[Sydney Steve]

And it’s a pleasure indeed to have the essence of your message proven by the subject. To assume that someone does not know what a Baronet is? - certainly not humble. Nor to link to Wikipedia - something even a child could do for themselves to research a subject. It demonstrates a level of self-perceived superiority. But there is also an issue with comprehension and staying to topic here. The matter under question was the usage of the word humble. The issue of title was not mentioned. The matter of aristocratic lineage would seem to be a subject “Sir John” is keen on discussing – regardless of its relevance to topic.
Impressively “Sir John” apparently knows more about appropriate language usage than no lesser authority than the Oxford Dictionary !
This hooligan was long ago aware that a baronet is born to the title rather than having done anything significant to have earned it – ( like a Knight of the realm would have to so as to earn the title).
BTW and this like Sir John's response is not really to topic and is probably only significant to "Sir John". My dad is an AO (Order of Australia) - but everybody calls him Max just like when he was a kid. This was the equivalent of a Knighthood under the formerly used Queens Honours system but we don't normally mention or go on about it. Virtually none of my friends ,colleagues or acquaintances would know - and I don't think it is relevant as my worth is not linked to my Dad's achievements (sadly!) Pretentiousness is not seen as an attribute you want to display. Perhaps I should call him "Dad of Hooligan" hereafter.
We hold out hope that a peerage will be conveyed for consistent usage of oversized fonts. Then “Sir John” will be in the frame as a prime candidate. Sadly even then I doubt the word humble would be an appropriate descriptor.

Happy Queens Birthday ! ( here it is at time of posting anyway) - 90 today !