] ] Yes, Sir William Lucas was a knight.

] Hmm. Is that right? On reading through your links (thanks for that *bows*), there were only references to the various specific orders. Also in my memory (which admittedly might be mega-faulty) of seeing Queen's Birthday and New Year honours lists, all Knighthoods were divided into the various orders, within which people were elevated to the various degrees of knighthood. eg Companion of the Order of the Bath as the 'entry level' Knight in that Order.

Unfortunately, the monarchy website does not cover knights bachelor. Perhaps the distinction is not awarded today (or is awarded very rarely). That does not mean that the distinction does not exist now, or did not exist then. For further details, please see Laura's messages below which do better justice to the topic than I can. I got the information about knights bachelor versus knights banneret (now never created) from a useful little book by Squibb on precedence, which is probably well-known to Laura. Not in print, I believe, but available at any good university library, and elsewhere by interlibrary loan.

] Also in the faqs in the urls you provided it was stated that knighthoods only started to be awarded outside the nobility in the 18th century. Would that not mean that the award of a Knighthood was of especial significance in those times? (Or was it just that the King was strapped for cash - cynical Marks!)

I cannot answer these questions, since they fall outside my scope of interest (growing narrower daily!). However, please keep in mind that the monarchy web site does not cover all information. For example, it provides no listing of all knights of the Garter (which is accessible via mailing lists and groups which specialize either in heraldry or in royalty and nobility. Somewhere, I once saw a complete list of the Knights of the Garter to date. As for knighthoods of all types, I am not sure that there is anywhere such a list, even in these groups.

If by nobility you mean the gentry and courtiers, you would be correct (probably). I doubt that the Crown was knighting scullions and stablehands, not to mention serfs. Although, in medieval times, occasions where common soldiers were knighted have been recorded, although I cannot give you specific citations.

I am not sure which website says that knighthoods were confined to the nobility, until the 18th century. Could you be more specific? Francois Velde's heraldry web site acknowledges the fact that not all knights in medieval times were noblemen by birth, and also that commoners both in England and on the Continent were often hereditary armigers (entitled to bear arms that had been properly created and registed).

Most of this discussion is not really relevant to Jane Austen's time period, so I won't go into details. Nor frankly, do I have the time this month to look up all my sources - and I do not want to provide inaccurate information.

It is my understanding however, based solely on memory (and therefore, please take it for what it is worth):

1) the concept of knighthood in medieval time varied tremendously, and changed even from the 11th to the 15th century (not to mention earlier and later).

2) the concept of knighthood, as divorced from military prowess and the obligation to serve in a military capacity, emerged relatively early (by the reigh of Edward III, at least), where knights were permitted to send replacements, instead of serving themselves, or by paying a fine to the King. This in fact was the motivation for Edward III demanding that all persons possessing more than a certain income from land be knighted, or pay heavy fines. For further details, please consult social or political histories of the 14th century.

3) the concept of a hereditary knighthood - a baronetcy - was developed by James VI & I to pay for his army in Ireland (which had experienced several risings under prominent Irish chieftains such as the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel). For details of baronetcies, please check sources mentioned by Laura and printed sources in particular. [I am speaking of the history of this rank or title, not works such as Burke's and Debrett]. Baronets were and are specifically not peers. And it was possible - in fact, almost required - to buy a baronetcy. Very few baronetcies were given gratis (for free). I don't know if knighthoods were also bestowed for payments; certainly peerages were so bestowed. The Crown made a lot of money off this, as did the Duke of Buckingham and his many Villers relatives (ancestors of the Earls of Jersey and Clarendon).

4) by the 18th century, the power relationship between the monarchy and the aristocracy had shifted somewhat, as had the relationship between the aristocracy and the gentry. For details, I recommend books on 18th century British politics, and books that concentrate specifically on aristocracy-gentry relations. [Most are case studies of particular families, or of one or two counties].

5) I cannot say however, if knighthoods were being readily granted outside the aristocracy and the gentry, but consider this - achievement of gentry status was not that difficult for a man with some money. I don't know whether I mentioned this earlier, but one way to achieve gentry status was to buy a large or small estate, to serve as a Justice of the Peace (JP) or magistrate, and then for succeeding generations to intermarry with older landed families. Claire Tomalin illustrates this process well with families such as the Portals (French emigres, Huguenots, who printed money for the Bank of England) and others. The Portals, the Chutes, and others were all neighbors of Jane Austen.

This biography and studies of the gentry (and the nobility) in 18th century England and later show that the gentry was not this cohesive group formed of persons who had held land for centuries. Some families were gentlemen of recent standing, others were gentlemen since at least the Tudor times if not before (such as the Horners of Mells Abbey in Somerset, as in the nursery rhyme about Little Jack Horner]. Still others were illegitimate scions of nobility, or acquired land and gentry status by marriages to heiresses of older houses. I assume that many knights came from this group, but I don't know the percentages.

As for Sir William Lucas, well, we know that he had been mayor of Meryton, and that he was knighted and went to St. James's. We also know that his wealth and income were not really sufficient for his pretensions (not so much from the fact that his daughter Charlotte cooked, but from other sources). We don't know for certain how his knighthood was obtained, and we can only speculate.

The scenario laid out by Caroline and Laura, among others, sounds just as plausible - that the Lord Lieutenant of the county recommended Mr Lucas, then mayor (or late mayor) of Meryton for knighthood, and that he was granted a knighthood as a knight bachelor. [Being a knight of an order of chivalry, such as the Bath, would be more prestigious, but his service did not merit that by the standards of the day].

And knights bachelor are very different (and lower-ranked) than knights of orders of chivalry. Today you can be OBE or CBE without being a knight, but I am not sure that those ranks were available in Regency times (I think not). If I recall correctly, the distinctions in civilian life were as follows:

1) receiving a peerage (from Baron being the lowest to Duke being the highest; it was rare for a person to be made a Duke at first try, or for that matter even a Viscount).

2) receiving a baronetcy

3) receiving a knighthood of an order of chivalry (the Garter, the Thistle, the Bath since 1725, and the Patrick since the 1780s. The KCMG did not exist at that point; today it is open to professional diplomats).

4) being made a knight bachelor

and perhaps combined with all these, or separately
5) being given an appointment at court and/or
6) being given an appointment in the government, in London or in the counties
7) being made a Lord Lieutenant (almost always a peer)
8) being made a JP or a magistrate.

I am not sure if a baronet ranked higher in precedence than a Knight of the Garter, but Laura will inform us, no doubt. The advantage of the former was that it was hereditary; that of the latter, was that it was both exclusive and guaranteed social intercourse with royalty and the grandest peers.

In local government, Lords Lieutenant ranked higher than a JP of course - and the former were almost always peers with significant holdings in the county. [Even today, several Lords Lieutenants are peers or related to peers].

The appointments to court jobs or government jobs was financially remunerative (and how many peers made their fortune and then obtained peerages; the wife and daughters of the 1st Duke all held court positions at one time or the other).

As you can see, there were many ways in which the Crown (and the ministry it supported) could reward its loyal adherents. The desperation for handouts and appointments is illustrated almost amusingly in THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE, where the loyalty of the House of Commons to William Pitt (and George III) depends on whether the King is mad or not.

Shinjinee