Talk:Burgess (title)

A Surfeit of Etymology?

It strikes me that this article could use more substantive information about the office or status of a burgess—origin and evolution of the office, duties and privileges of the burgess in different eras, and so on—and relatively less etymology. In particular, I rather doubt the relevance of the similar Arabic, Persian, and Urdu words for "a high wall, a building, or a tower", as well as that of burglar, and of any other term that isn't either a direct ancestor of the English word burgess or a near equivalent title, such as Fr. bourgeois. The mere fact that burgess is an archaic, and therefore, in modern times, a somewhat unusual derivative of L.L. burgus or burgensis, is not a reason to turn this article into a catalogue of words related to burgus.

I don't have time to write what's missing, so I'm also not going to delete what I think is extraneous, but I hope somebody else will do both.

Jdcrutch (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Persian and Urdu are Indo-European, and so one or both could plausibly have evolved 'burj' on its own. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/b%CA%B0er%C7%B5%CA%B0-

Arabic might in that case be irrelevant, perhaps having borrowed it.

Then again, someone might find research that 'burj' is from a Semitic root. Don't hold your breath. /User:Steverapaport

This is a completely irrelevant side issue. Even if the Persian word can be shown to derive from a proto-Indo-European word for wall, what the word is not is the Persian equivalent of Burgess which is what this article is about. I am therefore deleting the etymological comment. --JHumphries (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Mayor and burgesses of ...

In the (Greater) London Boroughs, the legally constituted body is referred to as "Mayor and burgesses of the London Borough of [x]". In this sense, 'burgess' means much the same as 'citizen'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Something similar was also seen on land titles in New Zealand in the mid to late 19th century - "The Mayor, Councillors and Burgesses of the" borough, or city, of wherever. The legally constituted local authority was The Borough Of.. or The City Of..., so adding the extra details to the title might just have been legalese, or to clarify that the town had power to do whatever it wanted with the land in question. See examples on this map: Daveosaurus (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Merge?

Please see merge discussion at: Talk:Burgher (title). PPEMES (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As electors

I think we need something more on their role in electing corporations in England in Victorian times. In the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 article, 124 of 178 corporations are shown including Burgesses in their title. There were conditions to being such a burgess - owning property, paying rates, not receiving charity. Here's a snippet from the Berkshire Chronicle of 27 November 1847.

BAIL COURT. (Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice Erle.)

THE QUEEN v. ABSOLOM AND OTHERS.

Mr. Temple moved for a rule calling upon ten persons to show why an information in the nature of a quo warranto should not be filed against them, calling upon them to show by what authority they claimed to be burgesses of the borough of Wallingford, in the county of Berks. The first person was George Absolom, who had received parochial relief within twelve months; William Cannon did not occupy any house, &c., within the borough, and was not rated; Nathaniel Cresswell had quitted possession of his premises on the day of the election; John Dealey, want of occupation; Jonathan Reddings, want of occupation; John Scovell had received parochial relief; John Lovelock, not rated; James Turner had received allowance from charitable fund called " Sir Thomas Benett's Charity; " Richard Wetherell had received a similar allowance; Sydney White did not occupy in his own right any house, &c„ the premises being, in truth, in the occupation of his father's executors, his father having died lately. There was an error in two of the affidavits as regarded Lovelock and Turner, and he would ask for the rule conditionally, upon the affidavits being re-sworn. Mr. Justice Erle said the affidavits could not be amended, but there must be fresh application. As to White's case, did not think the grounds sufficient. As to the other cases, he would look into the authorities.

--Cavrdg (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)