[A humble request: If you can, please donate to help me carry on tracing word histories. Thank you.]

 

Of British-English origin, the colloquial expressions Lady Muck and Lord Muck designate, respectively, a self-important, pompous or pretentious woman or man—i.e., a woman or man pretending to have greater importance or status than is really the case.

In those expressions, a title of nobility is sarcastically bestowed upon a woman or man who is regarded as muck—i.e., who is regarded as contemptible, worthless.

The expression Lord and Lady Muck occurs, for example, in the following from The gravy train tracks have only led to a hole of debt, by Lise Hand, published in the Irish Independent (Dublin, County Dublin, Ireland) of Saturday 31^st October 2009 [Weekend Review section: page 11, column 2]:

I’ve decided I want to be a politician. I can’t afford to go to Paris to support the lads, and yet that bunch of heads in the roundy room are swanning around the world like Lord and Lady Muck on something called the Gravy Train. I want a seat on it.
It’s not perhaps the most altruistic of motives for entering politics, but understandable given all the revelations about the high-rolling travels of several members of the cabinet.

These are, in chronological order, the earliest occurrences of the expressions Lady Muck and Lord Muck that I have found:
—Note: In early use, both Lady Muck and Lord Muck chiefly occur as derogatory forms of address:

1-: From Police Intelligence. Guildhall.—Thursday, published in The Hereford Times, and General Advertiser (Hereford, Herefordshire, England) of Saturday 29^th November 1856 [page 6, column 3]:

A Neighbourly Quarrel.—Eliza Prior summoned Maria Gore for an assault, alleged to have been committed on the 22^nd inst. It appeared that the belligerent powers are near neighbours, in Blue-school-lane […]. According to the complainant’s statement, the defendant used indecent language, and struck her on the arm with a black-lead brush, with such violence as to cause a bruise which was still discernible. […] The defendant […] denied both the foul language and the assault; and said that complainant called her “Lady Muck,” and other opprobrious names, and then took her by the shoulders and turned her out of the house.

2.1 & 2.2-: From two accounts of a trial held at the Magistrates’ Court in Holmfirth, Yorkshire, on Friday 4^th June 1858:

2.1-: From an account published in The Huddersfield Chronicle and West Yorkshire Advertiser (Huddersfield, Yorkshire, England) of Saturday 12^th June 1858 [page 8, column 2]:

The Assault Case at Thongsbridge.—On the complaint of William Lockwood, of Thongsbridge, a charge was preferred against James Bretton, for an assault, committed on the 4^th of April. The complainant stated that the defendant, in company with others, entered the house between eight and nine o’clock on the Sunday evening in question. He (complainant) was in the upper room. Defendant called out, “Bill ;” and when he (complainant) came down, he was addressed by the appellation of “Lord Muck,” and was also seized. After a short interval, this party of “revivalists” again dragged complainant near to them, and informed him that he must consent to be one of their regiment. Around the table some of the party were engaged in devotional exercises, while others were uttering abominable language. This extraordinary proceeding was brought to a close by the defendant making his exit out of the window, as some wight or other had locked the door. The defendant denied having assaulted the complainant. After a suitable admonition from the bench, a fine of 5s., and expenses 11s. 6d. was imposed.

2.2-: From an account published in the Huddersfield and Holmfirth Examiner. And West Riding Reporter (Huddersfield, Yorkshire, England) of Saturday 12^th June 1858 [page 3, column 2]:

Assault.—James Britton, for whom Mr. Booth appeared, was charged with committing an assault upon Wm. Lockwood, on the 4^th of last April. Complainant said on the day in question, defendant with a number of others came into his house at Thongsbridge, and after kneeling down, one part commenced singing and praying, and the other cursing and swearing. Defendant took hold of him, and said “Come, Lord Muck, thou must be one of our party.”

3-: From The Devizes Advertiser (Devizes, Wiltshire, England) of Thursday 31^st March 1864 [page 4, column 7]:

SWINDON.—Petty Sessions, Thursday.—William Spackman was summoned for publishing an indecent libel on Isabella Beck at Swindon, on the 15^th March. It appeared that the defendant had formerly lodged with the complainant, and in consequence of some misunderstanding he left, and immediately he commenced a series of annoying observations, and on the day in question he wrote “Lady Muck” on the door and wall. On being cross-examined by the bench, the complainant admitted that there were but three houses in Prospect-place where she lived, and she was not on good terms with any of her neighbours. Defendant was bound over to keep the peace for six months.

4-: From District News. Swindon, published in the Wiltshire Independent, and General Advertiser for Berks, Hants, Dorset, Somerset, Oxfordshire, and Gloucestershire (Devizes, Wiltshire, England) of Thursday 11^th August 1864 [page 4, column 6]—the defendant’s surname is variously spelt Roff and Rolf:

At the Petty Sessions on Thursday last, […] Mr. Robert Ford, of Little Hinton, appeared before the bench to complain of Mr. Charles Roff using insulting language to him that morning whilst entering Swindon. Mr. Rolf, who appeared much excited, began in court to call the complainant “Lord Muck” and other epithets. It also transpired that Mr. Rolf had some caricatures of the complainant and other parties in Hinton, tending to promote a breach of the peace.

5-: From The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, Lancashire, England) of Monday 20^th March 1865 [page 4, column 4]—here, Lord Muck occurs as a self-designation, perhaps intended to be humorously self-deprecating:

Extraordinary Proceedings near York.—On Saturday, at York, seven men, named William and Thomas Kettlewell, William Allison, George Batty, William White, George Robinson, and Henry Stead, were charged with having on the 8^th of March forcibly entered the house, at Askham Bryan, near York, of Benson and John Michael Barstow, whom they expelled forcibly. William Kettlewell, it seems, imagines that he is the rightful heir of one Miss Ann Fawcett, who died intestate, and whose property the Barstows have now the possession. On the morning of the 8^th of March whilst Mr. Benson Barstow was at breakfast, William Kettlewell, Allison, and Batty presented themselves at the back door of Mr. Barstow’s house, and delivered a note to the cook for her master. This she delivered in the breakfast-room, and as she left this place she found that she had been followed by the men she had left at the door. An inspection of the note by Mr. Barstow showed him that its delivery was but a pretence to gain an entrance to the house, inasmuch as it ran in the following terms:—“March, 1865.—Mr. Barstow.—Sir, I hope you will excuse us coming to see the house, as we want to see round it. Yours truly, Lord Muck.” Mr. Barstow had not had time to read this note before the three men in question entered the breakfast-room, and Allison introduced William Kettlewell as the “heir of the law,” and desired Mr. Barstow to quit the place. Mr. Barstow refused [&c.].

6-: From an account of a trial held at the Berkeley Police-court, in Gloucestershire, on Tuesday 24^th July 1866, published in the Daily Bristol Times and Mirror (Bristol, England) of Wednesday 25^th July 1866 [page 2, column 6]—“the prisoner” refers to William Ponting, who had committed “a murderous assault upon his brother, Mr. Charles Ponting, a farmer”:

Mr. Charles Ponting, the prosecutor, deposed—[…] On the 12^th inst., two days before this attack, I was passing the prisoner’s house, when he and his wife shouted out, “I have something inside waiting for you, old fellow.” I made no reply. On the 12^th inst., I was talking to Mrs. Brown, when Mrs. William Ponting put her head out of the window and called me “Lord Muck,” and various other names, and she said “I have as much right to be on the farm as you have.”

7-: From Petty Sessions.—Town Hall. Monday, January 13, published in Broadwater’s Buckinghamshire Advertiser, Uxbridge Journal, and Middlesex, Herts, Berks, Beds, and Oxon Gazette (Uxbridge, London, England) of Saturday 18^th January 1868 [page 4, column 4]:

The Elegancies of Conversation.—George Deverill, described as a brickmaker, a respectable looking man, who seemed to be of an excited and impassioned nature, was summoned at the instance of Mrs. Mary Ann Fiddler for having spoken abusively towards her.—Defendant pleaded not guilty, and added that he had said what he did under great provocation.—The complainant gave evidence that on Saturday week last, the 4^th inst., the offence was committed at Cowley, in the parish of Hillingdon. Defendant called her husband “everything he could think of,” and challenged him to fight. Addressing complainant, defendant told her to come out from her premises, used a disgusting epithet towards her, and made allusion to a visual deformity from which she laboured.—Defendant: Did you give me any cause?—Complainant went on to state that defendant very much “becalled” her husband, who advised him to go home and go to bed.—The Clerk of the Court: What did you say to him?—Complainant: I said it was not worth my husband’s time to talk to him. There was no bad language used by me.—Emily Fiddler, a little girl, daughter of complainant, who gave the greater portion of her testimony in an inaudible tone of voice, corroborated her mother’s evidence with regard to defendant’s use of a disgusting and disparaging phrase, which, she said, he repeated.—Defendant admitted that he had done so, but said it was under provocation.—He then called on his behalf Mrs. Mary Hibbert, who said she heard complainant use an aggravating expression towards defendant. Complainant was upon her own premises, and defendant upon the high road. Mrs. Fiddler termed the accused “a dirty pig.”—Defendant said this was so, she had also designated him by the scarcely more flattering title of “swine,” and had satirically invested him with an aristocratic sobriquet—that of “Lord Muck.”—Complainant, to the female witness, in reference to the terms it was alleged she had uttered, said she had never used such words in her life, and should be sorry to give way to such utterances, although she doubted whether a like reserve would be felt by the witness.—Defendant said the only other witness he could call on his behalf would be a boy, and he was not inclined to call a lad forward to repeat such expressions as had been used.—The Clerk of the Court thought the case was a perfectly disgraceful one.—Defendant intimated that there had been frequent quarrels between himself and complainant’s husband, and he had thought the best plan to pursue would be to have a fair stand-up fight and have done with the difficulty, which opinion led to the delivery of the challenge. Complainant had addressed his wife as “Lady Muck,” and had invited her to do something of a most repugnant and filthy character.—The Chairman observed that if complainant had degraded herself, and had designated defendant by improper terms, that was no reason why he should degrade himself, for he thereby became no better than the woman. He would be fined 15s.—Defendant’s wife, calling: Do you want any money?—Defendant: Not yet.—Defendant’s wife: Oh! because I’m “Lady Muck,” you know.—Police-officers: Silence!—The money was paid after some delay, and the parties left the Court, but defendant returned in a few minutes, and said he was prepared to swear that he was in danger of losing his life at complainant’s hands.—The Chairman remarked that if defendant could positively show that this was true he would be entitled to protection, but he (the worthy magistrate) thought it ridiculous that he should have come back with such a statement, which could not be believed for a single moment.—Defendant seemed discontented with the decision, but thanked their worships and withdrew.