This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Orders, decorations, and medals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Baronets use the title "Sir" before their name, just as other knights do. This is the first introduction of the idea that a baronetcy is a species of knighthood. Assuming this is actually so, shouldn't we mention this before that line? Marnanel 22:07, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Robert Baden-Powell was granted a Baronet in 1922 and the Baron Baden-Powell is now a peerage title in the United Kingdom. I included Robert Baden-Powell on the small list of notables in the article because he did indeed have the Baronet, though the title is now a peerage title. It's all a bit confusing/conflicting, but I think he warrants inclusion unless there's a good reason not to. --ABQCat 19:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Surely the two are separate: a baronetcy cannot "become" anything, it remains a baronetcy. That a baronetcy has become merged with peerage still means each hereditary title exists, although the lesser might not be mentioned. And presumably, although I know of no such case off the top of my head, it is possibly for the peerage title and the baronetcy to "demerge", as it were, although the only way I can think of this happening is if there were no sons and the peerage and baronetcy had different rules for inheritance in such an eventuality. I believe the current Rothschild barony (of Tring) is similarly merged with an earlier baronetcy.
Kneeslasher 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put species back in because a baronetcy isn't quite like a knighthood, and type would suggest that it's on the level of the Thistle or something. Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Understood, though I'm not sure that anyone will pick up on that distinction without further explanation (as evidenced by the fact that I didn't think that "type" would be saying anything different. Ddye 13:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A baronetcy is entirely different to a knighthood - to write that it is a species is a confusing misnomer. It is a class of its own, solely within the British honours system. It is based on the idea of knighthood, hence the pre-nominal 'Sir', but otherwise it is wholly separate, as well as having a place in the order of precedence higher than most knighthoods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.187.33 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps we ought to mention somewhere that the correct (but never used) form for a baronet's wife is Dame and that Lady is a social, if pervasive and historic, courtesy title not a matter of law or creation Alci12. — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"King James I erected the hereditary Order of Baronets in England on 22 May 1611, for the settlement of Ireland. He offered the dignity to 200 gentlemen of good birth, with a clear estate of 1,000 Pounds a year, on condition that each one should pay a sum equivalent to three years' pay to 30 soldiers at 8d per day per man into the King's Exchequer."

Can anyone translate these figures into modern values? Are we talking 100s, 1,000s, or millions of £? Avalon 04:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered my own question. According to How Much is that Worth Today £1,000 in 1611 is about £144,000 today. Avalon 20:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But Lloyd George collared much more than that when he sold a few of them. Kittybrewster 23:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is a baronet entitled to supporters on their achievement of arms, as peers and knights are? I realise this information is more about heraldry than titles per se, but I haven't been able to find confirmation of this anywhere. Walton monarchist89 13:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No he is not entitled (peers are, knights are not) although some are given that additional honour. Kittybrewster 14:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been misinformed, but the texts on heraldry that I've consulted say that Knights of the Garter (in English heraldry) are entitled to supporters on either side of the shield, just as peers are. Walton monarchist89 10:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The right to supporters belongs to members of the Royal Family, peers, Knights and Ladies of the Garter, Knights and Ladies of the Thistle and Knights and Dames Grand Cross and Knights Grand Commanders of the junior orders. But not other knights and baronets - although some enjoy them. Kittybrewster 11:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many baronetcies can pass to women? —Tamfang 06:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunbar, now Hope-Dunbar of Baldoon 1664

Maxwell, now Stirling-Maxwell, of Pollock 1682

Dallyell of the Binn 1685

Dunbar of Hempriggs 1706

In 1976 Lord Lyon said that, without examining the Patent of evey Scottish Baronetcy, he was not in a position to confirm that only these four can pass through the female line. Kittybrewster 13:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dame Mary Bolles, 1st Btss (née Witham) (1579–1662); the only woman apparently to be created a baronetess (of Nova Scotia);[10]" This link connects to an apparently unrelated George WithamNomoMozilla (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does one have to be a British citizen - or otherwise a subject of Her Majesty through holding another type of British nationality, or citizenship of a Commonwealth Realm - in order to be granted a baronetcy? JAJ 23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. But I think nobody who was not a British or commonwealth subject has ever been granted one. Kittybrewster 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In th early days a number of foreigers were awarded baronetcies. They include Van Tromp, a Dutch admiral. Of these, only Boreel of Amsterdam is extant. Kittybrewster 12:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been racking my brains over this as I'm certain examples exist. The notion of 'hon' knighthoods is C19. Before that a knighthood was a knighthood and mutual recognition existed across Europe. Ordinary non-hon knighhoods are easy to find but as for the baronetcy the best I can find is bb comments agreeing that a swede + a dutchman did get one.Alci12 14:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though I've encountered a baronetcy settled on a Dutchman, but I'm not sure. It would have been in the 17th century. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph van Colster, 1st Baronet, of Amsterdam, Holland (1645), Sir John Frederick van Freisendorf, 1st Baronet, of Hirdech, Sweden (1661), and Sir Gelebrand Sas van Bosch, 1st Baronet, of Holland (1680). Choess 17:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give that man a banana! Well found. I presume they are all extinct  :-)Alci12

Sporeel (Dutch) and Jejeebhoy (Indian) are not extinct. - Kittybrewster 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the above mentioned but point taken nevertheless Alci12 12:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some digging around. It turns out that a total (I think) of five baronetcies (3 for Parsees, 1 for a Hindu and one for a Muslim) were created for ethnic Indians. I think four are still extant, the Parsee ones certainly are and I think the fourth Muslim baronet was embroiled with the Indian Goverment over his estates as late as 1967. Any further information on these baronetcies would certainly be welcome.
Kneeslasher 23:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that: an Iraqi/Indian Jewish baronetcy (Sassoon). Kneeslasher 13:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious about having him in the "Baronets who do not use their baronetcy" catagory. I've seen him introduced on the BBC twice this week, and easily enough found in press articles, addressed with his title which if he was one of those people who 'strictly' don't use their title seems very odd.Alci12 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the first section introduction is a bit long. Most think of the first paragraph of an encyclopedic entry to be a summary of sort before you get into the meat of the article. I'm I in the minority of this view or is there a way to tidy it up by maybe creating another section heading? 205.157.110.11 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just do it - Kittybrewster 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the current "Cash for Honours" scandal, it would be interesting to know what the rate of charge for a baronetage has been, over the years since James Stuart introduced the title, purely as a fundraising device. There seem to have been a lot of very wealthy men created baronets, in the 19th C.

Was it a standard practice to create a baronet after they had given a specific service? The ODNB on Sir Robert Nicholas Fowler says

" He received a baronetcy from Lord Salisbury in 1885, a common honour for a former lord mayor, and in the next election, in July 1886, he was returned unopposed."

Was there a list of jobs that gained this honour, or was a substantial payment? Is there a good history book that will tell me about this? The article lacks much by way of citations.

=== Vernon White (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord Mayor of London was customarily made a Baronet (from 1889 anyway, excepting 1910-12) until John Major discontinued the practice. Also Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretaries (eg Sir Derrick Gunston, Sir George Harvie Watt, Sir Knox Cunningham. Source: Sir Martin Lindsay of Dowhill, Bt (1979). The Baronetage,, 2nd edition. - Kittybrewster 09:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Harold Wilson. While JM did recommend the last baronetcy (thatcher) the last regular baronetcies were under Alec Douglas Home( overlapping into 65 under Wilson). Baronetcies were pretty common for top generals, ministers and later newspaper barons merchants and brewers. It was sometimes called the 'beerage' in the late c19 Alci12 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered special clauses to remainders as they all seemd to relate to succession which is a remainder. There are a few baronets where precedence is assigned (rather than the normal by date system) I suppose that might be considered a special clause but only matters for a handful of examples. Alci12 17:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Originally baronets also had other rights, including the right to have their eldest son knighted on his 21st birthday. However, beginning in the reign of George IV these rights have been gradually revoked (by Order in Privy Council which was not competent to make such an Order revoking a right granted by a Sovereign), on the grounds that sovereigns should not be bound by acts made by their predecessors."

Since the award of any knighthood is an exercise of preogative power the refusal to grant is, irrespective of the promise of knighthood in patents prior to ~1827, rather moot. Alci12 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parenthetical in that bit strikes me as very weird. Is Wikipedia lecturing the British government on what it can and cannot do? Unless there was some outcry at the time on the subject, I think we can be pretty sure that the act was within the competency of the Privy Council. --Jfruh (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of foreign borents, can they use the title "Sir" and "Lady" even they are not the citizens of the UK and commonwealth countries?--219.79.184.92 16:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jejeebhoy Baronets and Sporeel Baronets do so. - Kittybrewster 17:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No, only if UK/Commonwealth citizen. User:Green01 6:09, Jan. 30 2006 (UTC).

I have always understood that the title of baronet can only be passed to an eldest son and that if a baronet fails to produce a male heir (or that heir is disinclined to pursue the matter) the title will become extinct. Since it seems unlikely that many new baronetcies will be granted in the future the number of baronetcies can only decline and eventually the title will disappear altogether. Is this correct? - 81.145.241.123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.2.197.213 (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You never know. We live in extremely interesting times for hereditary titles in general. We need to see what happens when the next few Prime Ministers (especially Conservative ones) retire.
Kneeslasher 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However I wasn't really speculating on whether there will be new baronetcies created (Indeed you never know) but whether a baronetcy (unlike a dukedom for example) becomes extinct in the absence of a son. Do you know the answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.123 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to be the case with Sir Edmund Backhouse, 2nd Baronet, whose successor was a nephew. See note on talk page Talk:Sir Edmund Backhouse, 2nd Baronet === Vernon White (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is a resounding NO. See for example the Arbuthnot of Kittybrewster baronets potential succession if the present incumbent has no son. - Kittybrewster 21:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking it up my understanding was that any male descendants of the original creation can inherit. So even if all the males in the 20th century finally died out, and the baronetcy was created, say, in 1800, then there may be male descendants of the first baronet throughout the 19th century who have escaped notice in the 20th, being so far removed, but who will still have a claim if everyone else in between has failed and could be traced. David Lauder 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the older writers refer to baronets as "knights-baronets". Is this incorrect? What does it say on the patents? (I could go and look at one but I am hoping that kittybrewster might look at his!) David Lauder 14:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...the dignity state and degree of a BARONET ... - Kittybrewster 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pah, As I'd added the LP you could have seen it in the article itself. However that really only tells us the modern form not the historic. Looking at the LG I can see the baronet usage at least as far back as the 1660s though I can't comment beyond that. [ed.] Reading this back David I was reading the LG a few days ago which reminded me of an older use ~ the Right Honorable Sir George Jeffreys Knight and Baronet, Lord Chief Justice of His Majesties Court of Kings Bench, Alci12 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a confusion is arising between 'knight' baronet and Knight banneret? Certainly, the history on this page is confusing. The article begins by stating (correctly) that the rank of baronet was invented by James VI & I. But under the 'history' section, it describes baronets created in the 14th and 15th centuries! They certainly sound like bannerets from the information given. The fact that some were paid for is not extraordinary: it could conceivably refer to the knight's fee. A baronetcy is a rank of nobility, not chivalry. But don't follow the information given at Knight banneret too conscientiously: the article needs serious work to make it accurate and comprehensive. I'll try and improve it when I get time. Gwinva 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, beginning in the reign of George IV, these rights have been gradually revoked (by Order in Privy Council, which was not competent to make such an Order revoking a right granted by a Sovereign), on the grounds that sovereigns should not be bound by acts made by their predecessors.

I don't understand this bit. The rights were revoked by an instrument which was not competent to do so? Marnanel 13:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if anybody knows who the youngest first creation of a baronet was? I recently created Sir James Rushout, 1st Baronet, who was created a baronet at the age of 17. Is he the youngest? --New Progressive 20:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of a younger 1st creation. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These words are used and are not defined, can someone define them please:

1. attainder
2. remainder - I am assuming it means the same thing as clause
3. extant

Thanks. BeckyAnne(talk) 04:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attainder means attainted or forfeited; remainder means the destination (males, male/female/ heirs of body, heirs general etc); extant means existing. David Lauder 07:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that British hereditary peers are not automatically entitled to sit in the House of Lords, and can be elected to the Commons, is there any real distinction between Baronetages and other hereditary titles? --Jfruh (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets are still not nobility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.74.1 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets inherit the right to wear a badge or medal. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have a question about formating for entries here on Wiki for Baronets. I have seen some entries as 'Sir So and So' and others that have a first and last name, then the 11th Baronet. What is the correct entry format here in Wiki for a biography of a baronet?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Smythe, 1st Baronet is fine. John Smythe, 1st Baronet is always wrong. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article on Sir William states unequivocally that he was a baronet, and his baronetcy appears in the general list, he is not mentioned in 'baronetcies created on recommendation of the canadian government'. would that not have been the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toyokuni3 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be but we need a source for that. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a baronet becomes a Baron, Earl or whatever, does the "Bt." postnominal get subsumed? A baronetcy is neither a peerage nor exactly the same as a knighthood. A knight who becomes a peer still has the relevant postnominal, eg. Lord Smith of London, KCMG. Why not Lord Jones of Glasgow, Bt.? I ask this because we don't have "Bt." after Robert Baden-Powell's name, but I suspect we should. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, convention removes it. So for example from the Official London Gazette AllsoulsDay (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC):[reply]

Whitehall, April 14, 1923.

The KING has been pleased to give and grant unto Lieutenant-General Sir Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell Bt., G.C.V.O., K.C.B., His Majesty's Royal licence and authority to wear the Cross of Commander

of the Legion of Honour...

Whitehall, November 6, 1929.

The KING has been pleased to give and grant unto Lieutenant-General The Lord Baden-Powell, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.C.B., His Majesty's Royal licence and authority to

wear the Insignia of the Order of the White Lion...

Two and a bit years on, thanks for the info. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested that the new page Order of Baronets be merged here. It is an account of the dates of establishment of the various baronetages, and effectively duplicates/overlaps with information on this page. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Outback the koala (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is an orphan almost anyway.... I am just going to merge it. Outback the koala (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This following paragraph is just plain misleading:

Baronetcies have four European equivalents from a ranking perspective: the Italian title of nobility Nobile, the Austrian and South German title of Edler von, extinct old-Polish panek ("lordling") and the Hungarian - (úr - földesúr) baronet is a title of nobility (peerage) known also as the hereditary territorial and manorial feudal lord of "von" ... (Example: Johanus Turcsányi von Turcsány), and Ritter and the Dutch Erfridder, may be held to be similar. There were originally three hereditary knighthoods in Ireland, of which two remain today.

There are several major things wrong with that paragraph and there may be more. Firstly, a baronetcy is not a title of nobility nor does it have anything to do with a peerage. I also happen to know that neither Poland nor Hungary had a peerage system. Secondly an Italian Nobile is the equivalent of the British style "The Honourable", used for the children of titled nobles, and has no connection whatsoever with baronetcies. Thirdly, the closest German equivalent to a baronet is a Ritter not an Edler. An Edler approximates an esquire. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed as of today since there are no objections. Also removed is the following: "The name baronet is a diminutive of the peerage title baron. The rank of a baronet is between that of a baron and a knight."

Many knights rank above Baronets. Those of the Orders of the Garter, the Thistle, and St. Patrick, respectively precede baronets. It is also misleading to link the status of baronet to the title of baron (on the basis that they sound similar), since baronetcies are neither a form of baron nor nobility nor peerages. A better comparison would be to a banneret. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the three Irish hereditary knighthoods were the medieval Knight of Kerry and Knight of Glin, both extant, and the much later Knight of Kinelea created by Henry VIII for the O'Shaughnessys, apparently declared forfeit along with their lands following their support of James II. Some O'Shaughnessys today are convinced they were baronets and don't realize they appear to be demoting themselves a little by saying so. As if their Chiefs of the Name really needed the extra title anyway, but it was Henry being good to supporters. DinDraithou (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw the Black-White-Green Knights business is pathetic and borderline servile. I don't know what to do about it. DinDraithou (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 1 in this article appears to be nothing but original research. Unless this can be seriously cleaned up and properly sourced, I propose to remove it.--Korruski (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It all comes from The Official Roll. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering, as the idea of Baronetcy itself seems notable (hence this page being here!), does it follow that all Baronets are inherently notable? I've come across several lists of Baronets, for example the Bellingham Baronets, where the list is incomplete, but am not sure whether it's worth my time putting stub articles in, or whether they're just going to be deleted as somebody thinks they're not notable, because in their country they don't HAVE Baronets? Jcuk (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable by virtue of being a baronet. But if you were to fill in details on the page of the Bellingham Baronets that would be great. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks....it seems odd to me that the concept of Baronetcy itself seems notable enough for an article, but somebody attaining that rank isnt, by virtue of attaining the rank of Baronet, notable.. but I guess that's Wikipedia for you :-) Jcuk (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first article to be treated this way was Dashwood Baronets as amended by Choess in April 2007. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why odd? The concept of Teacher is notable enough to have an article, but it doesn't mean that all teachers have to be notable. 190.31.152.191 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article instructs how one should address the wife of a baronet, but not the husband of a baronetess. 71.219.173.1 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Smith. A wife takes the rank of her husband. A husband does not take the rank of his wife. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. For completeness, this information should be added to the article. 71.34.154.253 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general principal is described at Style_(manner_of_address)#United_Kingdom and on other pages on nobility. 212.44.43.80 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the History section, and the first paragraph of the quoted source, are pretty much identical - this looks silly. One of them should go. They are slightly different: the main paragraph names the eight baronetcies, the quote the bit about losing the right of summons to Parliament. It feels to me a fairly blatant act of plagiarism to ditch the quote without substantially rewording the main paragraph. 212.44.43.80 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The current holder of the title is Sir Nicholas Bacon, 14th Baronet, whose title was created by King Charles I in 1611." But in 1611, the future Charles I was an eleven-year-old boy. Is there a mistake somewhere? (RJPe (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This doesn't make a lot of sense. The text says that the hand should be the left (sinister) one, and then says a mistake has been made, because the hand is the right (dexter) one. But if you look at the picture of the badge, the thumb is on the left of the palm, and the creases of the fingers and palm are clearly drawn in white over the red hand. Since you only have creases on the inside of the hand, then the hand depicted must be the left hand, as intended. 4th September, 6:27 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.58.148 (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under History of the term:

"The term baronet has medieval origins. Sir Thomas de la More, describing the Battle of Battenberg (1321), mentioned that baronets took part, along with barons and knights.

According to The Official Roll of the Baronetage:

the Baronetage is of far more ancient origin than many people may think. The term baronet is believed to have been first applied to nobility who for one reason or another had lost the right of summons to Parliament. The earliest mention of baronets was in the Battle of Barrenberg in 1321."

A Google search for "Battle of Barrenberg" redirects to "Battle of Battenberg". If "Search instead for Battle of Barrenberg" is chosen instead, this (Baronet) article tops the list, and the other hits seem all to point to this article's text or to the source from which it was taken (lacking a citation, incidentally). Can anyone cast light on this? Was there perhaps a transcription error of some kind in some old text? Frankly, I'm having trouble finding anything on a "Battle of Battenberg" OR a "Battle of Barrenberg". Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Citation needed tag. Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His article says he has the right to create Nova Scotia Baronets. How is that? I though only the Crown could do that. 77.69.34.203 (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baronet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203033858/http://www.riddarhuset.se/jsp/index.jsp?id=553&state=2&postId=162 to http://www.riddarhuset.se/jsp/index.jsp?id=553&state=2&postId=162

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain why Dame Mary Bolles, Btss is linked to an article on a RC bishop who has no apparent connection to her (but for the (maiden) surname) at all? Mithrennaith (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles use the terms baronet, baronetage and baronetcy. Only baronet is defined (in the [[baronet][ article), but the other two terms are not despite the fact that both baronetage and baronetcy are redirects to baronet. Could someone who knows what these terms mean spell out their definitions please? JanCeuleers (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A baronetcy is the actual position. Like Dukedom for Dukes or Viscounty for Viscounts. The baronetage is the collective body of all baronets, similar to how the term “peerage” is used as a collective term for all peers. -Anonymous user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.159.142 (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a list of Baronetcies recommended by British colonies and dominions? If so the heading should be amended. Since all have the title 'Sir' it assumes all are British subjects. Since all are British subjects how can any be British expatriates or non-British nationals? Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refer to Sir: the title is not restricted to British subjects. JanCeuleers (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point but my main question was who made the recommendations. How about ‘Baronetcies conferred outside the United Kingdom’? Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik no baronetcy has ever been conferred on the advice of a Commonwealth Government only the UK Government. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baronet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815141938/http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/baronet/family-of-a-baronet.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/baronet/family-of-a-baronet.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050711013704/http://www.debretts.co.uk/ to http://www.debretts.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150306051137/http://www.baronetage.org/official-roll-of-the-baronets/ to http://www.baronetage.org/official-roll-of-the-baronets/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please 'realign' last two sentences of above please?

I made an amendment ie from Peers to Dukes; Marquesses and Earls as daughters of Viscounts and Barons din ne get Lady courtesy but my archaic phone has completely buggerd the textual alignment and all attempts to correct it seem to make matters worse - oh the joys of being pedantic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orgdanptw (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to raise this, but the last two-and-a-half sentences of the first paragraph of the History of the term section appear to be a copyright violation. They were added in this commit on 30 Sep 2006 by Kittybrewster, and have been lifted, word for word, from a page on the website of The Standing Council of the Baronetage. The Wayback Machine demonstrates that this text was the on Standing Council of the Baronetage's website before it was copied to Wikipedia. This could well have been an inadvertent copyright violation, but I think it is necessary to remove the offending text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.45.16 (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under royal warrants of 1612 and 1613, certain privileges were accorded to baronets. Firstly, no person or persons should have place between baronets and the younger sons of peers. …

I heard once that it was promised to the first baronets that no new higher title would ever be created. This came up when it was proposed to make Winston Churchill a super-duke, called a "Consul". I have no idea how to document that. —Tamfang (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets rank below barons, but seemingly above all knights grand cross, knights commander and knights bachelor of the British chivalric orders, that are in turn below in chivalric precedence than the most senior British chivalric orders of the Garter and the Thistle.

Where does that "seemingly" come from?

Why not say simply "above all knights of any order or degree"? Spelling it out like that tempts a reader to ask what knights have been omitted from the list. —Tamfang (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]