In a message dated 5/28/2004 3:48:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, norman.lee1@virgin.net writes: > Mr. or Master was considered a title and was not conferred > on one and all as it is now, denoting in those days a member of the minor > gentry or similar status.) It could be expected at that date that the > spelling of a name could vary within a document but not > indicate any change > in the relationship or the name of the person. It was my impression that "Master" was so styled of the heir apparent. So the eldest son of the Lord of Balfour would be called Master Balfour. Comments? Will Johnson

I have forgotten quite what period we are talking about but Mr was the mark of a gentleman. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries you tend to see it only being used with reference to landed gentry (at least in the rural areas, not so sure about towns) but the post restoration period you get an increase in attorneys and surveyors and superior traders and the like using it as well. Lyn B

> I have forgotten quite what period we are talking about but Mr was the mark > of a gentleman. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries you tend to > see it only being used with reference to landed gentry (at least in the > rural areas, not so sure about towns) but the post restoration period you > get an increase in attorneys and surveyors and superior traders and the like > using it as well. > Lyn B > I am old enough to remember when the names in English (only!) cricket teams were recorded as "Mr [initials + surname]" for each gentlemen and [initials + surname] for each "player". Newspaper reports omitted the initials. "Smith shared an entertaining partnership of 54 with Mr Jones..." Gordon Barlow

> >> Mr. or Master was considered a title and was not conferred >> on one and all as it is now, denoting in those days a member of the minor >> gentry or similar status.) or someone wealthy and important in his own community, by his employees or inferiors. > It could be expected at that date that the >> spelling of a name could vary within a document but not >> indicate any change >> in the relationship or the name of the person. > >It was my impression that "Master" was so styled of the heir apparent Only in Scotland. This is rather different. >. So the >eldest son of the Lord of Balfour would be called Master Balfour. No, the Master *OF* Balfour -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society