Posted by Cynthia
on 31/8/2009, 21:35:59, in reply to "Mountbatten of Birma, Brabourne, Knatchbull"
216.66.255.78
There are no dumb questions, maybe sometimes silly, yes, but yours aren't silly.
: Now my questions:
: As heir apparent of the earldom of
: Mountbatten of Birma, Norton Knatchbull was
: known as Lord Romsey, the courtesy title of
: the earldom. But why was he no longer lord
: Romsey after he became the 8th baron
: Brabourne?
A Baron outranks the heir to an Earldom (which could be a baron as well or a viscount). He could still use his courtesy title, but the Brabourne title on its own is "higher up" the food chain.
I thought this barony has nothing
: to do with the courtesy title of Mountbatten
: of Birma?
:
Correct
: Nortons eldest son (Nicholas Knatchbull) is
: heir apparent of the barony Brabourne. Does
: he have no courtesy title in this respect?
:
The heir to a barony has no courtesy title beyond "Honorable," like all the other children of a baron.
: Does Norton Knatchbull as the eldest son of
: the heir apparent of the earldom of
: Mountbatten of Birma have no courtesy title?
:
What do you mean? Norton was at one time the heir of an heir, but he used "Honorable" only since his father was a lord and his mother didn't have a courtesy title. Even if a woman is the heiress to a title, they don't get the same treatment as a man (so Patricia Mountbatten was never known as Lady Romsey).
: Is the (unfortunately drug-addicted)
: Nicholas Knatchbull allowed to pass on the
: barony Brabourne or the earldom of
: Mountbatten of Birma to his sister?
:
:
Not Brabourne, no, likely to an uncle. Not sure about Mountbatten of BURMA (spelling). I bet someone will know more than I do about this title!