly do not condone anybody claiming any title, profession or other prerogative falsly but I don't think that any aristocrat is treated more shabbily by false claims to titles than any professional who earned their credentials. Nobility has one main attraction: they have left written records due to their notoriety allowing us to trace their families farther back than most common folk. But when it comes to their achievements I'm with Berthold Brecht in Questions from A Worker Who Reads:

Who built Thebes of the seven gates?
In the books you will find the name of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?
And Babylon, many times demolished.
Who raised it up so many times? In what houses
Of gold-glittering Lima did the builders live?

---

Helmut, I wish this were Facebook so I could simply click "like"!  Great quote!

---

Whilst a great many titles in the various peerages of the United Kingdom were granted for 'services rendered' to their sovereign or their country a good few were merely purchased.

Charles I went baronetcy crazy - his baronetcies of Nova Scotia being a great example! He wanted to raise capital for the firm establishment of the Nova Scotia colony and so he created new titles and sold them to the highest bidders. Others have been created as a political expedient - indeed the current Prime Minister of the UK is following in the trail of many of his predecessors. He considers the Political mix of the House of Lords was not to his liking and is intent on creating a number of new Tory life peers to make up the differences.

---

Helmut, I love that quote!  I second you Jack!

Answer 1

I'm assuming you mean foreign titles, like, say, European nobility, since there's a dearth of titles awarded in the US.  I could declare myself the Marquis of Virginia, and have as much legal standing as the guy in the cube next to me who wanted to outdo me and be the Duke of Virginia, Grand Poobah of the Appalachian Mountains, and Death of Mosquitoes.  

Though you have that problem in the US, not so much with elected titles (not many people pretending to be the Mayor, unless they live somewhere that doesn't actually have one), but plenty of "Doctors" who don't have any kind of terminal degree.

Comments

You also seem to be assuming that I live in the USA. There are, in fact, many other countries. I am European, so titles are not foreign to me.

Your point about anybody claiming to be whatever they like, serves to prove my point, such claims are worthless, and as a genealogy site, we should try to keep things as per historical fact.

---

Well, they'd be foreign to me :).  But yes, you're right, I was being us-centric.

---

WikiTree is global.  Nothing should be "foreign."!

Answer 2

I believe the determining factor should be whether a title was used by a person or others during his lifetime. Not the legitimacy of the title. The historical fact in question is what a person called himself and how others addressed him, not the title's source. The claim may be worthless but the name remains. Titles bestowed by later generations should not be used.

The biography should note the source of the title for pretenders, con-men, and the self-appointed. Perhaps their titles should be enclosed in ironic quotation marks. ie. "Prince" Paddy Roy Bates of the Principality of Sealand.

This doesn't address the more difficult question as to whether a title is a Prefix, Preferred Name or Other Nickname.

Comments

I think a person who dies earning a VC should have that as their suffix even though it is neither something they were born with, nor something bestowed after they die.

---

Rob, what's a a VC?

---

Hi Marty,

My original post should have ended with "... nor something necessarily bestowed BEFORE they die."

VC is the post-nominal used by recipients of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for valour in the Commonwealth - The roughly equivalent American award would be the Medal of Honor.

Of the 1358 times the VC has been awarded since it was created in 1856, 295 were awarded posthumously. An additional 9 people would have been awarded the VC, had it been allowed to award it posthumously at the time. 1 other person (an American) who earned the honour declined it because he would have had to renounce his citizenship under the US laws in force at the time; obviously this was a non-posthumous award.

In addition to "the original" Victoria Cross, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand each now have their own "version" of the award. The Australian version has been award 4 times including 1 posthumous award. The New Zealand version has been awarded once. The Canadian government has never considered anyone deserving of it's version of the award (or more likely they have not awarded it because they are too cheap to pay the $3,000/year annuity that the recipient also receives... but I digress)

Answer 3

It seems to me there are two issues here.  Fake titles can be addressed in the narrative, "George Smithson's colorful life included at various times successful pretensions (for a while) to be a Colonel, a Marquis, and a Russian Prince."

The more common issue for WikiTree is what are actual titles and what are simply occupations.  My understanding of English usage is that "George Heavens, Lord Balmore" needs to have Heavens as the LNAB and Lord Balmore as an "other name", because once he attained the title that became functionally his name -- "In the Battle of Greenwich, Balmore's forces brought up the right."    On the other hand, if George Heavens simply became the Sheriff of Nottingham, I don't believe he was ever addressed as Nottingham, that is simply an occupational title and not a name.  Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Comments

Hi Jack

Once he became Lord Balmore, he would have been called Balmore and signed himself, Balmore, and his spouse would also have signed herself Balmore.

---

Not Lady Balmore?  Just Balmore?  Is this the flip side of coverture where, upon becoming married, they were deemed to be one person?

Answer 4

O,K,. no shortage of opinions, plenty of different comments, BUT however you dress it up, whatever excuses or justifications may be offered, the simple fact remains ...... THEFT IS STILL THEFT, AND A LIE IS STILL A LIE.

Putting all else aside, can we decide - Do we want Wiki to be as truthful as we can make it, or do we accept anyones flight of fancy, just because of the political bias we have been bought up with. ?

Comments

Yes, Theft is Theft and Lies are Lies but are we discussing the same thing? My belief (see answer above) is that if someone, in generations past, successfully made a fraudulent claim of rank or honor, then it should be recorded as such and the true details should be documented in the biography. Lies made in the past are (unfortunately) historical fact. Could you clarify the types of claim you find impermissible? Are you referring to living people making claims about their ancestors? Claims which the ancestors never made themselves? That is certainly wrong as it is rewriting history.

---

I'm thinking not just of past frauds, but those who still make such false claims, for both themselves and their family. We can do little about those in the past, other than note that they were fraudulent, but should we permit, excuse, or indeed encourage it to continue ?