Naming Conventions for Knights

That's fantastic, Justin.
And so there is no such thing as Sir Knight! But Erica would still like to know where anybody got the idea that there was :-)

My best guess - and it's only a guess - that in the very early days of computer databases some people decided to lump Sir and Knight together in a single field. They knew what they meant and why they were doing it, but over the years other people copied the information without understanding it. So, nowadays we have millions of records sitting on individual computers across the world that use a very odd way of showing knights.

Oh yeah, and don't forget all the truly awful Hollywood movies where someone says, "Hold, Sir Knight!" then runs him through with a sword ;)

(Just a guess.)

Yup! Agree with JC -- Hollywood frequently uses "Sir Knight" in period pieces.

"Sir Knight" was used right up until Victorian times, as it would be impertinent for a mere commoner to address someone as "Sir Richard" - far too familiar.

It was also used when the knight was in full panoply, but his name was unknown.

It still has limited application today, especially if the knight is in the military, to distinguish the 'Sir' as a deference to seniority and 'Sir' as a received honour.

"Sir' was never used by itself - it would be the equivalent of addressing someone as 'Mister'.

Perfect, Ken. Some of us were struggling with this, trying to find an easy way to explain the difference between Name / Title and form of address. I think you just did it ;)

Justin. You are right about the names on databases. They seem to be wrong on all sites.

So let's make it right on this one!

The project text holds something that I believe is part of the problem - but this could be a lengthy debate :-)
It says: "a title is part of a person's name". I'm sure it is, very often. But, probably, more often... not.
The issue we have is that most often people were not born with a title, but got it at a later stage of life.
I would make it a rule that a title is NOT part of the name, not from a database perspective. Just like any numbering of people, like 'John the 5th' should not be part of the name.
I think a person's name is simply first name(s) and last name (the later often being patronymic, toponymic...).
The cleanest way to handle titles, in my mind, is to include the most relevant title (and address, if wanted) in the display name - and (if workload permits) further specified in the 'About Me'.
But, again, I think we should start by establishing that we shouldn't include any of that in the name fields - as it just remains a source for endless problems and conflicts. Let's keep in mind that people don't always know that the word Herzog is German for Duke, and often people take it as being a proper name (you can clearly sense that from the way profiles are edited).
Any thoughts?

George. I believe this has been covered in other discussions regarding the peerage. The persons 'conventional' name would be used, but the acquired title would be in the display name. Both would be required.

Even with a peerage, only the eldest son would generally continue with the title, the others using the 'conventional' name. Both would need to be listed for genealogical purposes - hence the use of the display name.

The main point of the discussion (so far) is that it should be 'Sir John Smith' in the display name, not 'Sir Knight John Smith', as has been popping up everywhere, on every site.

Yeah, what Ken said. I can't help but think of Monty Python whenever I see "Sir Knight."

George, as Ken says this has been covered many times in many times in many different discussions. We can definitely re-work the wording if we can find something that better expresses the idea.

Despite the genealogical convention of always using the birth name, for titled nobles the birth name is arguably a very insignificant piece of information. People want to see Henry VIII, King of England, not Henry of England.

We don't have a prefix field on Geni, so the only way to capture the information is to use the display name.

You and I agree that the number is not part of the birth name. Henry VIII was not born Henry VIII. But, we're in the minority (so far). Even many curators think it is better to put the number in the name.

Also, there are many cultural differences. English nobles weren't usually born with titles, but German nobles were. And, when Germany abolished titles, those titles became the surname. So, we always have to struggle with different rules for different countries and different time periods.

Private User
Erica Howton
http://www.geni.com/people/Justin-Swanstr%C3%B6m/6000000007278581048

Ken brought up that people are totally dropping the Sir and the Suffix honors'
from the profiles. see http://www.geni.com/discussions/108374?msg=789133

. I noticed that this project is not tied to the naming convections project and should be.

For most uses, I think that the display field can be used to make sure all honors are shown.

Judith Nathan Elam tagged

In line with Marvin's comment, some prefer military titles in the suffix, others in the prefix. Is there a standard we can agree on?

There is no prefix field:)

I think it comes down to mode of address, best known as (display name), and post nominal abbreviations.

When someone has entitled military (and other) entitlements, they can / should be in the suffix field. However if they are "best known" by, for instance, an office held, they are not needed in display name as well.

Many of my US ancestors seem to have been addressed as "Capt.," but I do not have documentation on their militia rank. In those cases I use display name only as a prefix in the display name.

As you can see by my profile, I have two "titles"

My Name is of course Marvin Caulk and I use two sufixes, SSG and Rev

Since I have been a SSG longer than a Rev I use the military form of address for my display name so SSG Marvin Caulk and add Rev as a suffix.

When Speaking the name either the title "Staff Sergeant: or simply "Sergeant" is spoken.

I could have used Rev Marvin Caulk, SSG Retired, but it throws the whole balance of the name off.

The use of the fields as is places it in the suffix, but it becomes the prefix in the display name.

Victor, if someone is "Private John Doe"

He is simply, "John Doe, Private" but if you wish,, the display name can be "Private John Doe" both forms of writing the rank are correcf.

Going back to topic

using the example

Winston Churchill

and applying honors, we find that his name and title at http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

is

"The Right Honourable Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, PC, DL, FRS, RA"

The suffixes "KG, OM, CH, TD, PC, DL, FRS, RA" are just as important as the "Sir"

the words "The Right Honourable" would be more or less lost on americans as we use the word "Honourable" mostly for judges, but I assume it would be of great imporatance to a british subject, no?

Should the above not be his disply name?

Ofir Friedman tagged see above comment please

Should the "display name" be consistent with:

1. Those who held highest offices in other countries

And / or

2. Conventions established for http://www.geni.com/projects/Prime-Ministers-of-the-United-Kingdom/587

Looking at Rt Hon Harold Wilson, Baron Wilson of Rievaulx, KG, PC

I would say that's correct but doesn't the KG, PC mean hes a "sir" or does "Baron " cancel that out ?

I'm tagging Michael Lawrence Rhodes

since he's in the UK and did the profile maybe he can set some light on this for us.

I notice some profiles in http://www.geni.com/project-587/people, seem to follow the example profile and some don't.

If the convention on Geni is to use only the highest title, then Baron Wilson of Rievaulx trumps his knighthood, although in the form of his name that now exists (Rt Hon Harold Wilson, Baron Wilson of Rievaulx, KG, PC), the KG properly shows that he is also a Knight of the Garter.

I'm not wild about adding in additional honorifics such as Rt. Hon. or Most Excellent or HRH. We can only get them by adding them into the Display Name, and then the tree view looks more cluttered than necessary.

Using the highest title won't work, as they signify different things.

Sir Edmund Hillary was a Garter Knight (KG), but also has the Order of New Zealand, which is the highest distinction the country has. To drop it off as insignificant is not very flattering to New Zealanders. There are only ever 24 ONZs.

Baron Wilson has 'Baron' as being a member of the peerage (could be inherited). Being a Garter Knight (KG) is not related. KG is an astonishing and personal distinction.

Churchill has many post-nominals, but putting Nobel Prize Winner in his name is a Geni contrivance. It is certainly not the major achievement in his life.

As a genealogist, I would see it as part of my task to investigate each honour and document the reason for each. They are post-nominals, and form part of the name, but Nobel Prize Winner? Honestly!

I think we can still use the highest title. Each country has its own ranking. For Sir Edmund Hillary, the highest title is determined by reference to New Zealand's ranking. So - Sir Edmund Hillary, ONZ (or Sir Edmund Hillary, ONZ, KG).

I should mention that when elevated to the peerage, you choose the name by which you wish to be known. It might not be related to your current name.

It is a total change of name, and the previous name cannot be used thereafter. Benjamin Disraeli, for example, became Lord Beaconsfield - the two names are relevant to genealogy, as much as a woman changing her name upon marriage.

We've dropped the honours system (pity, Sir Ken has a certain ring to it) so my only hope is for a sainthood, although it has the inconvenience that you must first be dead.

My own thoughts are that honours are so misunderstood that it would be better to ignore them in Geni altogether - as part of the name. They have no bearing on the name or other factors relevant to genealogy, but obviously form part of the person's profile.

Peerages are different, as a change of name occurs, and are therefore very relevant. Few people would think to search for Mr Wellesley, which was his name before he became The Duke of Wellington.

Marvin Caulk, (C), commonly what's done is placing "Priv. John Smith" in the display name and omitting any suffix in the suffix field.

Victor, putting "Pvt John Doe" only in the display and not in the suffix may be a bit lazy, but it's better than leaving it off all together.
I's not something to lose sleep over.