Talk:Viscount

Untitled

It's not entirely true that German nobility didn't have a viscount. The German equivalent of Count, Graf, was not simple -- quite possibly due to Germany's disorganization and the many different kinds of feudal rulers. The term Vizegraf was used, roughly meaning "vice" or "substitute" count, which corresponds roughly to viscount. However, it is true that viscount was not a standard German title of nobility.

To know the example you're thinking of and the place (and the approximate date of the patent or its appearance) would make this truly the exception that proves the rule. --Wetman 06:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The page on Kakuei Tanaka links here in reference to a Japanese "viscount," but I don't see anything related here. Looking into it. 12.214.0.127 19:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

A question

Some novels I have read refer to the son (or sometimes younger brother) of a French Count (Comte) as a Viscount (Vicomte), using the same name as the Count's. Examples: In "The Scarlet Pimpernel", the son of Comte de Tournay is the Vicomte de Tournay; in "The Phantom of the Opera", the younger brother of Comte de Chagny is the Vicomte de Chagny.

Does anyone know if this is an empty courtesy? It cannot be a subsidiary title, because the placename (Tournay, etc) is always the same.

Yes, a courtesy title, empty if courtesy titles are empty. Sometimes the distinction is made explicit, "So-and-so, styled viscomte de Foo." Sometimes the courtesy title is inherited in a cadet line. --Wetman 30 June 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Thank you!

To Above question, Younger brother in British Iles is usually refered to as viscount if the family have that title. If a family does not have a 2nd 3rd title, they cannot use it. NO noble family in the british iles has the power to create a title to give to a lesser member, that even today is not just treason, it's high treason. If the family have only one title, as a particular Ducal family does, the holder of the Title is Duke XXX, his brothers and sons are simply Lord (name).

France is a little different in different areas, and the same in different areas. And would require about an hour to explain. The HRE is just a mess.

Just going to tack this here, because this article is so wrong. Baron Baroness Barony. Viscount Countess Viscounty. Earl Countess Earldom.

It's real simple. THERE IS NO RANK OF VISCOUNTESS in british iles and france. Viscountess is an american movie comedy.

As a rank in British peerage, it was first recorded in 1440, when John Beaumont was created Viscount Beaumont by King Henry VI. The word viscount corresponds in the UK to the Anglo-Saxon shire reeve (root of the non-nobiliary, royal-appointed office of sheriff). Thus early viscounts were originally normally given their titles by the monarch, not hereditary; but soon they too tended to establish hereditary principalities lato sensu (in the wider sense). Very very wrong. lato sensu, how can this be in the strict sense? You are 300-400 years outside your time period, and/or in the wrong country. You are confusing France pre 1280's and Germany (HRE) with the British Iles. Two utterly different systems in this regard. A Viscount was never, has never, been anything like a shire-reeve,(sheriff). A Shire-reeve is a royal agent for law and order, a commoner (usually a knight), Nobles become Lord Leiutenants.

Thus early viscounts were originally normally given their titles by the monarch, not hereditary ALL TITLES ARE GIVEN BY THE MONARCH.

Viscount, Pronu Vi-count. Was imported from Europe, and was, has always been a title of en-noblement. A Female, wife or Holder, is called a Countess, both in France, and British Iles. (very)Roughly in german, a Landgraften. Viscounty are area specific, you dont get an area encompass until an Earldom.

Example: Viscount XXXX of XXX, Baron XXX of XXX. Earl of XXXX. Huge but sutle difference. And yes, there are few titles that cross this boundary, but they are exceptions, not the rule.

A specifically British custom is the use of viscount as a courtesy title for the heir of an earl or marquess. Wrong again. You can only use a title to a lower order member of your immediate family, ie: Brother/son of a Holder, if you also have another title. If you have no other title, your brother/son is simply called Lord John. To create a title for a family member to use would be High Treason. Not to mention, in layman terms, every other noble would spit on you and laugh.

German system is very bloated with all sorts of structure, so there is no direct equal of ranks.

eg: Markgraften von Baden, Is also the older title of Herzog,(duke of Zahringen, their family name). Technically there is also 3 levels of nobles in germany, historical immediate families. The Ancient Nobles. The Newer Immediate families, the New men. And those that are enobled to the above two.

Consequentally a Freiherr (or Baron) ranks not immediately below a Graf, but below a Burggraf.

Wrong again. In half of cases, Graften (Count/Earl) before 1500's are all the same or similar rank. Less than a Graften is Landgraften, senior is markgraften. A burggraften is the same as a Graften. 4 Burggraftens of HRE were amongst the most powerful of the Medieval period and held precedence over many Markgraften. And some Landgraften held precedence over some dukes.

Anyway, like I said a simple e-mail could clear all this up. But the article at present, is utterly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.99.27 (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Vizegraf

Would any of you, gentlemen, please explain to me the German concept of Vizegraf? --Anglius 9 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

The use of a placename by a first son is regular practice. In the case above, however, it must also be remembered that peers holding a rank lower than an Earl (or Count)do not share their titles with an heir apparent, as they may not hold another. Also, with regards to the Viscount de Chagny, the modifier "of" would be dropped (as in the Viscount Chagny). A very interesting article, nonetheless. The Right Honourable The Viscount Dumas

I thank you, My Lord Dumas. --Anglius 02:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The Doubtful Viscount

In the article User:Viscountdumas has entered "Sir Christopher Johnson, KCAJ, KOV (1975) Viscount Dumas (2005)". "Viscount Dumas" does not register at Google. Is it possible that this is the "Sir Christopher Johnson" of Knights of the Nwywre Order, one of those "Creative Anachronism" ludibria? However, it could just be that the real Sir Christopher, the former chief economic adviser to Lloyds bank, has been gazetted in the past New Year's Honours. Now, I feel a bit like Helen Hayes in Anastasia in asking this, but, since I can't imagine even a viscount fresh-from-the-box signing himself "The Right Honourable The Viscount Dumas"— as if the Duke of Wellingon were to sign himself "My Grace,..."—, would one of you Burke's-Peerage types please check whether "Viscount Dumas" has been gazetted, perhaps in the New Year's Honours, 2005? Then we'll add the brandnew Viscount to the official list.. --Wetman 01:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to thank User Wetman for bringing to light an important fact in this discussion. Although there are many Viscounts within the British aristocracy, there are also many without it, namely myself. I was ennobled and created a Viscount earlier this year by His Excellency Prince Douglas of the Principality of St. Michel de Clermont, a former Barony of Clermont in the Latin Empire of Constantinople; His Excellency's fons honorum stemming from the Eastern Orthodox Church, and its Patriarch (to whom noble titles were originally entrusted). I will admit that a listing in the Gazette would be impressive, but not any more "authentic". I am a former history teacher and heraldric artist. The study of the peerage is my hobby and passion. In the spirit of nobility, let us understand and explore the bigger picture that does not include Her Majesty's realms as well. Dumas.

The fake titles being sold to the naive by the Canadian, Douglas Henderson of British Columbia, who bills himself as "His Excellency Prince Douglas of the Principality of St. Michel de Clermont" and others are well and conclusively treated in the Earl of Bradford's website, "Fake Titles", where the interested Wikipedian may read up on the various fontis honorum ("founts of honour") who are selling such spurious titles on eBay etc. We don't want any of that chicanery going on through Wikipedia. No fake viscounts, whether self-deluded or sharpers, will be inserted in the article Viscount. --Wetman 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Just in order for stupid lowly bred goatherds such as myself to understand - are you saying that you "Viscount Dumas" and Christopher Johnson , the former chief economic adviser to Lloyds bank are one and the same person? - or are you another Christopher Johnson altogether. In which case perhaps you would like to write an article on the former Christopher Johnson as he is just about notable; and then write another page on the Viscounts Dumas explaining why you and they are notable. I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy on this subject, but I would suggest it does not accept articles on members of the nobility who possess less than 16 quarterings. Giano | talk 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

...Giano, your sixteen quarterings joke will be taken seriously by the Pitchforks and Torches! I have 16 quarterings myself: alas, they are all blank: Argent, on a fess engrailed argent three besants argent... --Wetman 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And I should have included any title created by Napoleon, or anyone with a bar sinister in any of their 16 quarterings - lets help Wikipedia maintain falling standards. Giano | talk 08:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an article on fake titles. PS Wouldn't the plural of fons honorum be 'fontes honorum' (3rd declension)? --Macrakis 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oop!! My Latin, you see, is a one-way street. As at the lion's cave in Aesop, it all comes in, but none of it comes out. Good to see Wikipedia's had the subject covered since 5 May 2004! --Wetman 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There are no such recognised postnominals as KCAJ or KOV, so this person is clearly something other than a viscount in the normal sense of the term. JackofOz 22:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This name has come up in discussion in many circles of late. Whilst true Apostolic titles can and still do exist his'fons honorum' is a fake and a fraudster and therefore this Viscount Dumas has simply been conned. Wake up. Just surfing. Bill Britain

Hello, I have heard that he got his title from that Douglas Henderson person that is supposed to be Prince Douglas living in British Columbia in Canada. Must have paid big dollars for something that is worthless..Steve..

How about France?

I just ran across a definitive reference to French "vicompte". I figure if I could stumble across one, others must have found lots more. Howcum there's no mention here? Is there anyone out there able to add something substantial? - Kkken 11:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dukes etc

Is this article the appropriate place to discuss higher peerages? The section beginning "A British peculiarity is the" mentions a lot that seems (and is covered) in the main peerage article and/or the courtesy title article. Perhaps we ought to use the courtesy title link and shift much of this off the viscount article. That way it can be more about the title and its history and its various national uses rather than an awful lot about the pecularities of the British peerage. hereAlci12 17:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't like the term "peculiarity", I prefer "custom" or "tradition", as it's less derogatory. JJ

Equivalent western titles

The following phrase was removed: (here, by law, the official translation, as Burggraf in German, of the title vicomte in French, the other official language!)

The reasons for the removal include:

• non-encyclopedic tone
• improper grammar

If it is felt that this phrase should be reinserted please address the previous two reasons for removal before proceeding. ndyguy 15:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

titles and article names

Why do articles about Viscounts tend to include the title in the pagename, such as in R. B. Bennett, 1st Viscount Bennett and others. No one else gets to have their title in their article name, not even monarchs. Is there something special about the Viscount title? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambig page

I'd like to know your comments on moving this article to another page called Viscount (nobility title). The reason for that is that there is an article Viscount (musical instruments manufacturing) which I recently created, and there may be a need for a disambiguation page.--Mike Sorensen 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A hatnote on this article should suffice. —Tamfang (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Arundell Counts

I am H.E. Count William Arundell of Wardour and my title is from rudolph 2nd,fons honorum,of the hre and,incidentally,my cousin as well.We are also grandsons of france through beatrice capet/frederick 1st count of luxembourg.Dna tracing to relevant areas,family records and baronial records prove this valid.We would,if i am correct,be HRH and Princes from this descendage as well as a decree in 1946 making all of the house of savoy HRH and the luxembourg royal house makes us HRH and princes,junior lines.Would we be fons honorum and able to enoble since the line passes through my family so many times and so closely as "princely"representatives??Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.180.253 (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can be a fons honorum. The question is whether anyone else will take the honores seriously. —Tamfang (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

If a British viscount is styled “The Viscount [Surname] of [Placename]”, then how would he be addressed is speech? As “Lord [Surname]” or as “Lord [Placename]”?
Sg647112c (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As Lord [Surname]. —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-western traditions

The section on non-Western "viscounts" is misleading.

The Chinese "zi" is a rank totally unrelated to "viscount". The equivalence came about later as people tried to assign Western equivalents to Chinese titles.

Japanese 子爵 shishaku, on the other hand, is consciously based on equating "zi" to "viscount". When the Japanese copied the Western noble ranks, they decided that the Japanese equivalent of "viscount" would be 子爵, based on the old Chinese "zi". Far from being totally unrelated to "viscount", 子爵 is the explicit equivalent of "viscount".

The difference is important and isn't properly captured either by the lead to the section ("Like other major Western noble titles, Viscount is sometimes used to render certain titles in non-western languages with their own traditions, even though they are as a rule historically unrelated and thus hard to compare, which are considered 'equivalent' in relative rank"), or by the explanation of the Japanese term.

221.222.122.100 (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian version?

Does the "vicispán" fulfill the specifications of it? It means vice-"ispán", where ispán was the rank of the governor of county, from the highest nobles of that county, and depending on the time period, either appointed by the king or elected by the other nobles. --131.188.3.21 (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation

A scotsman I know says it's pronounced viss-count, not vye-count or whatever. Can anyone actually verify the pronunciation provided in the article? Dylan Hsu (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

He is wrong. [1] Kittybrewster ☎ 22:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

kay Dylan Hsu (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Globalize

Viscount is used in many countries of continental Europe. These countries are untouched by the article (except for two non-exhautive lists of exceptions; see Viscount#Continental forms of the title and Viscount#Equivalent western titles). Points of difference between various countries should be discussed in the article and the general discussion should be about the common aspects, if any. (If there's no--or very little--common ground, the title should be changed to "Viscounts in the British peerage" or some such.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the article

In an effort to expand the article and to make it much less "UK-centric", I've had a go at reformatting the information.

I thought it best to Split it into historical use and then contemporary and then split those sections into particular countries, rather than split the whole article into countries (France, UK, Spain etc) as the history of the title in all countries is relatively similar. Sotakeit (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Baron which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)