"Gentleman" in 1880?

[pharmakon]

Regardless of what the dictionary may say (and I wouldn't treat a dictionary as being authoritative on historical matters), I can produce several examples from the 17th century where "Mr" is most certainly reserved for the gentry only.

[stanmapstone]

Regardless of what the dictionary may say (and I wouldn't treat a dictionary as being authoritative on historical matters), I can produce several examples from the 17th century where "Mr" is most certainly reserved for the gentry only.

Since the 17th cent. it has been the customary courteous prefix to the name of any man below the rank of knight.
In my opinion the wording in the OED is not clear The operative word is Rank   In this case meaning a High station in society, but below the rank of knight.

(and I wouldn't treat a dictionary as being authoritative on historical matters),   If you don't agree with what they say to  contribute new evidence for a word already in the OED, please contact them as follows:

Oxford English Dictionary
Oxford University Press
Great Clarendon Street
Oxford, OX2 6DP
Tel: +44 (0)1865 353660
Fax: +44 (0)1865 353811
E-mail: oed3@oup.com


Stan

[willow154]

The people who were given the title of Mr in the town I am researching, Nottingham, were certainly not landed-gentry in the strict sense of the term. I believe they were certainly respected individuals of a certain standing, some holding burgess parts, but not large amounts of land.
So, as I was still confused, I looked at a book I own, 'The Diary of Abigail Gawthern of Nottingham 1751 - 1810'. Please see attached piece:
I can only think that areas varied in their use of the term Mr - perhaps an area like Nottingham would be more flexible in its application of the term, whereas a more rural, land-owner led area might stick to the older rules more (you can still see it in the village I live in today!!)
Hope this helps, rather than confuses the issue - just an example.
Kind regards,
 Paulene

[pharmakon]

I am not disputing that the modern usage started to emerge in the 17th century, I am saying that it was not universal in that century.

[willow154]

yes, I would agree with that

[pharmakon]

Here's what the Oxford Dictionary of Local and Family History has to say:

mister, mistress, miss, ms.  In parish registers and other records of the early modern period most people were recorded only by their Christian name and surname. A ‘Mr’ was someone of at least minor gentry status (though many did not possess a coat of arms). Mistress or ‘Mrs’ was used for a woman of similar status, whether or not she was married. The use of ‘Miss’ for an unmarried woman came into use during the early 18th century. In the later 20th century ‘Ms’ has become increasingly popular as the female equivalent of ‘Mr’, which has been the style for any untitled adult male since the later 18th or early 19th century.

Those dates sound much more reasonable to me and much more helpful to family historians.

Of course we should also bear in mind that we may find examples as early as the 17th century     

[willow154]

Yes, I think Nottingham was a bit radical in many ways!
Thanks for that, looked in there, but obviously missed it
Hope we're not confusing the poor poster of the thread too much!
Thankyou,
 Kind regards,
Paulene

[Berlin-Bob]

There have been some interesting points raised here.

I'm adding it to the other topics on Gentleman in the
RootsChat Reference Library => Lexicon ^{(click here)}


 
Bob