The Honours System and Sir/Dame spouse titles

[Blackcountryman12]

I often think the honours system is outdated and I just saw an old post about the way women on the honours list were referred to as Mrs/Miss/Ms but the men weren't referred to as Mr. I generally think all aspects of honours are old-fashioned, but one thing I have often noticed is how if a married man is knighted his wife gets the title of Lady, but if a married woman is made a dame, her husband gets nothing.

I know a few years ago, it was mentioned that if a married gay man is knighted, his husband wouldn't get a title, and I know Elton John's husband David Furnish commented about this.

It seems odd and sexist that a dame's husband doesn't get a title, but a knight's wife does. I remember reading one article from a few years ago saying about how some dames' husbands "aren't bothered" about not having a title. This kind of attitude irritates me, as it enforces inequality in titles.

I think this all comes down to the old-fashioned patriarchal origins of the honours system. It is the same with the aristocracy, if a woman with the title Lady marries, her husband doesn't get a title if he doesn't already have one, but if a man with the title Lord marries, his wife automatically gets the Lady title.

I do think this is odd. Floella Benjamin’s husband has been just as married to her as the wives of the Sirs.
I would also think it would be appropriate for the Queen consort title to be abandoned during the Duke of Edinburgh’s life. Or if he predeceases the current queen, that could be the monarch’s spouse’s title thereafter, to be passed on in turn.

Fans of The Windsors will know all about the plan to make Camilla 'Princess Consort,' on account of her being neither born a princess nor giving birth to any heirs.

More seriously, the shit Emily Thornberry has had to take from Johnson over her hubby's knighthood is something that needs to stop.

The only thing that annoys me about it is when people blatantly misunderstand which way the sexism is running (not saying it's happening on this thread).

A woman gets a courtesy title if her husband is titled because (under the ancient laws and practices which these titles hail from) she is his property. She belongs to him and therefore is entitled to a lesser form of his title.

A man does not get a title if he marries a titled woman because he remains his own independent human being - and therefore is not entitled to someone else's title.

Which is why David Furnish gets nothing. He might be married to a man, but as a man is still his own person and not an addendum to his husband.

Plus all female titles are 'lesser' than a male title of equivalent rank. Hence why the husband of a queen cannot be a King, because then he would outrank the rightful monarch. And why the husband of a dame can't have a title, because he would then outrank the honour bestowed on his wife. Women's title mean very little - so they can be handed out willynilly to wives and not take away from their husbands. Not so the other way around.

And yet - people still use the 'wives of knights are ladies but husbands of dames don't get anything' card to try and claim reverse sexism. Drives me mad.

*A woman gets a courtesy title if her husband is titled because (under the ancient laws and practices which these titles hail from) she is his property. She belongs to him and therefore is entitled to a lesser form of his title.

A man does not get a title if he marries a titled woman because he remains his own independent human being - and therefore is not entitled to someone else's title.
Which is why David Furnish gets nothing. He might be married to a man, but as a man is still his own person and not an addendum to his husband.

Plus all female titles are 'lesser' than a male title of equivalent rank. Hence why the husband of a queen cannot be a King, because then he would outrank the rightful monarch. And why the husband of a dame can't have a title, because he would then outrank the honour bestowed on his wife. Women's title mean very little - so they can be handed out willynilly to wives and not take away from their husbands. Not so the other way around.*

You have made some good points here and it is shocking to think that this inequality in titles stems from the days when a woman was considered a man's property. It is interesting as well how the female titles are "lesser" than an equivalent male title, this was something I didn't full realise at first

Of course, it is a really good example how the husband of a queen can't be king. Also, some aristocratic titles really reflect the ancient days, like the surviving wife of a lord gets the title "dowager" because of the new lord and lady. Apparently, the word "dowager" originated from "dowry". Even one of the many titles given to the Queen Mother besides her official title was "Queen Dowager", something she apparently disliked.

I remember reading all the titles that were read out at her funeral (not that I have ever been much of a royalist) and one was "relict of King George VI", that sounded so archaic as to be from another century. I think even now there are many references to women being defined by their husbands, like a woman whose husband has died being referred to as "the widow of xxx", but a man whose wife has died is still called "the husband of xxx"