The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #481  
Old 01-02-2022, 07:18 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Dennis Thatcher was made a baronet not a peer. His wife was given a life peerage.

It is true Thatcher was a divisive figure but that was about ideology. Left v right etc. The normal sort of political divisions. But Blair's legacy is very different. This is not a politics forum but the bitter controversy around Britain's involvement in the Iraq invasion, questions over weapons of mass destruction etc, will never go away & Blair will never escape it.
You are right, while a baronetcy is hereditary indeed (some go back to the reign of James I) apparently they are not seen as peers.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 01-02-2022, 07:28 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
It's hardly ideological or even the Speaker's position, given as it's fairly ancient Commons rule that "we don't name people". Which you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
How was Lady Astor cited in the House of Commons when she became the first seated female MP?

Here is a link to her maiden speech .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
I’m afraid I'm not seeing where Lady Astor was improperly "named" against procedure by a fellow MP as something other than "the honourable gentlewoman".

If you're implying that the social standards of more than a century ago are still applicable, I also can't see how.
I thought Mbruno was responding to your first statement that "it's fairly ancient Commons rule that 'we don't name people'". (If a rule was ancient but remained applicable in 2018, it must also have been applicable in 1920.)

But whether MPs should be referred to by name is a different issue than whether it is acceptable to name female MPs by their husbands' titles instead of their own names. It seems to me that John Bercow was addressing the latter issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ily-thornberry

Quote:
Boris Johnson has apologised after referring to the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, as “Lady Nugee”. The Speaker of the House of Commons said the references, in relation to Thornberry’s husband, Sir Christopher Nugee, were sexist and inappropriate.

[...]

Bercow interrupted Johnson: “First, we do not name call in this chamber, and secondly ... we do not address people by the titles of their spouses. The shadow foreign secretary has a name and it is not ‘Lady Something’.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 01-02-2022, 07:36 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 2,104
The rule about "naming" people in the Commons is parliamentary procedure, not a social standard. Regardless of anyone's gender or marital status.

Mbruno, I think, wanted to highlight that Lady Astor chose to use her husband's title as a working MP, which, given it was 1919, I'm not sure what else she would have done. I'm curious if he believes those century-old social conventions are still in play. If there's something in error, I'm sure he can speak for himself.

Bercow was calling out Johnson for being sexist, lazy, and patronizing, in addition to breaking procedure, but my point in using the clip of the incident was that women in the UK are not required to use their husbands' names or titles, and certainly not professionally. So Cherie doesn't have to be Lady Blair in any situation she doesn't want to, and possibly not at all. If they end up at a Court function, that might be the exception.
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 01-02-2022, 07:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
The rule about "naming" people in the Commons is parliamentary procedure, not a social standard. Regardless of anyone's gender or marital status.
I suspected you were referring to parliamentary procedure based on your reference to "procedure" in the first paragraph, but it then became less clear because your next paragraph went on to mention "social standards".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Bercow was calling out Johnson for being sexist, lazy, and patronizing, in addition to breaking procedure, but my point in using the clip of the incident was that women in the UK are not required to use their husbands' names or titles, and certainly not professionally.
Yes, I understood and appreciated the point you were making in your first post about the then Speaker's comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Mbruno, I think, wanted to highlight that Lady Astor chose to use her husband's title, which, given it was 1919, I'm not sure what else she would have done. I'm curious if he believes those century-old social conventions are still in play. If there's something in error, I'm sure he can speak for himself.
Discussions on this forum are public, and as you say, if you, Mbruno or any other person else believes my posts to be in error, they are free to say so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
If they end up at a Court function, that might be the exception.
Indeed, there have been times when the Queen or Royal Household insisted on referring to a woman by her husband's name against the woman's stated wishes. I hope that has stopped, but I am not sure.
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 01-05-2022, 10:07 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,338
A petition to revoke former prime minister Sir Tony Blair's knighthood has collected hundreds of thousands of signatures and appeared prominently in the British news.

https://www.change.org/p/mp-s-to-str...his-knighthood
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59866084

I wonder, do all of the signers of the petition have a genuine desire for the monarch to become more politically active by picking and choosing which former prime ministers to award honors to? Or are some of them unaware that royal honors (previously peerages, now knighthoods) are routine for former prime ministers and that to skip one would constitute a political statement from the Queen, who has mostly endeavored to remain politically neutral?
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 01-05-2022, 10:32 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
A petition to revoke former prime minister Sir Tony Blair's knighthood has collected hundreds of thousands of signatures and appeared prominently in the British news.

https://www.change.org/p/mp-s-to-str...his-knighthood
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59866084

I wonder, do all of the signers of the petition have a genuine desire for the monarch to become more politically active by picking and choosing which former prime ministers to award honors to? Or are some of them unaware that royal honors (previously peerages, now knighthoods) are routine for former prime ministers and that to skip one would constitute a political statement from the Queen, who has mostly endeavored to remain politically neutral?
The Order of the Garter remains in the personal gift of the Sovereign, so, unlike other awards that fall under ministerial responsibility, the Queen is personally responsible for all Garter appointments.

It is true that former PMs have been traditionally appointed Knights/Ladies Companion of the Garter, but I don't see any reason why that should be automatic. Membership of the Order of the Garter should be a special distinction to be awarded only to those who are truly deserving and not an ex-officio award which is automatic for individuals who held a particular public office. There are other (state) orders such as the Order of the Bath (for civil servants and military officers) or the Order of St Michael an St George (for members of the diplomatic service, or Governors of the Queen's realms and territories) which are better suited for such type of appointments. The Queen could even have made Tony Blair merely a Knight Bachelor, but I guess that any decoration for him, even a lower one, would have raised eyebrows among those who feel strongly about his tenure as PM.
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 01-05-2022, 11:01 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The Order of the Garter remains in the personal gift of the Sovereign, so, unlike other awards that fall under ministerial responsibility, the Queen is personally responsible for all Garter appointments.

It is true that former PMs have been traditionally appointed Knights/Ladies Companion of the Garter, but I don't see any reason why that should be automatic. Membership of the Order of the Garter should be a special distinction to be awarded only to those who are truly deserving and not an ex-officio award which is automatic for individuals who held a particular public office.
The reason is that if and when the Queen personally decides to award honors only to select former prime ministers, instead of to all of them or none of them, it compromises her position of political neutrality. What makes one head of government more deserving of honor than another is inherently a political appraisal.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
honours, honours list, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian braganza britain britannia british british royal family cadwallader camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles castile china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness coronation de la cerda duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi guzman harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove history ingrid-alexandra ivrea japan japanese imperial family japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers maria ii monarchist movements monarchists mongolia nara period noble families orleans-braganza pedro ii politics portugal prince harry prince of wales prince of wales in jordan royal ancestry samurai solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit tokugawa united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:41 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises
×