The wives of male peers are styled Ladies. The husbands of women peers receive no prefix. Now, with civil partnerships, Iain Dale has done a post on the question asked in a blogpost by Shane Greer of the Telegraph:
‘in the event that a member of a civil partnership becomes a Lord (or indeed a Lady), shouldn’t the other member of that partnership be equally recognised?’
I am not quite sure why the question says ‘in the event’, since as far as I am aware we already have one or more peers in civil partnerships. I also have the answer to the question. The solution is logical, but that does not mean it will happen. Instead of the wives of peers being styled Lady, why not style them – along with the husbands of women peers and the partners in civil partnerships – as ‘the Honourable’. Sons and daughters of peers are so styled, so why not extend it the practice? It ensures equity. It also ensures that one identifies the person on whom the honour (Lord, Lady) has actually been bestowed. I think one would have to accept that existing styles would remain (anyone already styled a Lady would retain the title) and this would apply with future effect.
Just a thought. Perhaps more intriguingly, one of the responses to Iain Dale’s post asks what would happen if a future heir to the Throne entered into a civil partnership!
UPDATE: Reading the comments on Shane Greer’s post, I see one person has had a similar, though not identical, idea. Perhaps there’s mileage in it.
Tradition dictates that a wife has the same rank and precedence as her husband, which is why wives of peers are styled Lady – any new convention should not change that. I don’t see why an old system such as the peerage (which many see as outdated and on its way out anyway) needs to be changed to take account of new concepts such as civil partnership. As husbands of female peers already receive no title, I don’t see why civil partners shouldn’t follow that convention.
Also consider how it fits in with hereditary peerages. Adopted or illegitimate children can’t inherit titles, so that precludes children of civil parters.
Er, or here’s a thought – what about stopping all the messing about with ‘titles’ which are condescending and ‘stratifying’ and just treat the job in the House of Lords as that, a job, and consign this class ridden tosh to the waste bin of history.
Then you would be Mr Norton, Lord of whatever-wherever.. when you are in the Lords, but plain Mr Norton when you are in the street, since that is, after all, what you are..
This ‘Honourable’ this and ‘Baroness’ that just continues to give the impression that we should be doffing our caps and tugging our forelocks – well I have news for you..
Not only am I not that obsequious, I don’t have a cap and my hair is fast disappearing. And if they ever let Peter Mandelson in the HoL, then that will prove, once and for all, that they really will let anyone, and I mean anyone, into the Lords. In which case why should we pretend that those sitting in there are any higher up the social ladder than intelligent, chippy, working class 4-legged Welshies like myself ?
Dear Lord Norton,
I have another suggestion: how about in future there being no prefix at all for the partners of members of the House of Lords whatever their sex and/or sexuality?
In a House of appointed peers, rather than hereditary ones, surely there is no need for their partners and children to have titles?
Howridiculous.
That sounds like a perfectly sensible response to the issue. I’m quite surprised that it hasn’t been addressed before now.
I don’t think we should throw away out traditions. The members of the upper house being Lords is part of our heritage. Many countries give their politicians a title: Senator. I expect US senators command far more respect or deference than British lords. I would hate to see an alien and foreign title such as senator introduced into our political system.
As for Lord Mandelson of Notting Hill (or whatever), he’s presumably someone who would benefit from the original topic of discussion here.
Bedd Gelert: Lord Norton would then become plain Professor Norton, or if he left teaching Dr Norton, but never Mr Norton!!
Call me nostalgic, but I don’t have a problem with the titles in the House of Lords. It emphasises the ancient links of the House to the past, and I believe it has the function of reminding peers of the inheritance they have to live up to. The House of Lords has produced some outstanding people and in the past century it’s been one of considered argument and the famous ‘constitutional long-stop’. If I were a peer, I’d be constantly reminded of my duty through my title and remain conscious of it.
A ‘Senator’ doesn’t have the same ring. And for the ‘class’ argument, I don’t see it as relevent – in some ways I think it has helped to undo class barriers, as many people of humble beginnings have been elevated to the peerage, thereby becoming the most esteemed citizens in the country next to the Royal Family.
I thought that this may prove to be what in university terms is known as a ‘car parking’ issue. (The budget gets approved in three minutes and the car parking regulations are then hotly debated for three hours.) Some of the points I was going to make have already largely been made for me by James and Adrian Kidney.
Jonathan: one compromise may be to retain existing styles but allow husbands of women peers and partners in civil partnerships to be styled ‘The Hon.’ It would, though, lose the consistency (and hence the equity) embodied in my original proposal. Howridiculous: not giving prefixes to any spouse or partner would certainly be an alternative way of achieving consistency in treatment and ensure clarity as to the recipient of the honour.
Bedd Gelert: I would argue that the reason members of the Lords commit so much time and energy to the work of the House, enabling it to do what it does, is because they feel they owe something to the country in return for having been elevated to the peerage. One could also put it another way, namely that it is the means by which the country gets a second chamber that costs so little to run. If members were not titled, I suspect you would need to create a rather attractive package of remuneration to attract people to serve.
I’m a strict and practising atheist, but I do not think it would be entirely on for a future Defender of the Faith to enter into a civil partnership. Maybe in a few generations, when the disestablishment has proceeded far enough for dropping that quaint title to be widely acceptable, it would work. There’s been enough controversy over the marital status current heir apparent, and don’t forget an abdication crisis in living memory, that a few uncomplicated monarchs wouldn’t go amiss.
What an interesting debate, as Mrs Merton didn’t quite say.
I’m all in favour of maintaining England’s traditions and in fact was opposed to the 1999 massacre of the hereditaries.
Surely, though, we are confusing two things here: being appointed to the peerage and being appointed to the House of Lords. Perhaps the time has come to break the link between the two so that instead of one peerage we have two.
It should be possible for a person to be appointed to what we might call the aristocratic peerage and given a title (with their partners then having a title too) without them having a seat in the House of Lords. This would maintain our traditional peerage.
It should also be possible for people to be appointed to what we might call the legislative peerage. They would be appointed to do a job of work, as life peers are now, and I don’t see why their partners necessarily need to have a title bestowed on them too.
Howridiculous.
Since 2004 (following a Royal Warrant) adopted children of peers may formally use the courtesy title of younger children of peers (e.g. Hon., Lady) – although such use may have been informal before – so it may not be a totally unprecedented extension.
Furthermore, Honourable is a title fairly widely used in the US and so surely shouldn’t have social-ladder connations (although there it is for the holders and former holders of offices rather than their relations).
Picking up on Lord Norton’s response (“If members were not titled, I suspect you would need to create a rather attractive package of remuneration to attract people to serve”), the current White Paper would appear to put that at an annual salary bill of £15,000,000 – £20,000,000 (paras. 4.30 and 7.40). Small beer, perhaps, compared with the additional costs of direct elections – some £43million including £13 million for election mailings (para. 9.3).
handj: Thanks for the very helpful contribution. Your point is well made. Your observation about the use of Honourable in the US is very pertinent; one sees the use of the term in some other legislatures as well. I also agree with the figure for the total salary bill under the proposals of the White Paper (a House of c. 400 members with a salary between that of members of devolved assemblies and MPs). The cost would actually be higher, since you would need to factor in the costs of hiring secretaries and research staff as well as travel costs.
howridiculous: I would not have a problem with that proposal.
Lord Norton,
I have no problem with the concept of some ‘elevation’, or indeed some of the ‘regalia’ or indeed an indication somewhere in the person’s name of the elevation. My point is merely that it should really be as a ‘suffix’ to the name. In the same way that degrees or professional qualifications are appended at the end of a person’s name [I’m sure someone will be pointing out that I’ve used the incorrectly term, but I’m sure you get my drift]
Indeed, unless one is a medical doctor, I’m not a big fan of people with PhDs using the term ‘doctor’. But I realise I’m going to be in a minority here. I suspect the only way of achieving this kind of thing would be by abolishing the monarchy and the House of Lords and setting up a republic, and I’m certainly not in favour of that.
But surely you can sympathise to some extent, can’t you, when one sees someone like Lord Ramsbotham, for whom one has a huge amount of admiration for his hard work and integrity, only commanding the same amount of respect in terms of ‘title’ as ‘Lord’ Peter Mandelson, about whom the least said the better.
Bedd Gelert: I see your point, though the essential difference is that a prefix is part of how a person is addressed whereas a suffix is usually only used in written form.
Your proposal would not provide a solution to the problem you raise in your concluding paragraph. If both are members of the same chamber, they will presumably both have the same suffix and the same respect that attaches to it.
Dear Lord Norton,
I am pleased my proposal did not meet with your disapproval!
I suppose appointments to the aristocratic peerage, rather than the legislative one, will occur in the future. In fact one may already have taken place. I refer to members of the Royal Family. Did The Earl of Wessex take his seat in the House of Lords before the enactment of the House of Lords Act do you know?
Howridiculous.
Bedd Gelert: I can’t agree with your comments on people with PhDs. Do you realise that the PhD is actually a doctoral degree, whereas medical “doctors” usually hold a degree such as MB ChB so aren’t actually doctors at all? Dropping prefixes for everyone would be a valid point of view to take, but why keep them for people who happen to practise medicine, as opposed to having an academic or industrial career? In those sectors, being a Dr is an important distinction. As Lord Norton says, suffixes aren’t used as forms of address.