#forms of address

[whatcha-thinkin]

In an egregious oversight, the Citizen button should read Citizen / Comrade.

[writtenbygracewilliams]

Peerages & Titles: everything you need to know

[A heavily researched 6.5k+ hyperfocus from my Google docs, to help your fanfics]

Disclaimers:

Sources are not consistent. You’d think they would be. They are not. I’ve corralled several reliable websites and books into something that I think makes sense, is accessible, and fits [largely] with portrayals in Bridgerton/modern media.

That being said, Bridgerton/modern media make mistakes. You might notice in reading through all this that there is something different to how it is portrayed in media. Feel free to discuss with me, I could very well be wrong, but also know that you are consuming fiction and this is intended to be fact.

However, whilst trying to be correct, many sources are modern and it is difficult to confirm how titling and forms of address may have changed in the past 200–300 years. Though, I imagine not greatly given the peerage and aristocracy still exists.

Where possible, I have used Bridgerton characters as the examples so that it is easier to make sense/contextualise it. Names in red are not characters, just placeholder names. Hence I have reduced, reused, recycled these names.

On the note of using names from within the Bridgerverse, the Marquess of Ashdown was not married when we met him. I’d also like to know what Julia Quinn has against Earls and Marquesses, Marquesses especially.

Second note of using names in the Bridgerverse, I refuse to use Baron of Kent because it is a factual/historical disaster. More on that here.

This only applies to aristocracy of Britain/UK [minimally Ireland, read here], if I do more of Europe/anywhere else I will link it below but let me know if you want that.

All of these posts may be edited/expanded at any time as my research continues.

Further posts:

General info, start here!

Glossary

A brief history of the peerages/titles

The different peerages [England, Great Britain, United Kingdom, Scotland, Ireland]

How royal titles work

Peerage applications and functions in the modern day

Privileges of the peerage

How titles apply to the child of peers

Rank and precedence within the peerage

Titling rules for non peers

Other roles and titles I can give address information for

Female inheritance of titles

Territorial designations, and when the surname differs from the title name

Haven’t decided if I will do a post on grammar rules when writing peers because despite studying etiquette and titles for over a decade, and linguistics and grammar for seven years, the grammar/capitalisation rules of writing peers broke my final straw of sanity. Let me know how much you want it, or just drop any specific questions.

Put any questions about any of this in my ask :)

–GW xo

[princesssarisa]

One interesting detail that varies between Christmas Carol adaptations is exactly what Scrooge calls Bob Cratchit before his redemption. Calling him "Bob" at the end when he reveals his newfound kindness is always portrayed as a change, but it varies whether beforehand he calls him "Mr. Cratchit" or just "Cratchit."

Since the book doesn't reveal Bob's name until the Ghost of Christmas Present chapter, but just calls him "the clerk," we don't know how pre-redemption Scrooge normally addresses him.

@bethanydelleman's recent post about 19th century formalities of address has made me wonder whether "Mr. Cratchit" or just "Cratchit" would be more realistic. I have no idea how wealthy businessmen usually addressed their clerks. Since male friends commonly addressed each other by their surnames with no "Mr.," it would seem that addressing Bob as "Mr. Cratchit" would add more distance and make it clear that they're a master and employee, not friends; but at the same time, it also adds a hint of respect. Calling him just "Cratchit" seems more intimate yet ruder.

With some exceptions, I've found that in adaptations, the more reserved and "realistic" Scrooges tend to say "Mr. Cratchit," while the more caricatured Scrooges just say "Cratchit."

[grace-williams-xo]

If you ever wanted to know anything about English peers or titles [royals included],,,, I did weeks of hyper focused research so you don’t have to! There are 12 posts, here is the master post with easy to ready tables about basic forms of address and links to the 11 other deep dives.

LOWKEY if it doesn’t get a modicum of attention I’ll cry and I wish I was kidding

[zombolouge]

The thing is, it's not about the Therapy Speak. It's not that everyone who disliked DAV hates healthy communication as a dynamic in fiction. It's not even about only being allowed to be a good guy, really, because most of us did do that anyways (though the option not being there is a loss I grieve even if I never chose it myself, but that's another rant for another day).

It's that DAV does all that stuff at the expense of being believable. At the expense of characters being permitted to have personalities. At the expense of emotions behaving the way emotions actually work for people. At the expense of letting the plot build tension through the stakes we're forced to grapple with.

Half the fics out there take the conflicts between the characters in the previous games and resolve them. I do it myself ALL THE TIME because I like to find a path to resolution through just about any conflict, that's what fascinates me about telling these stories. But the higher the stakes, the harder a conflict is to resolve. You CAN resolve any conflict, you CAN communicate healthily through any emotion, but you can't skip the time it takes to process it all to even be able to communicate it. As someone whose got CPTSD and recovered from many Traumas, I can tell you that the TIME it takes to work through it is not something you can fast track, and the ups and downs of your emotions on that journey can't be skipped. It doesn't matter if you know exactly how to do it, exactly how it's going to feel, or exactly what the end state will be, you CAN'T speedrun it.

DAV has stakes that are astronomical, but nobody treats them that way. Nobody experiences denial - a common psychological reaction to being presented with information that shatters your worldview. Nobody expresses any distrust in the establishments handing out this information - something common among cultures that have at times been at war, even if those wars are "resolved" in the present. Nobody really ever breaks down - something that any person is capable of under extreme circumstances, especially when facing multiple crises of faith that challenge everything they thought they knew about themselves. Nobody blows their lid because they've been repressing the hell out of everything. Nobody grieves for southern Thedas, the entire thing dying off screen and giving you, the player, NO way to engage with it in any way.

Not to mention there are barely any inter-party conflicts, when there should be a lot more. Why is everyone (except Spite) fine with it if Emmrich sacrifices Manfred to become a lich? Why is everyone fine with Illario potentially being set free if he was working with the venatori and Elgar'nan, two sources that have actively attacked everyone in the party? Why doesn't Neve resent Lucanis if Treviso is picked? Why doesn't Harding get pissed off at Nevarra for having a secret society of liches that never helped during the Inquisition's war against the breach and corypheus? Why doesn't Harding feel ANYTHING about Ferelden and the rest of the south? Shouldn't Harding resent the fact that she's stuck in the north while her home dies?

All of these conflicts ARE resolvable, but not easily. And it's not believable that they're never brought up. It's not believable that these characters skip through everything that happens with like, barely a frowny face most of the time. In DAO, Alistair leaves if you don't treat his conflicts with respect. In DA2, your party members try to kill each other if you don't pay attention to their conflicts/emotional needs. In DAI, people can leave or betray you, Cassandra throws a chair at Varric and tries to body him out a window. ALL of these can be resolved but it takes effort, and the characters get to SHOW that they're bothered by them and struggling the way a person would when faced with those emotions.

The problem isn't the therapy speak, or that everyone is loyal and won't leave, or that they aren't mean to each other enough. It's that it's toxic positivity. It's toxic as fuck to imply that anger or grief should be smiled over or else you're giving up, and it's damaging to people to avoid engaging with their own negative emotional responses to extremely negative stimuli. It's pasting optimism over very real, very weighty issues, sweeping it all under the rug, and you keep waiting for the lid to blow off the pressure cooker that creates, but it never does. It never becomes anything that emulates real emotions, which is why the whole damn thing feels hollow. Everything's dying and nobody cares, not even about themselves, and that's NOT healthy communication.

It's bullshit, half-assed storytelling that didn't tell us the actual story, just the vague idea of what it could have been.

[liuisi]

i feel like this is a topic that needs more than just a tumblr post to fully expand on but. i think that in modern-day christian culture we place WAY too much emphasis on Feeling and Emotion . and i think that this attitude is part of the reason why the most common struggle you hear is "God isn't speaking to me/I can't hear God". feels like the standard set is that you're constantly feeling a Supernatural presence and it's Big and Obvious and it Shows and you can't contain it... when that's just not it. God can be quiet. God can nudge. God's voice is contained in the Bible that you hold between your hands. If you're not "hearing Him" then maybe your expectation of what hearing Him is is flawed.

[yo-yo-yoshiko]

Can't any more.

[driftingballoons]

Good choice, what could go wrong?

[writtenbygracewilliams]

Peerages & Titles: female inheritance

[Full list of disclaimers is in the master post but tl;dr is that sources for this information are not consistent, sources may be modern, and this may be edited/expanded at anytime as my research continues.]

I knew this was gonna be a messy one but I didn’t think it would lead to me reading a 40 pg UK parliamentary report 😭 strap in, but it’s fascinating and also lowkey relevant to the Featherington’s and Michaela Stirling.

Some baronies and earldoms in the peerage of England may be inherited by women/daughters.

Some old earldoms issued by letters patent are able to pass to heirs of the body, with no male preference, and follow the same rules of baronies by writ (see below).

In the early medieval period earldoms were passed to the son of the earl, or the brother of the earl if he had no children. If he had a single daughter, his son-in-law would inherit the lands and usually the peerage—but more complex cases may have been decided by the crown. [If passing to a son-in-law, it would presumably be abeyant until she married but I did not find this specifically mentioned.]

In the 13th century, the son-in-law would automatically inherit the peerage when inheriting the land.

In the 15th century, the earldom reverted to the crown—who would often regrant it to the eldest son-in-law.

In the 17th century, the earldom would revert to abeyance unless and until there was only one remaining daughter.

Women may inherit certain baronies in the peerage of England, if they were baronies by writ. From the late 14th century [1388 to be exact] most peers have been created by letters patent, however most baronies created before this time were by a writ of summons.

Having no letters patent, or remainder, baronies by writ are not limited to male heirs. A baron who left a sole daughter may have his daughter inherit the barony, and either be a baroness in her own right or her husband will inherit the barony. [I cannot confirm which for the life of me, but based on prior knowledge I lean toward the latter.] [Maybe it’s a choice? Highly unlikely.]

Where there is more than one daughter, the barony will fall into a state of abeyance between the co-heirs.

The co-heirs should reach an honourable agreement (without bribery or corruption) as to who will claim the title, the claimant then petitioning the crown to terminate the abeyance.

A claimant must represent at least one third of an abeyant title, and the title must not have been abeyant for more than 100 years.

If there is ever only one remaining co-heir, they do not have to petition the crown in order to assume the title.

The crown may intervene and terminate an abeyant title at any time.

The inheritance of Scottish peerages varies, but in many instances [and this applies to all Scottish peers] a daughter may inherit the title, and will do so over her younger sisters. Co-heirs and abeyance are avoided entirely in the peerage of Scotland. [I have plans to extend this point since the introduction of Michaela, bear with me, but as always feel free to drop q’s in my ask]

Many original limitations for succession in the peerage of Ireland are not known. Today, there is only one Irish viscountcy and one barony that may pass through the female line and they are both held by the same person. [Viscount Massereene and Ferrand].

Titles that cannot be inherited by daughters do not automatically go to daughter’s sons, a special remainder must be in place. [This is what Portia does/forges to say that her first grandson will inherit the Featherington estate, she creates (forges) a special remainder.]

For example, IF the Featherington Barony was created by writ [it clearly was not, but I think it would be cool if it was] then after the death of Lord Featherington the barony would have become abeyant. [Instead it becomes dormant]. Phillipa, Prudence and Penelope would have to agree amongst themselves who should inherit the title. Do I see that happening? No, they’re a trainwreck, but it would make good tv. Queen Charlotte [technically the Prince Regent] could intervene at any time to choose who will take the title/peerage/estate.

Kind of can’t believe I got through that, mad props if any of you did. Link to the master post here with all the peerage information, drop any questions in my ask :)

–GW xo

[potato-lord-but-not]

what is the funniest misconception john has about how a human body works (bc i'm curious, given that his experience with being human is arthur, who is resistant to every type of damage, and his own body, which also is not all the way normal)

John needs to surround himself with more women I think it would be good for him

[wehavekookies]

Dear Kooks, do you have some tips to play D&D alone or some solo RPG? I want to play it so bad, I have a lot of characters sheets ready because I’m so excited, but none of my friends are interested. If you know and could tell me is there some online platform to discover groups to play?

Thanks always!

Hello!

(First of all I need to start posting a bit more about solo rpgs and solo gaming in general cos I gathered some really cool materials and games over last months, so thank You for reminding me of that. Just need some more free time but it's coming, oh it's coming)

I don't have experience playing specifically DnD solo, but I know there are tools for it people recommend. The GeekGamers YouTube channel has TONS (and i say it both as an encouragement and as a warning, because it can be a bit overwhelming) of advice materials, also regarding soloing DnD and solo roleplaying in general. She also wrote a book on solo gaming called Solo Game Master's Guide which if I recall correctly has a chapter on DnD specifically as well. I know people are recommending Mythic Game Master Emulator as a good tool, but I haven't personally tried it yet.

What I can recommend tho is... Ironsworn (check the link, the pdf for the first main game is free). I have been playing it solo recently and I find it very fun and satisfying. It's a system based on Powered by the Apocalypse rules framework, so not that close to DnD rules, but if you are looking for a solo rp with some more rules structure I recommend taking a look at this game because it is designed specifically for solo playing (but it can be co-oped and GMed too). You can alter the world of the game freely (and the author encourages you to do that) or use the rules in existing setting, so you can adjust it to your liking (tho i do encourage you to try the setting offered by the book first, together with its world creation process: 1) it's very cool, 2) you will get a grip of the rules in their natural environment)

I found I need a couple of additional oracle tables aside of the ones the book has, but these you can pick up as you go according to your needs, there is plenty online, and a lot of free ones too. Other than that everything you need you have in the free book.

I also recommend taking a look at some actual play of an Ironsworn game (or other games, you can find some examples of actual solo plays on GeekGamers channel too) to get a bit of an idea how people think about running a solo session and how they build a story on their own, and perhaps taking something away from it for yourself. For Ironsworn specifically I super enjoy and highly recommend The Bad Spot podcast. It has several seasons of Ironsworn: Starforge game (Ironsworn's younger brother set in space, but the rules and the idea of how the game runs are basically the same) but also some loose talks about solo gaming in general.

OTHER THAN THAT: I encourage you to look around and see what the solo gaming scene has to offer. There is so many interesting games (some with more rules structure, but also journaling games, choose your own adventure-like games, solo hacks for existing systems, and more etc etc, a whole new world to discover really), it's worth checking regardless of having a group to play with or not. I will try to get back to posting more actively on these topics, cos there is a lot of stuff I would love to share, so fingers crossed I won't get distracted lol.

Cheers!

[orange-sora]

Part 1

Since it a bit different from the topic of the original post, I wanted to address this separately. {It helps me keep track of stuff I post here.}

[Thank you! These tags are by @autisthottygoth]

I may be wrong since I read canon months ago, but somewhere in the extras, Luo Binghe mentioned that Shizun knows a bit too much about stuff. Shen Yuan tried to bullshit his way out of it saying he has read all the books in Qing Jing library, only to realise that straight A student Binghe has also read all the books. Basically, there's a hint in canon that Binghe is onto him.

So yeah, maybe in future, there would be some sort of reveal. The thing is, it most probably won't be initiated by Shen Yuan. Maybe Binghe will tour around his mindscape and find the system. Maybe he'll get his answers. Or maybe he'll come up with batshit conclusions. Who knows?

But I think Shen Yuan is unlikely to reveal things on his own. There are many reasons:

1. He has been conditioned by the System for years not to reveal System's existence.

2. He's unable to justify (to himself) his actions and the hurt that he's caused to LBH. To him, no explanation is good enough. If you've nothing helpful to say, don't say anything at all. [That's how Shen Jiu dealt with his issues too.]

That's why his idea of dealing with the aftermath of the Abyss was planned death for a clean start. He'd rather avoid LBH than be the person who betrayed him. After all, it's very hard to accept that you've hurt someone, esp someone you care and love deeply.

3. He liked playing the role of an elegant scholarly immortal. He's attached to that identity and prefers to maintain that status. It probably makes him feel cool and powerful. That's why, it's easy to discard "Shen Yuan".

SY died young. It's hard to accept yourself in your early 20s. Adolescence teaches people to be embarrassed of their interests and fear judgement. It takes years of unlearning shame to accept oneself. SY didn't have years to accept his truth before he died.

Labels like otaku/fujo etc are hurtful and demeaning. Not bec theres anything wrong with any kind of interests but because the words themselves are used for the purpose of belittling. It puts people into boxes of shame so they feel the need to hide themselves. SY probably found it easier to discard a society (and life) that'd put labels on him.

His shame is still internalised though even if no such judgements exist in SVSSS/PIDW world. No one is moral policing anyone for reading rpf erotica. No one is judging anyone for being gay.

If he admits to who he is, he's admitting to all the labels he carried from his other world too. That's not easy or fun. Better to play pretend a superior version of himself aka Shen Qingqiu.

Shen Yuan's way of dealing with LBH is to indulge him, reassure him, and prioritise him. Ever since he broke the OOC lock, that's what he has done. Even if he wasn't scared, he still would have loved LBH. That is him being himself.

With LBH, he has always been himself. LBH already knows all of his mannerisms, no matter how much he tries to hide behind the fan. SY finds his true self embarrassing or just hard to openly share with others. So being Shen Qingqiu gives him a chance to act like a wise, powerful, and admired mentor. It gives him the chance to be someone worthy of being loved by Luo Binghe. He probably thinks LBH loves him for these qualities. LBH, however, loves him in every form with all his inherent weirdness.

Maybe over time, LBH will feel secure enough in their relationship to ask questions. Maybe SY will have accepted himself and built the communication skills to answer them. Maybe with the passing of time, the hurt would have become manageable and it would be easier to talk about it.

For now though, he's taking his secrets to his grave.

[say-hi-intrepid-heroes]

evan still cares ! (i will die on this hill)

[angelsdean]

ok but the way jack is immediately like "don't tell sam" abt the cookie crunch like yes it's a funny moment but thinking abt it for one second longer it's like ohhh so sam is annoying abt Everyone's eating habits, not just dean's? insufferable man. to quote dean: these are your issues, quit dumping them on [others]

[writtenbygracewilliams]

Peerage & Titles: rank and precedence within the peerage

[Full list of disclaimers is in the master post but tl;dr is that sources for this information are not consistent, sources may be modern, and this may be edited/expanded at anytime as my research continues.]

Sovereign > Royal family > Archbishop of Canterbury > Archbishop of York > Great Officers of State [eg Prime Minister] > Peers

Peers of England > Peers of Scotland > Peers of Great Britain > Peers of the United Kingdom > Peers of Ireland

However, never will a peer of a lower rank precede one of a higher rank [regardless of peerage]

Duke > Marquess > Earl > Viscount > Baron > Baronet

A married woman will always take on the title and precedence of her husband, even if it is her subsequent marriage and/or a lower rank or title.

A dowager peeress precedes the present holder of the same title. For example; Violet precedes Anthony.

A divorced peeress is no longer entitled to the privileges and styles of peeress that their marriage granted them. However, in the case of a Duchess, she may use the title without the The. For example; if they were to divorce, Daphne would go from Your Grace, The Duchess of Hastings to Daphne, Duchess of Hastings. The inclusion of the first name is to differentiate from a future wife of The Duke. If Simon remained unmarried, Daphne may be simply Duchess of Hastings.

Duke > Marquess > Duke’s eldest son > Earl > Marquess’s eldest son > Duke’s younger son(s) > Viscount > Earl’s eldest son > Marquess’s younger son(s) > Baron > Viscount’s eldest son(s) > Earl’s younger son(s) > Baron’s eldest son(s) > Viscount’s younger son(s) > Baron’s younger son(s) > Baronets

Children of the eldest son of a peer have precedence. For example; if Edmund was still alive [meaning Anthony would not yet be Viscount] then it would be Edmund > Violet > Anthony > Baby Edmund II > Benedict > Colin > Gregory > Anthony’s younger son(s)

Daughters take precedence after the eldest son’s wife, but before the younger son(s)’s wives. For example, if Edmund was still alive, Daphne [as Duchess, as she takes her husband’s precedence] Edmund > Violet > Anthony > Kate > Benedict > Colin > Gregory > Eloise > Francesca > Hyacinth > Sophie > Penelope > Lucy.

Canon example, because Anthony is Viscount, Daphne > Violet > Anthony > Kate > Baby Edmund II > Edmund II’s wife > Anthony’s younger son’s > Anthony’s daughters > Anthony’s younger son’s wives > Benedict > Sophie > Colin > Penelope > Gregory > Lucy > Eloise > Francesca > Hyacinth. Much like Daphne, Francesca will outrank Anthony once marrying an Earl.

Let’s all get on the same page about the full ranking/precedence, at the end of s3. Simon > Daphne > Auggie > John > Francesca > Saphne’s younger children (boys first) > Violet > Anthony > Kate > John & Francesca’s hypothetical eldest son would go here > Portia > Baby Polin, Baron Featherington > Baby Edmund II > John & Francesca’s hypothetical younger children (boys first) > Baby Polin’s eldest son > Kanthony’s future children (boys first) > Baby Polin’s younger children > Benedict > Sophie > Colin > Penelope. Polin will be outranked by their grandchildren. [I know that canonically John and Francesca have no children, but I wanted to illustrate].

This one melted my brain a little ngl. Master post here, it’s got general peerage info and links to all my other deep dives. Drop any questions in my ask :)

–GW xo

[bethanydelleman]

I'm from Canada. My colleagues at work call me Firstname, I call all of them Firstname, even my supervisor and older employees. I even call the medical doctor/PhD that is my boss Firstname... My personal physician goes by Dr. Lastname. Everyone I meet introduces themselves as Firstname since I became an adult.

This is a change, when I was a kid more people used Mr./Ms. Lastname but no more. In a professional email I may type Mr./Mrs. Lastname but generally it's all Firstname in person and even in email.

I had my daycare kids call me "Miss Firstname", just because it's short.

Western culture seems to be moving further and further away from formality. I'm in my 30s now and I don't think I've ever requested that anyone call me "Mrs. Lastname" and rarely am I addressed as such. My children call their teachers at school "Mrs/Mr Lastname" and they use "aunt/uncle/etc" but that's about it. And while I don't really think about it much in everyday life, there is something very interesting about formal modes of address that is lost.

In Jane Austen, we see characters say and even think in formal terms before they establish friendships/relationships, in Mansfield Park Fanny Price for example, staunchly sticks to "Miss Crawford" even when Mary starts to call her "Fanny". Fanny is maintaining distance from someone she doesn't like, even in her head! She also is offended when Henry takes the liberty of calling her "Firstname" before she has accepted his proposal. He says he thinks of her as Fanny, which clearly distresses her. We also know that Edmund considers Henry Crawford a close friend because he calls him "Crawford." (not Mr. Crawford)

Marianne very rapidly drops Willoughby's "Mr." in Sense & Sensibility, and he even calls her Marianne, which leads everyone to suspect they are engaged. Yet though it seems acceptable for the Dashwoods to call Edward by his first name because of their family connection, Elinor only says his first name in her head and to her sister, not to him. She maintains this social distance until they are engaged.

I don't know if I want to advocate for a more formal society because I know I would mess up and offend people. But I love the idea of just saying, "Mr. Lastname" and establishing emotional distance. I love being able to discern the closeness of two people just by how they address each other. And the way it makes a given name all that more precious, something you give not just something you use.