Showing friendship between people of different ranks - maintain formality, or drop it?

I think there is a mixed use case. I think your Friend Frank can be smart enough to use formal addresses with Prince Peter if they might be overheard, and informal address when there seems no chance of that.

In any actual true friendship, I should think this must be the case, otherwise (speaking as a modern reader) I would feel there is an arms-length relationship where Frank is at all times subordinate to Peter, and that doesn't feel like a "friendship" to me, that feels like Frank is a pet of Prince Peter.

With mixed address, as a reader I can understand the necessity of the pretense in public; but we know privately that Peter considers Frank an equal in spirit, and Frank considers Peter a true friend, he doesn't feel like a servant to a master. I would make the pretense a secret between friends, Frank can even be wildly over the top in his addresses to the Prince in public, perhaps mocking the obsequious emissaries they have both heard in the royal chamber.

"Oh, prince of light and divine inspiration, prince of valor, prince of endless wisdom, prince --"

"Just get my damn beer, Frank!"

I think that imparts a little humility for Peter. This gives you chance, with Frank in private, for Peter to claim he knows his title, wealth and privilege are conferred by birth alone, that these were given to him, not earned by him. And though he will exploit that bucket of luck to the full extent he can, he knows his father too well to believe there is one drop of divinity within the King. And by extension, himself.

This makes the prince more relatable to readers, and the formality of address more of an insiders joke (which includes the reader), so to outward appearances it more closely reflects history, but nobody can claim your "enlightened prince" or friendship is impossible. We can't read dead medieval minds, and we can't trust what writing survived; it could all be lies and formalities.

Although these people did not have all the same facts and education as we do, they did have the same level of innate intelligence and reasoning as we do. So your enlightened prince may be an outlier, but isn't an impossibility.

posted almost 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37

I think it depends on the character of your high born individual and the lower born (though not necessarily common) friend.

If the higher ranking character is so used to hearing his title - essentially for as long as he can remember - anything else will seem odd to him. He might choose to tell his friend to simply call him by his name, but that is a choice he makes.

The other character can be more interesting in a way - his best friend outranks him considerably and he might use titles as a way of reminding others that his friend is Charles, Duke of Burgundy or such.

As is shown in War and Peace, where a Count tells the Tsar what must be done and is acknowledged the most powerful person in Russia, titles themselves have limited meaning as opposed to the wealth, power and influence of the allegedly lowered ranked character. Kingmakers were never princes - Marquis, Count or Baron - sometimes higher.

I would probably choose to keep the formal address as it serves a purpose for the characters. You could have the other character always observe formalities out of respect to the court of which he is a part, but feel free to comment on his friend’s actions.

Grooming the bay carefully - never hurts to build a strong relationship with a noble horse, Charles heard footsteps and saw his friend approach.

“He is ready, your Grace.”

“Who?”

“His majesty, here of course. Are you ready to ride, sir?”

“What did I tell you about formality?”

“To forget it, your Grace.”

“Then why are you, Count Dumont, insisting on this?”

“So I was taught.”

“Is that why you call this horse his majesty?”

“Yes, your Grace. He is finer than us all.”

“Not riding today, Dumont.”

“Then, your Grace, I will borrow his majesty and only one of us will be a fool.”

posted almost 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Rasdashan‭

520 reputation 25 59 93 0

If you can, lose the formality.

By definition, the familiar terms are, well, more familiar. Whereas formality is a constant reminder of rank. I for one felt the constant reference to Frodo as master by Samwise was jarring and anachronistic (to me at least.)

It won't be jarring with royalty, like it is for me with the hobbitses. It works for Horatio and Hamlet. But the most important thing to consider with that formality is that it is a constant reminder to all characters and the reader alike of rank.

So my questions to you are: Will the prince ever pull rank? If he is the type of person that is wont to do so then he will probably insist on the formality as a reminder. Will the friend follow a direct order unwaveringly? Even if it is against their character, moral compass, idealogical mindset, or best interest? If so they will almost implicitly call the prince by title as a sign of duty and respect. Or will the friend almost certainly follow their own path if they were forced to choose between the prince and their own personal guidelines? If so, I think they are not likely to use titles with their friends, unless held to do so by the sword (which would almost certainly end the friendship.)

I say it is ultimately a matter of the characters themselves letting their personalities show, however, I also suggested you choose one over the other unless you had to. The reason I said that is because formality will always be a small sliver of a wedge in any friendship. As a reader I will always be reminded that one of these people is more important than the other. And they both will too.

posted almost 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

AGirlHasNoName‭

135 reputation 27 11 20 0

Formality of address shows more than just the relationship between characters.

How one character addresses another does show the level of intimacy between them. But it can also show:

• Their history. Ex-lovers or siblings who are no longer close, who are now on very different social levels, might be less formal to indicate their past history, or more formal to emphasize their estrangement.
• The culture of this particular workplace, palace, group, etc.
• The culture over all.
• How the language works.

It's not at all simple. For example, the Spanish language has two levels of formality in second person pronouns. What in modern English is simply "you" or "your." (Many other languages, like French, have similar constructions.) In Spanish the informal is "tu" (or "vos") and the formal is "usted."

We have regional differences. In Castilian Spanish, the plural of "tu" is "vosotros" and the plural of "usted" is "ustedes." In the rest of the Spanish speaking world, "ustedes" is used for both plurals. In Nicaragua and a couple other countries, they use "vos" instead of "tu" (but don't use "vosotros").

If that wasn't enough, where one puts the dividing line depends on the region/country/local culture as well. In some places, someone significantly older than you is always usted. In others, your spouse is usted (at least publicly). In other places, you drop the usted within days (or hours) of getting to know someone. It's complex and it's very easy to trip up if you're not immersed in the culture since childhood.

It overlaps in many ways with the culture in Western countries of calling people by their first vs their last names, which is another minefield. Is your neighbor "Ursula" or "Miss Ursula" or "Mrs. Le Guin" or is it "Ms." or something else entirely?

Your question about if a longtime friend would call her/his sovereign by a title or a first name sounds straightforward on the surface, but it actually ties in the language, the culture, and the norms and practices of the specific community. You won't necessarily want to describe the practices of your world in detail, but it will permeate your work.

How your two characters address each other needs to fit into the context of how others address them and how the society in general addresses others with and without differences in rank (social, political, age, gender, occupational, situational, etc).

posted almost 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Cyn‭

1130 reputation 25 439 215 0

I think there is some measure of the characters and their history relevant to your question. I mean, If the prince's friend knows him from childhood, and they grew up together, they would naturally have an informal way of communicating. Think about Frozen: Elsa's sister only addresses her in a formal way when she is mad at her.

On the other hand, a close relationship may be romantic. They didn't grow together but the prince met the commoner girl in a tavern while he was out drinking, and got to know her better to the point where they fell in love after a few secret meetings. They will maintain a formal relationship while in the company of others (if they even happen to meet one another in a context different than a secret meeting). But they will not communicate formally in their secret meetings.

My point is, don't make this choice technical. make it about the characters. put yourself in their shoes and ask: "If I was the prince/commoner and this friend I have had known me for X and we share Y, how would we be talking to each other?"

posted almost 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Oren_C‭

30 reputation 3 4 5 0