Knt. in suffix field? EuroAristo guidelines said no in past, but it's no longer mentioned [closed]

Question

Hi! In the past, following EuroAristo guidelines, I've removed "Knt." from the suffix field and added "Sir" to the prefix field instead.

WikiTree's [Help:Name_Fields] page supports this, albeit not explicitly:

• from #Suffix: "Preferably, this should only be used for the Suffix at Birth. . . . . It is better to put Dr. in the Prefix field than Ph.D. or M.D. in the Suffix."
• from #Prefix: "This is for a name prefix or title^[2] such as Mrs, Sir, Dr, Gov, Sgt, etc."

I was told way back that it is not correct to use both prefix Sir and suffix Knt. (although if I recall, an exception in WikiTree was made to use both the prefix Sir with KG and/or KB suffix(es)), but Sir Reginald has both the Sir prefix and the (previously not allowed) suffix Knt.

Did I just miss it on https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Name_Fields_for_European_Aristocrats or did EuroAristo remove the text specifically addressing Knt. in the suffix field? (Or was it never there?)

Anyway... Bottom line: Is it ok for Lucy-46 (and many others) to have both Sir & Knt.?

Thanks!

Comments

I think this is the thread in question (which has your answer re; Sir + KG/KB): https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/247778/sir-or-lord?show=247778#q247778

Here's the key problem: "The unfortunate bit on WikiTree is that Knt shows up in useful places where Sir is almost invisible."

What needs to happen is the database fields need to be expanded to support post nominals and titles, but there's no chance this will happen. I think Knt is ok - I don't usually go out of my way to change it to Sir & usually it matches a Richardson citation (who prefers postnominals to rank markers).

---

I completely agree with Kirk.  The Suffix field needs to be expanded.  Is there anyway to make this happen?

Names of titled individuals look awful on wikitree with the title stuck in the middle of the name.  Titles of nobility belong on the end of the name.

I understand that the field was shortened to help the database errors project, but we are now in a situation where those errors originally targeted by the Database Errors Project are long gone, and we are stuck with an awful looking, confusing, and incorrect name field.

---

Joe - as I recall, the prefix/suffix fields have always been small (10 characters, I think). Way before the database errors project ever began.

---

We also have to remember that we are basically talking about a computer program with all the limitations that imposes.

---

John one thing computer programs do not have problems with is crunching digits, surely. This is a "setting", set by humans I think.

---

You're right the size of the setting is set by humans, but I have a strong suspicion that if the prefix and suffix were much larger, we would be just as loudly decrying the amount of incorrect information being placed in that field.

---

Changing the schema is a lot trickier than changing a 'setting' & there's a lot of code changes required. It would be complicated.

John's right - we'd be unable to read the search results with all the postnominals!

---

This link to gen-med may shed some light on this topic

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/TP8QumwY-Ak

---

Thank you for that link. I felt the point about distinguishing between a  priest and a knight  was interesting.

 I've certainly come across many wills and other documents that use  Sir___ Knt. The only prereformation village priest that I know anything about is  Sir Christopher Trickay of Morebath and that 'title' is definitely used in the church records

Answer 1

We should probably get this added to EuroAristo pages as the issue has come up several times.  The previous guidelines you mentioned are correct. - you should never use Sir and knt together.  As a general rule, all of these should have just the Sir and have the knt deleted as knights bachelor do not have a true post nominal associated with it.  

There are rare cases where the use of Sir becomes awkward because of other prefixes being used for titles/honors/awards/etc.  In these rare cases it is acceptable to use Kt or Knt.

Comments

I agree with Joe.  As Ros pointed out, the mention is made to only use KG or KB.  Use Sir in the prefix, but don't use Knt in the suffix.  As Sir William points out, there are others that are acceptable/allowable including GCVO, OM, etc.

Darlene - Co-Leader, British Isles Royals & Aristocrats 742-1499 Project

---

Are you making these 'rules' up as you go along?. Please get hold of a copy of "Correct Form" or an 19th century edition of Burke's. Truly you are getting this wrong.

Answer 2

From the page you quoted above:

• SUFFIXES IN LAST NAME: Jr, Sr, III, Esq, for moderns, and occasional KG or KB for medieval profiles go in the suffix field. NOTHING else goes in the suffix field.

So I would say that you can ONLY put KG or KB in the suffix field.  Knt should never go in there, especially if you have already put 'Sir' in the prefix.  Reginald still probably has it because not all of the profiles have been tidied up to meet current rules.  Just a thought.

Answer 3

I have followed your pattern.  Basically, I use Sir in the prefix field and don't use Knt. in the suffix field, but do use the allowable suffixes of KG, KB, and Bt.(baronet).

If having Sir in the prefix field, one doesn't need to put "Knt" as such in the suffix field.  Special honors such as Knight of the Batch or Knight of the Garter or the like do add something that the prefix alone doesn't provide.

Comments

I think you meant KT rather than KB. And KB is not a Knight Bachelor, but a Knight of the Bath.

Answer 4

This is not correct.  The knighthoods which,should be included in Prefix and suffix are KG, KT, KP (which rank above Bt, which is not a knighthood but a Baronetcy), GCVO, KCVO, GCMG, KCMG, GCSI, KCSI, GBE, KBE, KCB, KB, and AK.  Knights Bachelor have no post-nominal or suffix. OM,  CH, PC, VC, GC etc are not knighthoods and therefore are not entitled to the prefix “Sir” but are definitely entitled to the suffix. A Baronet is entitled to the prefix and the suffix.

Wikitree is wrong to suppress prefixes and “nicknames” in name displays; this situation seems to have arisen because top table  correctly did not want Dr and PhD both to be displayed. It is also wrong to say that suffix should include KG and KT but nothing else,

Bottom line: Sir and Knt is wrong.

 

Comments

I don't use both Dr and Ph.D on my profile, but only the suffix, Ph.D.  My brother is an M.D.

How is a knight of the bath different from a knight bachelor, if both use the same abbreviation of "KB"?

---

From wikipedia:

There are three categories for Knights of the (Order of the) Bath,

•                               :Knights of the Bath - These were special kni ghthoods conferred on important Royal occasions such as coronations, a practice which had died after the reign of Charles II. These knighthoods predate the modern Order of the Bath.
• Category:Knights Companion of the Order of the Bath (KB) - Knights created in the period between the 'revival'/creation of the Order of the Bath in 1725 and its expansion from a one class order to a three class order in 1815. Those Knights Companion still living in 1815 automatically became Knights Grand Cross.
• Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) - Since 1815 this has been the second level of the Order of the Bath (ranking below Knights Grand Cross and above Companions). Military officers have been appointed to this rank since 1815, civilians from 1847.

 

Like other knights, Knights Bachelor are styled "Sir". Since they are not knights of any order of chivalry, there is no post-nominal associated with the honour.^[3]When the style "Sir" is awkward or incomplete due to a subsequent appointment, recipients may sometimes use the word "Knight" or "Kt" (note the lowercase 't', which distinguishes it from "KT", the post-nominals of a Knight of the Thistle) after their name in formal documents to signify that they have the additional honour. This style is often adopted by Knights Bachelor who are also peers, baronets or knights of the various statutory orders, such as Sir William Boulton, Bt, Kt, or The Lord Olivier, Kt.^[4][5]

My brother is a life Peer.

        

---

If you come across any Knights of the Bath, please add the appropriate Wikitree sub category:

• Category: Knights of the Bath (KB) Pre 1661, and note there were no Knights of the Bath created between 1661 and 1725.
• Category: Knights Companion of the Order of the Bath (KB) - Knights created in the period between the 'revival'/creation of the Order of the Bath in 1725 and its expansion from a one class order to a three class order in 1815. 
• From 1815, there are three categories:
  • Companions of the Order of the Bath (CB)
  • Knights Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB or DCB) 
  • Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (GCB)
  • note:KBs living in 1815 automatically became GCB

---

David - I was told at one point that "Knt." = Knight bachelor and that category should be added to the profile: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Knights_bachelor says

The rank of Knight Bachelor is a part of the British honours system, being the lowest grade of knighthood. The knighthood does not have a post-nominal and is not an Order of Chivalry (see Category: British Orders of Chivalry).

---

I agree that it implies a Knight Bachelor but it does NOT have a post nominal. Knt should not be added but should be sought and excised. Equally a CBE or OBE replace an MBE and a KBE replaces a CBE and below. And no woman is made a KBE but they are appointed a DBE. These are all errors I have found recently on Wikitree.

---

I generally agree, William. I truly despair. Instead of telling us what they think, they should maybe ask us what is correct. After all we have lived here for 1000 years, you are a Baronet and I am a modest academic and professional genealogist of 50 years, etc. Obviously a knight (of whatever variety) or a Baronet should be prefixed "Sir" and suffixed accordingly. Because that's how it is. Not an opinion. I saw someone suggesting that prefixes should only be if they had it at birth. Who is born with a prefix? haha. Ugh.