On 15 March the Government has announced that outdoors weddings at licensed venues in England and Wales will be legalised. This change was introduced as a temporary measure during the pandemic; the fact that it has now been made permanent has received overwhelming support from the public and the wedding industry. Gone are the days when weddings were only allowed outdoors if they took place in an outdoor structure, such as a bandstand, or even a boat. Now any approved premises can hold the entire ceremony outdoors.
For anyone who is planning an outdoors ceremony this summer, there will be a number of pros and cons.
Al Fresco Advantages
•You can choose a beautiful and picturesque venue, which will provide a memorable backdrop for your wedding pictures, and will be a talking point for your guests.
•If you’re on a tight budget, you can allow Mother Nature to carry the brunt of the costs. A stunning setting, well-stocked flowerbeds, stately trees, or views of open countryside or coastline will all mean that you need minimal decoration.
•Numbers will be much more flexible – the great outdoors will mean that you are not subjected to irksome restrictions, except on the grounds of costs.
•Outdoors weddings are excellent for children and families. Kids can play freely without interfering too much with the adult proceedings (even avoiding the ceremony itself, as long as they’re supervised), meaning that your guests will be much more relaxed. Guests might even be able to bring their dogs.
•Logistics are minimised by holding the ceremony and reception in the same place. Once guests have arrived for the ceremony they’ll be there for the long haul, and you won’t have to organise complex transport arrangements.
Al Fresco Disadvantages
•Weather is obviously the primary consideration. The main risk is rain, and you will have to make provision for this in all your planning (see below). You should also be aware that your wedding day might be unseasonably cool, and guests might not have come fully provisioned with coats, wraps etc.
•Wind can be a real pest, especially during the ceremony. No bride wants her carefully styled hair or wedding outfit to be blown into disarray by a sudden gust of wind, and the celebrant will be irritated if the wedding register goes flying. You will need to think about windbreaks and protective shelters for the wedding party.
•At a large outdoors venue you will run the risk of the wedding party becoming dispersed and non-focused. You will need to work hard to create dedicated spaces (for sitting, chatting, eating, listening to music or speeches), otherwise you will spend most of your day marshalling the disorientated crowds.
•If your dream wedding is a super sophisticated occasion, where everyone looks sleek and well-groomed and the table settings are impeccable, think carefully about an outdoors venue. You will have to accept that the weather is completely outside your control, and can easily wreak havoc, and therefore outdoors weddings are better suited to couples who prefer a more relaxed, bucolic and improvisational mood.
Considerations
•You will need to investigate the world of marquees, pagodas, pavilions and gazebos to ensure that there is always shelter provided for guests and the wedding party. When planning an outdoors wedding, flexibility is key. If it is a beautiful sunny day your guests won’t want to be cooped up in a marquee for the wedding ceremony, although they might appreciate it during a sit-down lunch, or in the late afternoon and evening, when the weather cools down. It is best to plan two or three different scenarios, which you can review and adapt 48 hours before the wedding, when weather forecasts are accurate and you know what to expect.
•Even if the weather is clement, consider some sort of open-sided structure for the wedding party and the celebrant during the actual ceremony. You might be lucky enough to find a venue that offers a permanent structure, such as a bandstand or pergola. If not, investigate open-sided gazebos, which will protect the main players from the rain, wind and sun, and can be decorated with draped fabrics to make a stunning visual focus.
•With the wedding taking place outside, you will need to create an eye-catching ceremonial space for the main event. Try and choose a sheltered spot with a beautiful backdrop. Use a decorated gazebo as the main focal point, arrange the guests’ chairs accordingly, ensuring all eyes are drawn to centre-stage. You might want to create an ‘aisle’ for the bride’s entrance; you can use a carpet, or you can demarcate the walkway with plant stands or light fixtures. Try and choose a complementary theme for your gazebo and chairs – drape them in matching fabric, or use coordinated flower arrangements. The main aim is to create a special space, which is an appropriate stage for the ritual that will take place there.
•It might be wise to consider dotting temporary gazebos around your venue. They will serve as useful spots where guests can retreat to escape boiling sun or driving rain, or just provide a quiet space where they can sit down away from the social maelstrom – this is particularly useful for older guests.
•Use a profusion of inexpensive fairy lights and solar lights to transform your daytime outdoors venue into a magical night-time venue. Ensure that paths leading to the main facilities (bars, toilets, the marquee) are well-lit.
•Think about providing cosy sheepskins or woollen blankets to guests who are shivering as the night draws in. Being able to wrap up warm will ensure that the reception does not falter because of the drop in temperature.
•Tell guests what to expect. You should send out an information sheet with your wedding invitations. As well as the usual advice – directions, parking facilities, local hotels and so on – try and give your guests as much guidance about your open air venue as possible. Explain exactly where/what it is (you don’t want people turning up expecting a secluded and sheltered garden and finding themselves on a windblown cliff top). If you think that your venue requires them to wear special clothes or footwear, just say – stiletto-wearing guests, for example, would be understandably annoyed if they found they had to navigate a rocky and precipitous path to get to the ceremony venue. Explain that you will have facilities in case of inclement weather. You can even tell them to bring warm clothing so that they’re comfortable when night falls. Forewarned is forearmed and guests will appreciate the lowdown.
A world without arguments or dissension would be grey indeed – and often the most satisfying of altercations are those that do not descend into anger and remain untainted by the red mist of rage. After all, the ‘aim’ of an argument should not be solely about winning but about progressing the basic understanding of the issue at hand – and this is achieved more easily if everyone remains calm.
If you’re in an environment where a stand-up, passionate political row is not desirable (an office, a dinner-party where you’re being introduced to your fiancée’s parents etc.), then it is probably a good idea to lay off politics altogether, or at least gauge the prevailing political climate – in these circumstances, a heartfelt concurrence is bonding, dissent is likely to be damaging. In a more knockabout environment, there is no reason not to join the fray.
One rule of thumb when involved in a political dispute is always to be more civil than the person you are arguing with; that way, you’re not spiralling down to name-calling and all-out conflict, you’re actively holding on to the moral high ground. Shouting loudly to make your point is excusable in primary school but doesn’t look very dignified when you’re sitting around a dinner table.
Just be sure that you know what you’re talking about and have the facts straight before you lay into anyone. Don’t let your argument wander into subjective emotions and try not to let your feelings about a situation blunt the incisiveness of your discourse. Avoid -isms at all costs – the use of labels leaves you wide open to accusations of generalisation and makes people instantly defensive.
Avoid polarisation and adopting extreme positions to make a point. Consensus or compromise lies in the nuanced middle ground, where concessions are made and differing points of view are acknowledged.
Work towards agreement, not point-scoring. Concede a point when you have no response to it, and have the guts to admit when you are arguing a point based on bias or intuition alone – people will be disarmed by your honesty. Citing vague ‘sources’, or referring to ‘someone I know’ will only confer a spurious authority and can easily be shot down and discredited.
Beware ranting and monologues. It is easy to get carried away when you’re passionate about a subject, but if you find yourself talking uninterrupted for minutes at a time, and look round to see an audience with glazed eyes and a distracted air, that is probably a clear indication that you have held the floor for far too long and are in danger of becoming a bore.
Underlying all disagreements is an agreement that the other person’s opinion is a valid one and that you are at least going to listen to their side of the argument. For some people, the opposite of talking isn’t listening, the opposite of talking is waiting for the other person to stop talking. Do not argue with these people, it’s just not worth the effort.
Finally, apologise there and then if you’ve said something you might regret later. We all know how easy it is to get carried away by the heat of argument, and passionate conviction is often accompanied by disinhibition and volatility. But it would be a great shame if arguing about politics, discussing the issues of the day, and disagreeing about fundamental beliefs, all became a social taboo because of the collateral damage caused by intemperate exchanges. So remain self-aware, exercise self-restraint, and if you lose your temper, acknowledge you have gone over the top and apologise.
There are currently over 650 life peers eligible to vote in the House of Lords, the majority of which are Conservative; the current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has the record for the creation of the highest number, which is averaging 41 life peerages per year.
Life peers are members of the peerage whose titles cannot be inherited, unlike hereditary peerages. Life peerages are available to both males and females, unlike hereditary peerages, which are predominantly male. Life peers are always created at the rank of baron or baroness. Although their children cannot inherit the title, they are allowed to use the honorific ‘Hon’.
The History of Life Peerages
The creation of life peerages is not simply a 20th-century phenomenon. The source of peerages is the Crown, as the fount of honour. A number of life peerages were granted in the Middle Ages and later in the 17th and 18th centuries, generally as an expression of familial loyalty, affection or romantic attachment on the part of the monarch – Henry V, for example, was well known for giving life peerages to some of his relations. Following the Restoration, a number of life peerage were granted by various monarchs to their mistresses and illegitimate children, for example Catherine Sedley was created Countess of Dorchester by James II in 1686, and Madame Wallmoden was created Countess of Yarmouth by George II in 1740. As the recipients of these titles were all women, none of the grants of peerages involved taking a seat in Parliament, and in some circles doubt as to the validity of these peerages was voiced.
This question came to a head in 1856, when Sir James Parke (1782–1868) was created Baron Wensleydale, of Wensleydale, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, for life, as he was a barrister and judge and it was felt that his skills were required in order to help the House fulfil its duties. His appointment was by Letters Patent issued by Queen Victoria. However, another peer raised the question of his validity, as a life peer, to sit in the House as no such person had done so for over 400 years. There followed a long debate as to whether the Monarch’s power to create life peers in this way had lapsed or was legal, given the changes put in place, both to Parliament and the monarchy, during and after the Interregnum (the period between the execution of Charles I in 1649 and the Restoration of his son Charles II in 1660, when England was under republican government). Eventually, it was decided that the monarch could not change the “constitutional character of Parliament alone”. So that his appointment could go ahead, Baron Wensleydale was recreated a hereditary peer later that same year as Baron Wensleydale, of Walton, in the county Palatine of Lancaster.
In 1869 Earl Russell introduced a life peerages bill. It made provision for 28 life peerages to be in existence at any one time, with no more than four being created in a single year. The idea was that life peers would be drawn from the professional ranks of the civil service, the armed forces and academia. The House of Lords rejected the bill on its third reading. In 1887 the Appellate Jurisdiction Act allowed senior judges to sit in the House of Lords, as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. They were allowed to retain their seats for life, even after their retirement. This pragmatic solution, which addressed the issues raised in the Wensleydale case, ensured that individuals with legal expertise played a full part in the deliberations of the House of Lords.
The Modernisation of the House of Lords
The Life Peerages Act of 1958 (or “An Act to make provision for the creation of life peerages carrying the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords”) established the standards for the creation of life peers. For the first time, the Act enabled life peerages, which entitled the holders to a seat and vote in the House of Lords, to be granted for other than judicial purposes, and to both men and women. On 24 July 1958, the first 14 life peers were announced in the London Gazette. The list included ten men and four women. Hugh Gaitskell, the Leader of the Opposition, nominated six people for a life peerage, six of the ten men nominated were former MPs, and one of the four women was a hereditary peeress in her own right. The first female peer to receive her letters patent was Baroness Wootton of Abinger, created on 8 August 1958, who was also the first woman to chair proceedings in the House of Lords, as Deputy Speaker. The Act gave the Prime Minister power to change the political composition of the House of Lords, gradually diminishing the power of hereditary titleholders.
Lords Reform 1999
The House of Lords Act of 1999 radically reformed the upper chamber by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords, stating that “no-one shall be member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”. However, the act did create a temporary compromise, whereby 92 hereditary peers were allowed to remain in the House of Lords for an interim period, while another ten were created life peers in order to allow them to remain. The 1999 Act decreased membership of the House of Lords from 1,330 to 669 by March 2000.
For the first time the Act gave hereditary peers the right to stand for election to the House of Commons, from which they had previously been disqualified. The first hereditary peer to gain a seat in the House of Commons was the Liberal Democrat John Thurso, a viscount.
Life peers are created by Letters Patent on the advice of the Prime Minister. Anyone is eligible to be selected providing they are aged at least 21, have no convictions and are a UK citizen or a member of the Commonwealth; they must also be resident in the UK for tax purposes. They receive no salary but can claim an allowance for travel and accommodation for each day they sign into the House, even if they do not take part in business; the allowance is currently £305 per day.
New life peerages are usually announced in the following lists: New Year’s Honours, Queen's Birthday Honours, Dissolution Honours and Resignation Honours.
Litter is a modern curse. Our streets are strewn with packaging, takeaway containers, discarded bottles. The verges of our major roads and motorways are lined with windblown rubbish. Even country walks are defiled by dog litter bags that have just been left to rot. Sandwich wrappers, plastic water bottles and empty drinks containers are left behind on seats in trains and on buses. Litter is unavoidable and universal.
We’ve all seen offenders heedlessly lobbing rubbish out of car windows, casually dropping wrappers as they walk along the street, or blithely getting up from a seat or park bench, leaving the remains of their lunch behind them.
It goes without saying that failing to clear up your litter is a prime example of bad manners. Good manners are about ensuring that you minimise the negative impact that your presence has on others, and nobody’s life is enhanced by the sight of your rubbish and discards. Litter bugs are always identifiable by their lack of awareness or self-consciousness, their entrenched inability to see, or care about, the fact that their behaviour is anti-social or offensive.
If you have children, make picking up litter and clearing up after themselves a manners mantra, much like saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’. If you manage to imprint good litter manners into your child early on, that behaviour will stay with them for life. They’ll refrain from dropping litter, and they’ll be offended by other people’s littering – they might even be brave or combative enough to call out littering offenders.
Take a long, hard look at your own behaviour too, and make it a golden rule that you will never leave any rubbish behind you. We’ve all been confronted by overflowing bins – especially at beaches and beauty spots – but that’s really no excuse. If there’s no bin nearby, or a bin is full, just make the extra effort to carry your litter to the next available bin, or bag it up and take it with you so you can dispose of it at home.
These are simple rules that we all need to adhere to, which will ensure that our environment is not degraded and despoiled. They are also useful rules for living, as they require us to be alert to our environment and conscious of the other people with whom we are sharing the planet.
This International Women’s Day we've delved into the past to look at the experiences of women in the 1800s.
The advice that is given in A Manual of Etiquette for Ladies, by ‘A Lady’ (1856) is a vivid insight into the Victorian world, where women led circumscribed lives, and relied on their demure demeanour, conversation adroitness and seamlessly good manners to thrive in polite society and make a good marriage.
At first sight nothing could be further from our own world, but some entirely reasonable guidance is buried in the flowery Victorian prose. Below is a selection of Victorian advice for ladies, with Debrett’s own contemporary commentary.
Conversation
“Nothing so degrades a woman as to talk about the degradation of another. Detraction generally proves the weakness as well as meanness of the party who employs it.”
Bad-mouthing other people might be seen as harmless and enjoyable gossip, but it demonstrates the indiscretion, and sometimes the malice, of the perpetrator.
“Secrets and confidential communications are dangerous topics of conversation at all times, and should be indulged in with the utmost caution.”
Betraying confidences, however enjoyable, will simply highlight your untrustworthiness.
“A woman should never be Janus-faced. A lady hears something disparaging of a friend, something she knows to be unfounded, but to avoid any discussion, remain silent, or apparently coincides. Instead of this, she should most positively dissent. Etiquette does not require anything that honour forbids.”
Always stand up for your friends and defend your convictions – other people will respect your integrity.
“In order to converse agreeably and intelligibly, a lady should cultivate her intellect, not with the idea of becoming a blue-stocking or a pedant, but to render her society pleasant and profitable to others.”
Keeping abreast of the news and ensuring you are reasonably well-informed will ensure that you can always participate confidently in conversation.
Dining
“Once having consented to go [to a dinner party], nothing but serious illness should prevent your attendance. The hour as well as the day should be punctually observed.”
Don’t be a social prevaricator, who accepts invitations provisionally in case something better comes along. Once you have accepted, you are obliged to go, unless you have a cast-iron excuse.
“By small things the want of etiquette is detected – eating fish with a knife, peas with a fork, and many other trifling matters, shew that the lady is ill-acquainted with the orthodox method of eating one’s dinner.”
Orthodox table manners change and evolve (peas used to be eaten with a knife before the arrival of the three-pronged fork), so if in doubt check our dining guidance.
“If invited to take wine with a gentleman, courtesy does not require that you empty your glass; while it forbids you to refuse his invitation, it demands no more than that, with a polite inclination of the head, you should put your lips to the wine.”
These days, it is quite acceptable to politely refuse a glass of wine and certainly would not be considered ill-mannered. Feel free to drink as much, or as little, of your wine as you desire.
Receiving Company
“Always be in readiness to receive your guests. It is highly disrespectful to leave visitors to entertain themselves. It is a becoming proof of attention and politeness to pleasantly welcome, and to remain with your friends.”
If you are entertaining guests, try and ensure that you have everything ready beforehand so you can relax and join the company, make introductions and ensure that everyone has settled in.
“Every appearance of bustle and confusion must be avoided. Ladies should be always perfectly composed, especially so when they occupy the position of hostess.”
A flustered or harassed hostess (or host) can easily become a source of discomfort to guests, who may well feel that the strains of entertaining are outweighing the pleasure of their company.
“No lady who knows what is due to herself and to her visitors, will attempt to receive some of her guests with greater attention and civility than others.”
A good host will always ensure that every one of her/his guests feel equally welcome.
“No flunkeyism is so detestable as that of aping the fashions of the great without the ability to carry them fully out… It is far better to appear to be what we are, than to affect to be what we are not.”
Don’t fall into the trap of over-ostentatious entertaining (lavish decorations, an elaborate menu, excessively complex dishes) in order to impress. It is much better to do things simply, and well.
All over the Christian world Shrove Tuesday is seen as the last hurrah before the strictures of Lent. Spiritually, it was a day for ‘shriving’ (confessing sins and receiving absolution). Socially, it was a day for using up milk, eggs and fat before the Lenten fast, and what better way to do this than by gorging on a delicious feast of pancakes?
Rio de Janeiro may have its famously flamboyant Mardi Gras carnival, but the British have also developed their own more modest Shrove Tuesday customs.
The most widespread British pancake tradition is the pancake race. This is said to originate with the story of a woman who was busy frying her Shrove Tuesday pancakes when she heard the church bells and realised she was late for church. Her only option was to run to the service through the streets of the town brandishing a red hot frying pan and flipping the pancake to ensure that it did not become stuck.
This entertaining spectacle became the inspiration for pancake races all over the country. The most famous traditional pancake race, which dates back to 1445, is at Olney in Buckinghamshire. Competitors must wear a traditional costume of skirt, apron and head covering, and must run the High Street course, a distance of about 415 yards. They must flip their pancake at least twice: once at the start, outside the Bull Inn, and once on arrival at the church.
This sublimely silly race can be seen taking place in the quadrangles and courts of Oxford and Cambridge Universities and even in the august precincts of the House of Parliament – it is frequently a way of raising money for charity, and the British always enjoy seeing grand people making fools of themselves in a good cause.
The pupils at Westminster School have developed their own peculiar pancake-grabbing custom. Called the ‘Pancake Greaze’, it can be dated to at least the mid-18th century. The school cook makes an enormous pancake, which is tossed over the Greaze Bar (a metal bar about 15 feet high) in the school hall. Representatives of each form in the school scramble to grab a piece of the pancake and the pupil who secures the biggest piece is the winner. Traditionally he receives a small cash reward, and a request is made to the Dean to grant a holiday for the day (which rarely happens).
The inhabitants of some towns in England let down their hair before the privations of Lent with a game of Mob Football. The custom, which dates back to the 12th century, was probably once very widespread, but was somewhat curtailed by the 1835 Highways Act, which forbade the playing of football on public highways. Nevertheless, the tradition is still followed in Alnwick in Northumberland, Ashbourne in Derbyshire, Atherstone, in Warwickshire, Sedgefield in Country Durham and St Columb Major in Cornwall.
This exciting game is thought to be one of the oldest forms of football in the world. It is played on a truly epic scale: the goals are three miles apart and the match is played over two eight-hour periods. The hand-sewn leather ball is larger than a football and weighs around four pounds. There is no actual pitch and the game takes place all over the town; the ball is simply moved by a giant huddle of players, who push against the opposition. Hundreds of players take part in the game and there is great local rivalry between the teams. Goal-scorers, who are required to hit their ball against the goal three times, become local celebrities.
Many of us will eschew pancake races and mob football, but the gourmet delights of Shrove Tuesday pancakes are enduringly popular. Some people will respect the historic tradition, and see a feast of pancakes as a last luxury before the austerity of Lent, when they may be undertaking some form of virtuous self-discipline (abstaining from alcohol, shunning chocolates, going meat-free, avoiding caffeine and so on). If you have chosen to take Lent denial seriously, don’t labour the point with your more easygoing friends. This heavy-handed form of virtue-signalling will just make them feel guilty or resentful.
Whatever your attitude to the late winter weeks that lie ahead, enjoy the indulgence of Shrove Tuesday. Whether it’s your last act of hedonism before the Lenten austerity, or just a way of lighting up a dull weekday, Shrove Tuesday is a meaningful milestone. Easter, the season of growth and regeneration, is just six short weeks away, the days are getting longer, and daffodils are in bloom. Savour your pancakes and remind yourself that winter is almost over …
Peaky Blinders returns to our screens tonight, and fans of the show will be eager to find out what happened after Tommy Shelby's assassination attempt on arch-villain Oswald Mosley.
But who was the real life person behind Sam Claflin's character? As the 6th baronet Mosley, a baronetage created in 1781, the former MP and founder of the British Union of Fascists appears in Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage. Here's a brief overview of his life:
Perhaps one of the most infamous figures in British history, Oswald Mosley was born into relative wealth and comfort as the son of Sir Oswald Mosley, 5th Baronet, and Katharine Edwards-Heathcote. Educated at Winchester and Sandhurst, he turned to politics and was elected MP for Harrow between 1918 and 1924, the youngest elected Conservative MP at that time.
In 1922 he ‘crossed the floor’ to join Labour, and in 1926 he was elected as a Labour MP for Smethwick. In 1930, however, he formed the New Party of which he was leader from February 1931. The New Party was dissolved in 1932 and became part of the British Union of Fascists, which was disbanded in 1940.
Mosley married twice, firstly in 1920 to Lady Cynthia Curzon and secondly to the Hon Diana Freeman-Mitford, daughter of the 2nd Baron Redesdale and one of the famous Mitford Sisters. Before their marriage, Diana was one of Mosley's many mistresses, who included his wife’s sister, Lady Alexandra, and her stepmother, Grace, Marchioness of Curzon. Oswald and Diana were married in Germany, in the home of Joseph Goebbels, in 1936; Adolf Hitler, close friend of Diana’s sister Unity, was the guest of honour.
In 1940 Mosley's activities led to his interment by Winston Churchill's government. His wife, Diana, was also interned, shortly after the birth of their son Max. They lived together in a house in the grounds of Holloway prison.
Mosley made several abortive attempts to return to politics after the war, to strident opposition. He lived in Ireland for a time and later developed Parkinson's disease. He died in 1980.
Mosley's first wife, Lady Cynthia, was the 2nd daughter of the 1st Marquess Curzon, who was also created Baron Curzon of Kedletson in 1891, Earl Curzon of Kedleston, Viscount Scarsdale and Baron Ravensdale in 1911; finally, he was created Marquess Curzon of Kedleston and Earl of Kedleston in 1921; Lord Curzon had already inherited the Barony of Scarsdale from his father. The Barony of Ravensdale came with a special remainder which, in default of male issue, could be inherited by his eldest daughter. In 1925, Lady Mary Curzon duly became Baroness Ravensdale; she was later created Baroness Ravensdale of Kedleston (Life Peer) in 1958.
We recently came across a Twitter thread posted by Professor Suzannah Lipscomb, commenting on the inconsistent use of titles in an interview featured in the Sunday Times. The tweet read:
If anyone doubts the existence of an #authoritygap, consider how striking it is, given the content of the piece, that we have ‘Professor Sir Richard Evans’ but not ‘Professor Suzannah Lipscomb’, ‘Dr Lucy Worsley’, ‘Professor Dame Mary Beard’ or ‘Professor Kate Williams’.
In today’s society, where we strive to be egalitarian and inclusive, insisting on the use of titles can seem outdated. But the correct and consistent use of prefixes, suffixes and postnominals remains important.
Here are five reasons why titles matter:
As Professor Lipscomb points out, an individual’s professional title is associated with a level of knowledge and expertise. Whether it’s a military rank, an academic title, or a form of religious address, a prefix underlines a person’s status and standing in a particular field. This in turn gives confidence to clients, colleagues, patients or students.
Whether it’s a doctorate in astrophysics or a damehood for philanthropic work, a person’s title reflects accomplishment and hard work. Using titles correctly implicitly acknowledges achievement.
Using a formal title –‘Mr’ and ‘Mrs’ as well as professional prefixes and honours – is courteous and respectful. Older generations, in particular, often appreciate formal address, while younger ones may be gratified to see their identity acknowledged by a judicious use of gender pronoun or professional title. If titles aren’t possible, use both first name and surname.
In the case of hereditary titles, adopting the correct use of an individual’s style of address recognises ancestry and an often lengthy history of succession. This link with the past is similar to someone incorporating a maiden name or parental name into their married surname. If addressing a duke as ‘Your Grace’ feels a little antiquated, that’s because it’s been done for centuries.
In both social and professional situations, correctly using a title shows attention to detail. Omitting titles, misusing them, or using them inconsistently, can seem sloppy or even discriminatory, as Professor Lipscomb rightly points out.
For up-to-date information on titles and styles of address, as well as extensive forms of address tables covering academia, the military, religion, law, politics and more, subscribe to debretts.com for £4.99 per month (you can cancel any time).
Image: Sir Brooke Boothby, 6th Baronet, by Joseph Wright of Derby, 1781
The monarch is known as the ‘fount of honour’ and the creation of hereditary titles is a royal prerogative. Historically, the peerage was formed of a tightly knit group of powerful nobles, whose titles, lands and rights had been bestowed upon them by the monarch in exchange for an oath of loyalty. In time, the ranks of the aristocracy were swollen by lesser branches of old families, and from the gentry and knightly classes.
It was the first Stuart monarch, James I, who made the connection between title and payment explicit. He instituted the hereditary order of baronets in England by letters patent on 22 May 1611. The primary reason for raising funds by selling baronetcies was for financing the settlement of Ireland. He offered the dignity to 200 gentlemen of good birth, with a clear estate of £1,000 a year, on condition that each should pay into the king's exchequer in three equal instalments a sum equivalent to three years' pay to thirty soldiers at 8d per day per man.
Sir Thomas Gerard (1560–1621), for example, was created Baronet in 1611. He had paid the expected £1,000 for the dignity, but it was returned to him in consideration of the sufferings of his father in the cause of Mary Queen of Scots. In the words of James I: ‘I am particularly bound to love your blood on account of the persecution you have borne for me’. As well as a baronetcy, the king also gave his loyal subject an interest in the tobacco pipe monopoly.
Subsequent monarchs also continued to sell baronetcies, and it was considered an acceptable way of raising revenue. It was not until the 20th century and the scandal surrounding Lloyd George’s brazen exploitation of the honours system that this practice became newsworthy.
The Liberal politician David Lloyd George was well known for his searing criticisms of the House of Lords and its members. He famously remarked that “A fully-equipped duke costs as much to keep up as two dreadnoughts. They are just as great a terror and they last longer.” He became prime minister in 1916, when he headed a coalition that relied heavily on the support of the Conservative Party.
The Liberal Party was in need of money, and Lloyd George found the perfect solution. In six short years, a staggering 1,500 knighthoods were created, and 91 peerage titles were bestowed, twice the figure for the previous 20 years. Lloyd George was unapologetic about the practice of selling titles: a published tariff listed 10,000 for a knighthood, 30,000 for a baronetcy and 50,000 plus for a peerage.
The Order of the British Empire (OBE) was instituted and was targeted at ambitious individuals who could not afford a full title. The honour was awarded to 25,000 people over a four-year period, and became so devalued that it was known as the ‘Order of the Bad Egg’.
Lloyd George’s masterstroke was to award an array of peerage titles to Fleet Street’s press barons – unusually, these were freely bestowed and no cash exchanged hands. In this way it was ensured that the press, with its self-interested and newly ennobled owners, would not hold the Government to account.
Many of the new title-holders were industrialists and self-made businessmen, moving the peerage away from old money and the landowning classes. The cash grab mentality inevitably meant that, since money was the main criterion for the award of titles and honours, an egregious array of criminals, tax evaders and fraudsters were also able to buy status and respectability. King George V was appalled, remarking that the award of an honour to John Robinson, a convicted fraudster, “must be regarded as little less than an insult to the Crown and to the House of Lords.” Even Fleet Street turned on its erstwhile benefactor.
Lloyd George was forced to agree to a parliamentary debate on the cash for honours scandal on 17 July 1922. He somewhat disingenuously described the selling of honours as a “discreditable system. It ought never to have existed. If it does exist, it ought to be terminated”. In time-honoured fashion, he pleaded the financial exigencies of the Great War.
A Royal Commission was announced, which published its report in November 1922. As a result the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee was established to vet potential candidates for honours, and the Honours (Preventions of Abuses) Act 1925 made it an offence to accept a monetary award in exchange for an honour.
Yet scandals continue to beset the British Honours system and it is widely accepted that ‘donations’ to a political party may, entirely coincidentally of course, be accompanied down the line by the granting of a title or honour. As recent events have highlighted, these benefits are also granted to non-British citizens with deep pockets.
The Government is expected to end most Covid restrictions this week, meaning that we will be starting to live with the virus and make informed choices about our own social behaviour.
Will social life return to normal? How can we politely accommodate the great range of attitudes to Covid? How can we pay due attention to the more vulnerable members of society without constricting the freedoms of everyone else? How do we conduct ourselves in the aftermath of the pandemic?
• Don’t make assumptions that everyone has the same attitude to the virus as you. You may have decided that a robust return to normal is right for you, but be aware that everyone you meet will not share your optimism. On the other hand, if you are still very nervous about the risks of the disease, you may find yourself in a growing minority and will need to acknowledge this.
• If in doubt about physical contact, just ask; make a jokey enquiry about attitudes before going in for a close hug or a prolonged handshake. If you’re met with resistance fall back on the panoply of evasive greetings we’ve perfected over the last two years: a serene namaste (a gentle bow with hands clasped in front of your chest); an elbow bump; exaggerated air kisses; blowing kisses; waving from close quarters. This somewhat comical array of greetings can be performed semi-ironically, and may even be a good conversation starter with strangers.
• As with all good manners, seek to minimise the negative impact of your behaviour on other people. If you want people to behave in a certain way around you (for example, wear a mask or use hand sanitiser), don’t just make a bald request. Add a short explanation or apology (“I’m sorry, I’m still really nervous – my mother’s in a care home….” etc). People will be reassured that they are doing you a favour and will cooperate with alacrity.
• When asked to behave in a certain way (eg wear a mask) contain any irritation and do what is requested with good grace. If you really find it difficult to cooperate with a request, make your excuses and leave – confrontations are pointless as attitudes to Covid are deep-rooted and unshakeable, and frequently freighted with emotion.
• If people are persistently nervous about the virus, and resist personal contact or close quarters socialising, contain your irritation. It is quite possible that they have a weakened immune system, but may wish to maintain confidentiality. The last two years have highlighted health concerns and made ill health a topic of daily conversation, but for many people this is a private matter, and interrogating people about their health should be resisted.
• Act responsibly around the virus. It may not be mandatory to self-isolate if you are confronted by a positive lateral flow test, or are suffering from a characteristic cluster of Covid symptoms, but careful consideration should indicate that it is best to avoid close contact with your fellow humans – these strictures have always applied in the case of colds and flu, and it is reasonable to expect that people will do their utmost to avoid passing on infections.
• Don’t be a vaccine policeman. While you may find it reassuring to know that people you are associating with are triple-jabbed, it is intrusive and potentially divisive to ask them. If you want to reassure someone about your Covid status you might choose to tell them about your vaccination history, but this is a private matter and should not be an expectation.
• If your are still cautious about Covid, or protecting a vulnerable person, it is acceptable to ask guests or visitors to your house to take lateral flow tests while they are still being freely provided by the government (though follow the advice above and soften your request with an explanation or excuse). However, if the tests cease to be free, you must think carefully about making this demand. Asking people to spend money before they can even begin to enjoy your hospitality will taint the experience for many people.
• If you do ask guests to take a lateral flow test, take their word when they say it is negative. Sending each other pictures of negative tests is over-sharing, and clearly indicates that you do not find your friends trustworthy.
Remember we’ve all learned a lot and modified our behaviour considerably over the last two years. Be open about your concerns, explain your insecurities, and do your best to trust people to behave responsibly – it’s how we used to live before the whole paraphernalia of shielding, testing, tracing and self-isolation overshadowed our world, and we’re going to have to learn to live that way again.
