No subject

being the second son of the king, in which case you get titles & lands
too, if your royal dad's feeling generous.  That's where all those
Dukes & Earls of this and that in the Wars of the Roses come from.

> I'm also curious to find out some bits like what the second son of a
> noble (duke/marquis/earl/baron) might have used as a title.

Start by looking up the definitions of these in the Oxford English
Dictionary--the real one, not the "Concise" edition.  It might cite
sources that are specifically about titles.  My off-the-cuff answer is
"abbot", "curate", "bishop" for higher-ranking nobles, and "hey you"
for second sons of barons, although they might have managed to at least
become knights, for what little that was worth.  Of course, the title
of the second son of the second son is the medieval equivalent of "do
you want fries with that?", unless the Second Son the Elder managed to
outlive his older brother and inherits Daddy's lands & titles after
all, in which case go back to square one.  Unlike France, where if you
were born to a noble family you were noble too, and therefore part of
an ever-growing population of leeches on society, the English practiced
primogeniture.  If you didn't inherit, you had to go out and get a job
just like every other free person.  Maybe that's why the English never
went on a "kill all the nobles" spree.

> And the first son for that matter while their [sic] father was still
> alive.

My guess, based on a quick scan of OED definitions, is that the first
son's title was one rank below his father's.  Of course, until he
reached his majority, the lands that went along with that title were
administered by his father as well.  Most likely, Daddy had more than
one title & accompanying set of lands.  As any good herald ought to
know, in period a person only used his/her highest title if he/she had
multiple lands & titles.  It was the Victorians who piled titles before
and "alphabet soup" after their names.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a situation in period where a
noble title did *not* have lands attached.  It was, after all, the
lands that were valuable; the title was only to describe your
land-holdings.

Oh, and 10 points to the first person who can tell me the correct
reason why the way we use the term "court baron" in the SCA is totally
unlike the way it was used in period.  (Hint:  think about grammar)

Anyway, I'm sure that there were books printed in period on precedence
issues.  Try searching Early English Books Online (but only if you're
using a library computer that subscribes to EEBO--most universities do,
but I'm not sure about public libraries).

I'd love to give you a longer answer; heck, I'd love to give you *all*
the answers.  But I don't have time right now for another research
project.  Good luck.  I'll be happy to evaluate the trustworthiness of
any sources you dig up; just send me a private email with a link or
complete bibliographic citation.

--Serena

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com