RE: Dominus/miles

I may be misremembering -- I can't find it in the archives -- but I
thought that some time ago Peter Stewart asserted that it is wrong
to say, e.g., "Sir Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick," on the ground
that the higher dignity (earl) subsumes the lesser (knight). I would
have thought, as Peter seems to be saying below in agreeing with
Alex, that the two are different tracks (and certainly not all earls
are knights, or vice versa). Which is right?

Peter Stewart...

Both I think, Brice, as I don't see these as incompatible. There would
be no way to tell from non-specific references to an earl whether or
not he had been knighted.

As a more-or-less parallel instance, if an earl happened to inherit a
baronial title he did not then become known in most contexts as, for
instance, "Henry, earl of Warwick, lord Burghersh". The lower title,
even if this had been older and more famous than the higher one, was
simply subsumed for ordinary purposes in addressing or referring to the
peer in question. If not, some men would have been known by a long
string of independent dignities, to the point of absurdity.

In this case, the barony of Burghersh might have been (I haven't
checked) senior to any other baronial title that may have belonged to
the earls of Warwick, and if so Earl Henry's son & heir (though he
didn't have one) might have used it as his courtesy title during his
father's lifetime.

A modern example is Miles Fitzalan-Howard, duke of Norfolk, who died a
few years ago. He became Lord Beaumont when his mother died, then
officially also Lord Howard of Glossop shortly afterwards when his
father died - however, Beaumont was the senior of these titles and was
the only one he used while he held just these two. (He could have
chosen to be known as "Lord Beaumont and Howard of Glossop", I suppose,
but not the other way round, on the same principle of seniority). Then
a few years later he became duke of Norfolk with a string of lesser
dignities attached that were never used for himself. His son & heir
Edward used "earl of Arundel & Surrey" as a courtesy title, not "Lord
Beaumont", using only the next-highest dignity after the dukedom.

Kighthood was not conferred as a courtesy in a similar way, although
the eldest sons of baronets later claimed the right to it. Still the
principle of subsuming a lesser style applies, no matter that the
titles come by different tracks. Equally, when a peer inherits also a
baronetcy, as often happens, you would never know this from the way he
is named and styled in any normal circumstances. The form "Miles, Lord
Beaumont, Bart" is unheard of, as is "Sir Miles, Lord Beaumont"
(hypothetically, since Miles Howard was not a baronet as far as I know,
though he is bound to have received a knighthood at some stage, as duke
if not before).

Peter Stewart