Social Victorians/British Aristocracy

The Strata of the Aristocracy and Upper Classes
Speaking about 19th-century England in general, Daniel Poole (in his What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist — the Facts of Daily Life in 19th-Century England) says, There were two orders of titled folk in England. Dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons (who ranked in that order) were known as the peerage. Considerably below them on the social scale and not peers came the baronets and knights, easily recognizable because they were always addressed as "Sir."

Together with the Bishops and the Archbishops of the Church of England, the peers composed the House of Lords, and, indeed, a reference to a "lord" almost always meant a peer or one of his children. Jane Austen's novels are set at the intersection of the aristocracy and the "squirearchy," the baronets, knights and country-level gentry.

According to David Cannadine in The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy,"In 1880, there were 580 peers, of whom 431 were hereditary members of the House of Lords by virtue of possessing United Kingdom peerages. In addition, there were 7 peeresses in their own right, and 41 Scottish and 101 Irish peers, who were unable to sit in the House of Lords because they lacked UK titles."

The Ranks
The ranks are more complex than this basic outline suggests. For example, the monarch has dukedoms to grant to royals. Also, rank is not the same as class, which is a socioeconomic category.
 * 1) Royals
 * 2) Peers (People Who Hold Hereditary Titles)
 * 3) Duke and Duchess (His and Her Grace)
 * 4) Marquess and Marchioness
 * 5) Earl and Countess
 * 6) Viscount and Vicountess
 * 7) Baron and Baroness
 * 8) Landed Gentry, or Squirearchy
 * 9) Baronet and Baronetess (Even though not hereditary or part of the peerage, this title is aristocratic.) David Cannadine says, "Between the peers and the commoners came the baronets, of whom there were 856 in 1880. ... This, again, was a legally established title, a hereditary knighthood, the holders of which ranked next to the peers in order of precedence."
 * 10) Knight and Dame (an honor rather than an aristocratic title)
 * 11) Gentleman

Baron and Baroness
Barons were addresssed as Right Honourable [barony], although the honorific could precede their surname rather than the name of the barony if they were not the same. A woman was Lady [barony] but not Baroness unless she held the title in her own right. The honorific used for their children was Honorable, most often it seems with their surname rather than the name of the barony if they were not the same.

Dukedoms extant in 1897 in Order of Precedence
Key: (Peerage [England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland and UK], date of creation )

The Royal Dukes (for "members of the British royal family" ) follow the nonroyal dukes in the order of precedence unless they have a title, like Prince of Wales, that would affect their placement in the order.


 * 1) Duke of Edinburgh (United Kingdom, 1866)
 * 2) Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (United Kingdom, 1874)
 * 3) Duke of Fife (United Kingdom, 1889, 24 Apr 1900-29 Jan 1912 with a special remainder to his daughters) (?)
 * 4) Duke of York (United Kingdom, 1892)

The Hereditary Dukes, in precedence order based on the date of the creation of the title


 * 1) Duke of Norfolk (England, 1483)
 * 2) Duke of Somerset (England, 1547)
 * 3) Duke of Hamilton (Scotland, 1643)
 * 4) Duke of Buccleuch (Scotland, 1663)
 * 5) Duke of Grafton, co. Northampton (England, 1675)
 * 6) Duke of Lennox (Scotland, 1675)
 * 7) Duke of Richmond (England, 1675)
 * 8) Duke of Beaufort (England, 1682)
 * 9) Duke of Saint Albans (England, 1684)
 * 10) Duke of Queensberry (Scotland, 1684)
 * 11) Duke of Bedford (England, 1694)
 * 12) Duke of Devonshire (England, 1694)
 * 13) Duke of Leeds (England, 1694)
 * 14) Duke of Argyll (Scotland, 1701)
 * 15) Duke of Marlborough (England, 1702)
 * 16) Duke of Atholl, co. Perth (Scotland, 1703)
 * 17) Duke of Rutland (England, 1703)
 * 18) Duke of Roxburghe (Scotland, 1707)
 * 19) Duke of Montrose (Scotland, 1707)
 * 20) Duke of Brandon (Great Britain, 1711)
 * 21) Duke of Portland (Great Britain, 1716)
 * 22) Duke of Manchester (England, 1719)
 * 23) Duke of Leinster (Ireland, 1766)
 * 24) Duke of Northumberland (Great Britain, 1766)
 * 25) Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale (Great Britain, 1799)
 * 26) Duke of Cambridge (United Kingdom, 1801)
 * 27) Duke of Wellington (United Kingdom, 1814)
 * 28) Duke of Buckingham and Chandos (United Kingdom, 1822)
 * 29) Duke of Sutherland (United Kingdom, 1833)
 * 30) Duke of Abercorn (Ireland, 1868)
 * 31) Duke of Westminster (United Kingdom, 1874)
 * 32) Duke of Gordon (United Kingdom, 1876)
 * 33) Duke of Albany (United Kingdom, 1881)

The Middle Classes
Much analysis and history of the Victorian age unconsciously assumes that middle-class values were universal. The assumption that Victorian women were concerned in important ways about "respectability" is a perfect example. Many very wealthy and aristocratic women do not seem to have worried about their reputation in the way that a middle-class woman would.

The aristocracy was defined by the titles and their characteristics, especially their inheritability. But the children of aristocrats who were not titled themselves were moved to a more liminal status, except perhaps those whose parents' titles entitled them to an honorific like Lady or Lord. The scholarship defining the classes has evolved over the decades; for now, it seems clearest to think of class as a subject position, especially useful for the untitled children of aristocrats and, as Ariel Beaujot does, the "redundant" or "surplus" middle-class women who did not marry but who attempted to keep up their middle-class appearances. (4)

In their Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780 and 1850, Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall define the middle class by its values and ideologies around morality (especially its protestant Christianity), family (especially domesticity and its separation from the public sphere as well as family roles) and gender. Beaujot sees the middle class as"an imagined grouping that the middling sort ought to embody. I contend that class should be conceived of as an ongoing accomplishment. My argument, then, is that Victorians performed their class roles on a daily basis according to the values that were imagined as middle class, aristocratic, or working class. My work looks at accessories as consumables that help to differentiate the middle class from other classes. I argue that middle-class women took symbols originally associated with the aristocracy and modified them to help make their class position real through consumption. (4)"Historians have attempted to define the middle classes by income:

[Add about the racialization of poverty?]
 * 1) Lower middle class: minimum annual income (1867) — £100–£300 (17, n. 9)
 * 2) Middle class
 * 3) Upper middle class: minimum annual income (1851) — £900–£1000 (17, n. 9)

Rules of Precedence
In official processions that included the monarch, who walked in front of or behind whom (or even facing which direction when walking) was very important and clearly spelled out. Generally speaking, the ranks followed each other, but because the Rules of Precedence also take into account, say, the children of peers who don't have their own titles, they are also quite intricate. People typically were treated according to their highest title.

Also, these rules were used to determine the sequence people would form for less formal occasions, like going in to dinner. Newspaper accounts of social events hosted by the Queen or Prince and Princess of Wales followed the rules of precedence for categories of people but not for individuals. That is, dukes would be listed after royals, including royalty from other countries, but within that category people would be generally alphabetized. The alternative would have been for the reporters and editors to have worked out the placement of every single individual present or invited.

Honorifics
According to the Britannica topics website,"In the United Kingdom marquesses are “most honourable”; earls, viscounts, and barons are “right honourable,” a style also borne by all privy councillors, including the lord mayor of London and the lord provost of Edinburgh during office. The title of “honourable” in the United Kingdom is mainly confined to the sons and daughters of peers, except by special licence of the Crown, and is the common style of the younger sons of earls and of the children of viscounts, barons, and legal life peers. The eldest sons of dukes, marquesses, and earls bear “by courtesy” their father’s second title, the younger sons of dukes and marquesses having the courtesy title “Lord” prefixed to their given name. The daughters of dukes, marquesses, and earls are styled “Lady.” The title of “honourable” is also given to all present or past maids of honour and to the judges of the High Court. A circuit court judge is, however, “his honour' or “her honour.” The epithet is also applied to the House of Commons as a body and to individual members during debate (“the honourable member for X”). Other corporate bodies have, by tradition or grant, the right to bear the style, including The Honourable The Irish Society, the Inns of Court (The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple), and the Honourable Artillery Company. The East India Company also had the prefix “Honourable.” The style may not be assumed by corporate bodies at will, as was proved in the case of the Society of Baronets, whose original style of “Honourable Society” was dropped by command."
 * Duke or Duchess: Your Grace
 * Marquess and Marchioness: The Most Honourable
 * Lady
 * Lord
 * Countess: the wife of an earl had the title Countess.
 * Honourable or Hon.: the children of earls, viscounts?, and barons had the title of "honourable."

Miss, Madam, Ma'am, Mrs., Mistress
The usage of these terms has changed over time, so what they mean exactly depends on when they were uttered as well as in what context, including the class standing of the person spoken of as well as the person speaking. Miss did not always signify that a woman was unmarried, and a version of Mistress did not always signify that she was or had been married.

Amy Louise Erickson says,"in early modern England the mistress most commonly designated the female equivalent of master–that is, a person with capital who directed servants or apprentices. Prior to the mid eighteenth century, there was only Mrs (or Mris, Ms, or other forms of abbreviation). Mrs was applied to any adult woman who merited the social distinction, without any marital connotation. Miss was reserved for young girls until the mid eighteenth century."Part of the complexity of these terms is that they have historically been contaminated by negative associations, with implications of sexual impropriety. Linguist Chi Luu says,"In fact, as Richard, Lord Braybrooke noted in 1855 in reference to Samuel Pepys’s diary, “It is worthy of remark, that the fair sex may justly complain of almost every word in the English language designating a female, having, at some time or another, been used as a term of reproach; for we find Mother, Madam, Mistress and Miss, all denoting women of bad character; and here Pepys adds the title of my Lady to the number, and completes the ungracious catalogue.”"

According to Mimi Matthews,"During the nineteenth century, the proper address for an unmarried young lady was very much a matter of rank — both the rank of the one being addressed and the one doing the addressing. For instance, a maidservant might acknowledge a command given by her young unmarried mistress by saying “Yes, miss.” Whereas a gentleman might address the same unmarried young lady with a “Yes, madam” or “Yes, ma’am.” According to How to Do It (1864): “We address a married lady, or widow, as Madam, or by name, Missis or Mistress Jones. In answering a question, we contract the Madam to ma’am — as ‘yes, ma’am, no ma’am, very fine day, ma’am.’ A single lady, of a certain age, may also be addressed as Madam.”"As referenced above, proper address for an unmarried young lady also depended on her age. If she was old enough to marry — such as Elizabeth Bennet in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice — a gentleman would address her as “Madam” or “Ma’am.”

Miss
In her Daily Life in Victorian England, Sally Mitchell says that the eldest daughter is referred to using Miss and her last name only: “The eldest sister in a family with several daughters was called, for example, ‘Miss Bowen.” Younger sisters were called ‘Miss’ with both first name and surname: ‘Miss Anne Bowen,' 'Miss Cecilia Bowen,' and so forth.” For example, Rueben Sassoon's eldest daughter would in 1897 be Miss Sassoon, and for all her younger sisters the first name would be required: Rueben Sassoon's second daughter would be Miss Luna Sassoon.

The 1864 American How to do It, agrees approximately: "A young lady, if the eldest of the family, unmarried, is entitled to the sirname, as Miss Smith, while her younger sisters are called Miss Mary, Miss Julia, &c."

To address someone as Miss with no last name would be appropriate only for a servant or person of much lower class: one might say, "yes, miss." How to do It says, “The Term ‘Miss,’ used by itself, is very inelegant.”

Mrs.
Luu says, with respect to what changed in the 19th century, in fact, throughout the eighteenth century, “Mrs.” was closer to a professional rank for women of capital, businesswomen, and women of higher social status, whether married or unmarried, much like the role the later “Ms.” took on (German uses “frau” regardless of marital status in much the same way). Business proprietors were normally addressed as “Mrs.” as a matter of professional courtesy, but were officially recorded with just their own names, sans title, for example on their business cards. In fact, while Samuel Johnson’s dictionary presents all the various bipolar meanings eighteenth century society has to offer for “mistress” (the title of which Mrs. was originally an abbreviation, though it’s gone through some pronunciation changes) from a woman who governs, a woman skilled in anything, a teacher, a beloved woman, an insult for a woman or a whore, the one thing he does not define a mistress as is a married woman. It was simply not necessary, especially as, according to Erickson, unmarried women in England at the time had all the same legal rights as men did. Many of them headed their own households, owned property, ran their own businesses and joined professional guilds according to their trades. “Mrs.” was very much the linguistic equal of “Mr,” for adults, just as “Miss” was used for young girls in the same way as the now outdated “Master” was used for boys before adulthood. None of these titles entailed any marital status, but importantly, a Mrs. did seem to be accorded a title of respect regardless of the men in her life. Erikson says, "Even when adult single women started to use Miss, Mrs still designated a social or business standing, and not the status of being married, until at least the mid nineteenth century."

The Season
The social "season" for the English aristocracy, when they were in London and away from their country estates, was May, June and July. Irish aristocrats, on the other hand, went to Dublin "from Christmas to St. Patrick's Day on March 17, but evening parties started with fox hunting in November."

Timeline
of the big changes in the 19th century

The 19th century saw a number of important changes in the status of those who had been in the aristocracy — or barred from the aristocracy, including legislation reforming the electorate, Parliament and the relationship between titles, wealth and social influence.

Wealth
In his Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy, Cannadine says,"Between 1809 and 1879, only eleven fortunes were left in excess of two / million pounds; but between 1880 and 1939, there were eighty-three. [But after 1880 wealth in Britain increased enormously for a few people.] It was, of course, not riches on the American scale: tens of millions of pounds did not signify compared with hundreds of millions of dollars, whatever the rate of exchange. Yet many of the areas in which such wealth was accumulated were the same: gold and diamonds, newspapers, consumer good, international contracting and finance, but not agricultural land. ... And, even more importantly, this new wealth dwarfed all except the greatest patrician fortunes. Between 1809 and 1879, some 88 percent of British millionaires had been landowners, but between 1880 and 1914, the figure dropped to only 33 per cent, and it fell still further thereafter. ... In short, the real leviathans of wealth were no longer British; or, if they were, they were no longer preponderantly drawn from the old landowning classes."

1800s
Speaking of the number of people eligible to sit in the House of Lords, Kimberly Schutte talks about the number of titled peers: By 1800, the number had increased to 267.[31] Just over 1,000 people held peerages across the whole of the eighteenth century.[32]

[fn31] 31 Cannon gives the number of peers in existence on Jan. 1 each decade during the 18th century: In 1700 there were 173, 1710 — 167, 1720 — 190, 1730 — 189, 1740 — 183, 1750 — 187, 1760 — 181, 1770 — 197, 1780 —189, 1790 — 220. Cannon, The Aristocratic Century, 15.

[fn32] 32 Cannon, The Aristocratic Century, 10.

1860s
1867 Reform Act: extended the franchise

1870s
In the late 1870s the aristocracy consisted of 7,000 families, or "the 431 hereditary members of the House of Lords" (Spencer).

In his Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy, Cannadine says,"Until the late 1870s, the British parliamentary system remained fundamentally rural but with urban enclaves: the majority of the constituencies were either small boroughs or amenable counties, and the majority of their MPs came from the landowning élite. (153)"

The collapse of the economic basis of the aristocracy began with an "agricultural depression"
In the late 1870s in the UK"80 percent of the country’s acreage was owned by 7,000 families, principally those of the 431 hereditary members of the House of Lords—the dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons of the United Kingdom. Beginning in the 1880s, the export of grain from the Americas, followed by the arrival in Europe of refrigerated meat, halved agricultural income in Britain. What had been the lifeblood of the great estates for hundreds of years was cut off suddenly, and unexpectedly, with devastating effect, in both the short and the long term: agricultural rents were the same in 1936 as they had been in 1800."

====American heiresses were admitted to the Prince of Wales's circle and the Marlborough House Set, bringing big quantities of capital to the beleaguered Peerage==== "Consuelo Vanderbilt was contracted to bring a $2.5 million ($66 million today) dowry when she reluctantly married the Ninth Duke of Marlborough. In 1895, nine American heiresses married titled British men. Three years prior to that, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had noted the trend, in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: “One by one the management of the noble houses of Great Britain is passing into the hands of our fair cousins from across the Atlantic,” he wrote. Between 1870 and the First World War, 100 — 1 in 10 — aristocratic marriages were contracted with Americans."

1880s
In his Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy, David Cannadine says,"At the very end of Victoria's period of unpopularity, during the late 1870s and early 1880s, it was still asserted that the monarch was surrounded by aristocratic hangers-on who were little more than drones and flunkeys, and that nepotism, extravagance, and peculation were rife. ... But thereafter, as the monarchy became increasingly venerated and worshipped, the patrician personnel of the court also came to enjoy what might best be termed immunity by association. Criticism of the retinues of titled courtiers was effectively stilled, and the fact that recruitment remained entirely by patronage and connection went virtually unremarked. Unlike the civil service, there was no reform / in procedure and no revolution in personnel. In the court, more than anywhere else, 'Old Corruption' did not merely linger: it positively thrived."

Cannadine says, "the 1880s were the most troubled decade — for the nobles and notables of Britain, no less than for the titled and territorial classes of Europe — since the 1840s or the 1790s."

In his "The Creation of Peerages in England, 1837–1911," R. E. Humphrey says, "While the Reform Act of 1867 greatly increased middle-class power in the House of Commons, it was only after 1885 that the peerage creations marked this transfer of power in any considerable degree."

The 1885 Reform Act extended the franchise further.

1890s
1895 13 July to 7 August, the 1895 General Election, which the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists won, with Robert Arthur Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury as Prime Minister. Barbara Tuchman says that Salisbury's cabinet was "the last government in the western world to possess all the attributes of aristocracy in working condition."

Court Dress
For court occasions, especially highly ritualistic ones, the rules for what people wore could be quite specific and codified. These rules evolved over time, of course. The rules for peeresses are given here, but all of the codified elements are described on the Debrett's "Dress Codes" page.

Being presented to Queen Victoria, for example, required young women, especially, to wear white gowns with a cluster of three white ostrich plumes in their hair, but all women were expected to wear what were called those Prince of Wales's feathers and a gown with a train. Structured social events like levees and drawing rooms or even just having dinner with the royal family required men to wear prescribed attire with knee breeches and silk stockings.

The most formal occasion requiring specified dress was (and still is) a coronation. According to Debrett's the rules were codified in the late 17th century and modified with the coronations of Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III. The specifications run from the color of the robe (or mantle) to the number of rows of what kind of fur to the pattern on the coronet to the length of the train.

Caveats and Quirks

 * 1) Courtesy titles exist, even for high-ranking titles like earl, which were granted to the children of the highest-ranking title in place; for example, the Duke of Percy is a courtesy title for the eldest son and heir presumptive of the Duke of Northumberland, and the  Earl of Dalkeith is a courtesy title for the  Duke of Buccleuch.
 * 2) "Life peers" were introduced as a way to get more people into the House of Lords who might vote for Home Rule for Ireland.

Peerages Online

 * Burke, Bernard. Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage. Ed., John Burke. Vol. 60. London: Burke's Peerage Limited., 1898. Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=NlhQAQAAMAAJ (accessed June 2019).
 * Cokayne, George E., ed. Complete Peerage: England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom Extant, Extinct, or Dormant. Exeter: William Pollard; London: George Bell, 1898. Google Books:(accessed June 2019).
 * Vol. I, A to Bo. (1887). Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=27EKAAAAYAAJ (accessed June 2019).
 * Vol. II, Bra to C. (1889). Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=D7IKAAAAYAAJ (accessed June 2019).
 * Vol. III, D to F. (1890). Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=k7IKAAAAYAAJ (accessed June 2019).
 * Vol. IV, G to K. (1892). Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=KbIKAAAAYAAJ (accessed June 2019).
 * Vol. V, L to M. (1893). Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=wrIKAAAAYAAJ (accessed June 2019).
 * Vol. VI, N to R. (1895). Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=JLAKAAAAYAAJ (accessed June 2019).
 * Vol. VII, S to T. Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=VyowAAAAYAAJ (accessed June 2019).
 * Vol. VIII, U–Z. Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=6K8KAAAAYAAJ (accessed June 2019).
 * Vol. VIII, Part 2. Appendix, Corrigenda, Occurrences after 1 January 1898, and General Index to Notes, &tc. Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=czEwAAAAYAAJhttps://books.google.com/books?id=czEwAAAAYAAJ (accessed June 2019).
 * Cracroft's Peerage: The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage. http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/ accessed December 2016).
 * Debrett's
 * Debrett's Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage, and Companionage. Ed., Robert H. Mair. Royal Edition. London: Dean, 1884. Rpt. Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=Vlo-AQAAIAAJ (accessed April 2015).
 * Debrett's House of Commons and The Judicial Bench: Illustrated with 800 Armorial Engravings. Comp. and ed., Robert Henry Mair. 20th ed. London: Dean, 1886. Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/debrettshouseo1886londuoft/page/n41/mode/2up.
 * Debrett's Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage, and Companionage. Ed., Arthur G. M. Hesilrige. Royal Edition. London: Dean, 1916. Rpt. Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=Ujg4TVs_3RkC (accessed June 2019).
 * Kelly's Handbook to the Upper Ten Thousand for 1879, Containing about Twenty Thousand Names of the Titled, Landed & Official Classes. Fifth Annual Edition. London: Kelly and Co., 1879: 276. Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=W9gNAAAAQAAJ (accessed June 2019).
 * Lodge, Edmund. The Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire as at Present Existing. 59th ed. London: Hurst and Blackett, 1890. Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=BxQwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA267 (accessed June 2019).
 * Lundy, Daryll, ed. The Peerage: A Genealogical Survey of the Peerage of Britain as Well as the Royal Families of Europe https://www.thepeerage.com/index.htm (accessed June 2019). [darryl@thepeerage.com]
 * "Peerages by Courtesy." Debrett's. (Accessed March 2015).
 * Rayment, Leigh. Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page http://www.leighrayment.com (accessed June 2019).

Biographical Dictionaries

 * Howard, Joseph Jackson. Visitation of England and Wales. Frederick Arthur Crisp, ed. Vol. 12. [Privately printed by Crisp, #91 of 500 ], 1904. Google Books https://books.google.com/books?id=VFBFAAAAYAAJ.
 * Kingsley, Nick. Landed families of Britain and Ireland. https://landedfamilies.blogspot.com/.
 * Moon, George Washington. Men and Women of the Time: A Dictionary of Contemporaries. G. Routledge, 1891. Google Books https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=z6kDAAAAYAAJ&.
 * Royal Blue Book: Fashionable Directory and Parliamentary Guide.
 * 1901. Google Books https://books.google.com/books?id=QlUuAAAAMAAJ.
 * Kelly's Directories, 1902. Google Books https://books.google.com/books?id=-VYuAAAAMAAJ. "the names and addresses of the better class [sic] residents in the district roughly comprised in the area bounded by Hampstead on the North, the Chelsea reaches of the Thames on the South, Finsbury Circus on the East, and Hammersmith on the West."
 * Thom, Adam Bissett, compiler. The Upper Ten Thousand: A Biographical Handbook of All the Titled... The Upper Ten Thousand: An Alphabetical List of All Members of Noble Families, Bishops, Privy Councillors, Judges, Baronets, Members of the House of Commons, Lords-Lieutenant, Governors of Colonies, Knights and Companions of Orders, Deans and Archdeacons, and the Superior Offices of the Army and Navy, with Their Official Descriptions and Addresses. London: George Routledge and Sons, 1875. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/uppertenthousan00thomgoog.
 * Who's Who 1897. Ed., Douglas Sladen. Adam & Charles Black, 1897. https://books.google.com/books?id=Pl0oAAAAYAAJ.