PDA

View Full Version : Female Knight Titles



ThinkMinty
2015-10-07, 01:48 PM
In the way that male knights are addressed as Sir...what would one call a female knight? As far as titles go.

Amaril
2015-10-07, 01:51 PM
I believe Dame is the official equivalent, though personally I like to go the Dragon Age route of changing Sir to Ser and having it be gender-neutral (I guess changing the letter isn't all that necessary, but to me it helps divorce the title from its real-world history of being very much associated with men and not women).

hamishspence
2015-10-07, 01:51 PM
Wasn't Dame the historical standard?

That said, in fantasy novels it's very common for Sir to be treated as applicable to both.

Ninja_Prawn
2015-10-07, 01:56 PM
I believe Dame is the modern equivalent. Though I do recall...

When I was in school, we used to call male teachers "sir" and female teachers "miss". One of our female teachers (of design technology) was an army reservist - I believe she was promoted to Major when I was in the sixth form - and we asked her if she'd rather be called "sir". She said she'd prefer to be called "ma'am". I don't know if that was technically correct, but we didn't argue.

In D&D I prefer to have different NPCs address knights differently - the faerie princess says "Madame la Chevalière", the unwashed commoner says "m'lady knight", the slightly thick nobleman says "Madame <Name>", the hurried sheriff says "ma'am"... probably none of them are right, but that's part of their charm!

Rusvul
2015-10-07, 01:56 PM
If just calling them Sir bothers you, or you care about being particularly historically accurate, then Dame. Otherwise, I don't think there's any problem with Sir. Alternately, you could go the route of 'milady' and 'milord' for heralds and such.

Draconium
2015-10-07, 01:56 PM
I believe that modern-day military standards use "Sir" to address either gender, so you could always do that. Or you could use "Dame" or "Ma'am" as well.

Mr.Moron
2015-10-07, 02:08 PM
I've seen "Sir", "Lady", "Lord", "Dame" all used in different settings and contexts. I've also seen it where regardless of gender folks are referred to by specific title or rank Stacy Brown: Guardian Knight might called "Guardian Brown" or Stacy Brown: 5th Seat of the Temple Knights would be "5th Stacy". Really I'd just go with whatever you think sounds coolest assuming there is nothing official for the universe you're working in.

I tend to lean towards being addressed by Rank/Station most of the time personally, but that's me.

Kitten Champion
2015-10-07, 02:43 PM
Orlando Furioso, which I'm reading now, refers to Bradamante - who is a female knight - as lady. Though it typically ignores the honorific and simply refers to her as Bradamante.

Keltest
2015-10-07, 02:57 PM
I believe Sir (or Ser, if you like Dragon Age), Dame or Lady would all be usable.

Solaris
2015-10-07, 03:23 PM
I believe Dame is the modern equivalent. Though I do recall...

When I was in school, we used to call male teachers "sir" and female teachers "miss". One of our female teachers (of design technology) was an army reservist - I believe she was promoted to Major when I was in the sixth form - and we asked her if she'd rather be called "sir". She said she'd prefer to be called "ma'am". I don't know if that was technically correct, but we didn't argue.

In D&D I prefer to have different NPCs address knights differently - the faerie princess says "Madame la Chevalière", the unwashed commoner says "m'lady knight", the slightly thick nobleman says "Madame <Name>", the hurried sheriff says "ma'am"... probably none of them are right, but that's part of their charm!

She was correct. The military tends to be very conservative in its forms of address, and doesn't much care for gender-neutering gendered forms.

Of course, I wouldn't recommend referring to an enlisted personnel or NCO by "Sir" or "Ma'am". That's a form strictly reserved for officers, and I've taken offense to people calling me "Sir" when my rank clearly says "Sergeant".


I believe that modern-day military standards use "Sir" to address either gender, so you could always do that. Or you could use "Dame" or "Ma'am" as well.

Not in the United States military, it isn't. I haven't played much with foreign troops, but I'm reasonably certain it's not true in the anglophone militaries either. "Ma'am" is the proper form of address for a female officer if you're military; female enlisted personnel are addressed by their rank (if an NCO) or surname (if junior enlisted). It's also acceptable to address a junior troop by her surname, particularly if there are none of her subordinates around to hear you do it.

If you're a civilian, the proper form of address for a military person is their rank.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-10-07, 03:30 PM
For at least modern day knighted women, wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir) suggests:


The equivalent term for a knighted woman or baronetess is Dame, or "Lady" for the wife of a knight or baronet.

DavidSh
2015-10-07, 03:53 PM
Orlando Furioso, which I'm reading now, refers to Bradamante - who is a female knight - as lady. Though it typically ignores the honorific and simply refers to her as Bradamante.
Ludovico Ariosto's Orlando Furioso? "Lady" must be the choice of the translator. My mastery of Italian is very poor, but in http://digilander.libero.it/testi_di_ariosto/index.html (http://digilander.libero.it/testi_di_ariosto/index.html)I only see "donzella" used to refer to her, besides her name.

TheOOB
2015-10-07, 04:28 PM
I've seen a couple settings where if they are currently dressed for combat it's sir, and otherwise it's lady or dame. Gender doesn't matter when your armed and armored.

Real world examples are few and far between, and almost always exceptions so there never really was a standard, and different fantasy settings do it differently.

Cazero
2015-10-07, 04:43 PM
The original french word that became Sir was gender specific, and the female equivalent would be Lady (translated from Dame). Madam(e) simply means the Lady in question is your liege.

LudicSavant
2015-10-07, 05:10 PM
Time to break out the historical sources in this thread.

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/wom-kn.htm

Templarkommando
2015-10-07, 06:47 PM
For a woman that holds the heraldic rank of "Knight," Dame is appropriate as far as I know. I would imagine that this would change depending on your setting. Lady is likely a good variant.

I'm reminded of the Honor Harrington series. On the off-chance that someone hasn't read it though, I'll put that info in spoilers

Honor Harrington is a series with several books in the main series. Her service is so distinguished that she has received numerous feudal titles to recognize her. At the latest point in the series, her full name follows thusly: Lady Dame Honor Stephanie Alexander-Harrington, Steadholder Harrington, Duchess Harrington, Countess White Haven.

Another interesting study in women with titles includes various monarchs. The example that springs immediately to my mind is the present Queen of England:

"Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem."

snacksmoto
2015-10-07, 09:18 PM
One military woman I used to know insisted on being called "Sir" if she were to be addressed in a military fashion. Her reasoning was that she was not to be coddled simply because she had breasts. She earned her rank just like everyone else of that rank and having breasts made her commands no different than anyone else of that rank.

She used an analogy: "Do you call one ball peen hammer any different than another ball peen hammer? Is one ball peen hammer more capable than another ball peen hammer or can both do the job they are designed for? A ball peen hammer is called something different than a sledgehammer because they have different capabilities."

Aedilred
2015-10-07, 11:19 PM
In the way that male knights are addressed as Sir...what would one call a female knight? As far as titles go.

It depends whether you mean as a title, or as an address.

As people have mentioned, the equivalent would be "Dame" as a title, and "Ma'am" as an address. This is generally standard use in the UK at least: "ma'am" being the equivalent of "sir" for denoting respect. The wife of a knight is a "Lady".

(As a general note, for determining how to address people of different station using traditional English forms, check out the Debretts website for the most comprehensive guide you can imagine. It has a slightly fusty reputation but is perfect for this sort of thing).

Of course, in your own setting, you can make up your own rules, but I always tend to think it's worth knowing the rules first before you start breaking them.

goto124
2015-10-07, 11:25 PM
Huh, I expected to see 'there were no female knights'. Different cultures or eras?

Cybren
2015-10-07, 11:30 PM
If you're a civilian, the proper form of address for a military person is their rank.

Well, yes, sort of, except since the US is an egalitarian society Mr/Ms are appropriate styles of address for anyone. What's polite and what's expected etiquette are different things after all, since styles of address are more about required etiquette than just politeness.

LudicSavant
2015-10-07, 11:32 PM
Huh, I expected to see 'there were no female knights'. Different cultures or eras?

None of that nonsense here. There were plenty of female knights in various eras.

For instance, there was the Order of the Hatchet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Hatchet

Also, here's an article from io9: http://io9.com/what-kind-of-armor-did-medieval-women-really-wear-1502779338

Also, for a scholarly journal article: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/248938503_The_woman_warrior_Gender_warfare_and_soc iety_in_medieval_Europe

Solaris
2015-10-07, 11:35 PM
Well, yes, sort of, except since the US is an egalitarian society Mr/Ms are appropriate styles of address for anyone. What's polite and what's expected etiquette are different things after all, since styles of address are more about required etiquette than just politeness.

Nope. "Mr/Ms" is appropriate only for addressing warrant officers and civilians.

Just because the other 99.5% of the population doesn't know better doesn't make it appropriate.

Cybren
2015-10-07, 11:44 PM
Nope. "Mr/Ms" is appropriate only for addressing warrant officers and civilians.

Just because the other 99.5% of the population doesn't know better doesn't make it appropriate.

No like, literally. The old rules for styles of address were codified and rigid. Mr was a style of address reserved only for social superiors.

Consciousness of manners of addressing people is solely a marker of politeness, because we ostensibly live in a classless society.

Solaris
2015-10-08, 01:10 AM
No like, literally. The old rules for styles of address were codified and rigid. Mr was a style of address reserved only for social superiors.

Consciousness of manners of addressing people is solely a marker of politeness, because we ostensibly live in a classless society.

No, really, I kinda know what I'm talking about when I'm speaking about forms of address for US military personnel. You can even look it up if you don't believe me.

It's covered in Table 1-1 of AR 600-20 for the Army. The other branches have similar regulatory documents, and I'm pretty sure there's a DoD one out there as well but I'm really not interested in scrounging it up.

But by all means, continue telling me that my soldiers should have addressed me as "Mr" and I should have done the same to my commander and first sergeant.

dps
2015-10-08, 01:50 AM
But by all means, continue telling me that my soldiers should have addressed me as "Mr" and I should have done the same to my commander and first sergeant.

Unless I misread his post, Cybren wasn't talking about how soldiers address each other; he was talking about how civilians address them. We're such an informal society anymore, and there are so few situations in everyday civilian life in which we normally use titles anymore, that I have no idea what the correct formal protocol is for a civilian addressing a member of the armed forces, so I don't know if he's right or not. But whatever military regulations say about it, they aren't going to be legally binding on civilians.

Kitten Champion
2015-10-08, 01:51 AM
Ludovico Ariosto's Orlando Furioso? "Lady" must be the choice of the translator. My mastery of Italian is very poor, but in http://digilander.libero.it/testi_di_ariosto/index.html (http://digilander.libero.it/testi_di_ariosto/index.html)I only see "donzella" used to refer to her, besides her name.

I see "donna" in canto XI which I believe is the Italian equivalent of lady? Though I'm too unfamiliar with Italian to know things like context or wordplay or whatever and Ariosto clearly wasn't confined to standard prose so... blah. I go with the translator because the translator's put more effort into this than me.

Anyways, I think Dame is fine, as is Sir, Ser, Lady, or Madam. In the end it just needs to be self-consistent and obviously intended as a honorific, any D&D or similar setting would have had one for a while and be pretty used to it.

Though, while speaking specifically of D&D, I'd think the various novels, games, tie-ins, etc. would have addressed this at some point. What did, for instance, Neverwinter Nights use?

TeChameleon
2015-10-08, 03:45 AM
Nope. "Mr/Ms" is appropriate only for addressing warrant officers and civilians.

Just because the other 99.5% of the population doesn't know better doesn't make it appropriate.
There are a handful of civilians that would be likely to get more than a little tetchy about it as well- those who have earned doctorates (especially of the medical variety) spring to mind rather readily. Also those of the feminine persuasion who are married and somewhat older-fashioned might rather take exception at being 'Ms'-taken.

... I'd apologize for the pun, but I don't feel like it :smalltongue:

Kami2awa
2015-10-08, 04:07 AM
This might be useful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_address_in_the_United_Kingdom#Knights

I think "vastly overcomplicated" sums it up quite well.

As regards academic titles, I have one and avoid using it too often because firstly it can sound a bit pretentious, secondly it can cause issues with computer systems that don't recognise that (for example) Mr Smith and Dr Smith are the same person, and thirdly it can cause confusion or even legal trouble in actual emergencies (calling yourself Doctor when you are not a medical doctor is asking for trouble if someone is unwell).

Coidzor
2015-10-08, 04:39 AM
No, really, I kinda know what I'm talking about when I'm speaking about forms of address for US military personnel. You can even look it up if you don't believe me.

It's covered in Table 1-1 of AR 600-20 for the Army. The other branches have similar regulatory documents, and I'm pretty sure there's a DoD one out there as well but I'm really not interested in scrounging it up.

But by all means, continue telling me that my soldiers should have addressed me as "Mr" and I should have done the same to my commander and first sergeant.

I believe it's more to do with you being Mr. Solaris to strangers outside of interacting with you in uniform or in such contexts as your service is pertinent.

It was a bit wonky though, I must admit, so maybe I misgathered.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-10-08, 05:27 AM
Solaris ia talking about internal military regulations. According to those, civilians should adress military personel as [what Solaris said]. In practice these are rules that civilians working for (or regularly working with) the military know and follow, unless they like dishonorable discharge. Cybren is talking about all the people that make up the rest of the world. If a lieutenant commander in uniform walks into a supermarket and addresses the manager (presumably to warn him about terrorist cucumbers, because that's the least likely reason I could come up with) mister [last name], sir, lieutenant commander, commander or even lieutenant are all appropriate forms of address (do expect to get corrected if you keep consistently using that last one though). It's a civilian conversation, it isn't regulated by the strict rules of the military, but rather mostly by the rule "if you understood what I meant I said the right thing".

According to my personal regulations I should be addressed as "Godking of the Universe", but it's not like everyone respects that tradition you know.

It's similar with knights. Dame [full name] appears the appropriate form of address, or in some traditions Sir [the same thing] (although I figure this egalitarian approach to be more common in modern days and particularly in science fiction than in most historical settings). For a hermit who lives on a hill with a bunch of sheep though, any form that shows a certain amount of respect will do, unless the knight in question is a jerk/bitch/whatever the right version of that one is and feels like beating up a commoner for not sticking to proper etiquette.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-08, 05:31 AM
Personally I differ depending on the setting. If it's equal the sir for all. If it's not sir is used for all knight errants, but otherwise female knights are dame/lady, depending on if their married or not.

Of course, I tend to use what in my experience is the English system, so:
Mister/Miss(/Mrs/Ms) is standard and used when you don't know which title. For women use whichever variation they want.
Dr supersedes Mr, and Professor supersedes Dr. This means that you do not call a professor Dr (or Mr) without their consent.
Vicar supersedes Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms, but not Dr (although most vicars I know would find prefer just the religious title if they had a PhD). I believe this is the same for all church titles.
Sir/Dame and aristocratic titles supersede all before them, excluding church titles, and stack.

Ninja_Prawn
2015-10-08, 06:19 AM
Sir/Dame and aristocratic titles supersede all before them, excluding church titles, and stack.

This is important, because many people will be both Lord/Lady and Sir/Dame.

Sir Alan, Baron Sugar, for instance.

Khedrac
2015-10-08, 06:46 AM
Vicar supersedes Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms, but not Dr (although most vicars I know would find prefer just the religious title if they had a PhD). I believe this is the same for all church titles.

Be careful with religious "titles" - they follow a different scheme to everything else (at least in the Anglican Church).

In the UK:
First off, the correct prefix for a vicar or curate is "Reverend" (short forms "Rev." or "Revd").
As in "Rev. John Smith"
Note - if using an ecclesiastical prefix the Christian name is mandatory - "Rev. Smith" is wrong!

It's not rare for priests with a PhD to use "Doctor" when being formal - "Rev. Dr John Smith" - but it's not that common either.
Now priests can often receive an appointment as the Canon of a cathedral in which case they can be addressed three ways:
"Canon John Smith", "Rev. John Smith" or "Rev. Canon John Smith" - the last is formally correct but the least used in my experience.
I don't know how "Canon" interacts with "Doctor".
And the more senior Anglican prefixes (e.g. "Right Reverend", "Very Reverend") follow the same rules.

Back to titles, "Lady" is the most complex term because it can mean so many different things:
"Ladies and Gentlemen" - polite way of describing people (I have seen a military officer start an email with "Sir, Ladies and Gentlemen" because it was going to one senior officer and a number of other his rank and below).
"Lady" is the equivalent of "Lord" and is the way to address a female Earl (iirc)
"Lady" is also the honourific bestowed upon the wife of a Knight or an Earl (there's no equivalent for husbands).
There are probably more...

Dame is the current title for a woman with a knighthood (as said previously)

Also "Mistress" is a more generic term than people realize, the following are all abbreviations for "Mistress":
Mrs - a married woman
Miss - a young girl or an unmarried woman
Ms - a woman who might be married
.. Which makes Pratchett's witches insisting on it as a form of address make sense.

Related point:
Miss Smith should be the eldest unmarried woman of the family.
All the younger sisters (nieces) have to use their initial: Miss A Smith, Miss B Smith etc.

As for it being down to class - true but will vary greatly by place. For instance, my father's cleaning lady always calls him "Sir", though she refers to all her other clients by name (I used to be "young Sir" despite having an elder brother). My mother was "Mrs Xxxx".
Good luck with making sense of that one.

Edit: Don't forget that Doctor can supersede Mrs as opposed to Mr, as in "Mr and Doctor Smith" or "The Doctors Smith" (I have a pair of friends who married before they completed their PhDs so the wife does use her married name professionally.

goto124
2015-10-08, 06:52 AM
Funny how female titles can change on marriage, but not those of males? I think?

Something to take into account when making up titles for a setting?

Ninja_Prawn
2015-10-08, 06:56 AM
Funny how female titles can change on marriage, but not those of males? I think?

When we were little, they told us that an unmarried man should be addressed as "master".

I don't think I've ever heard it used un-ironically, though. In general, society is moving the other way; a lot of women (at least in my experience) prefer "Ms." regardless of marital status.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-10-08, 07:05 AM
When we were little, they told us that an unmarried man should be addressed as "master".

So when you're a bachelor you're automatically a master?

What am I still studying for? :smalltongue:

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-10-08, 07:13 AM
Personally I differ depending on the setting. If it's equal the sir for all. If it's not sir is used for all knight errants, but otherwise female knights are dame/lady, depending on if their married or not.

Of course, I tend to use what in my experience is the English system, so:
Mister/Miss(/Mrs/Ms) is standard and used when you don't know which title. For women use whichever variation they want.
Dr supersedes Mr, and Professor supersedes Dr. This means that you do not call a professor Dr (or Mr) without their consent.
Vicar supersedes Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms, but not Dr (although most vicars I know would find prefer just the religious title if they had a PhD). I believe this is the same for all church titles.
Sir/Dame and aristocratic titles supersede all before them, excluding church titles, and stack.
And military rank also goes before honours (eg. the current first sea lord is Admiral Sir George Zambellas) - although my question is what the ordering would be for someone with military rank, a knighthood, a professorship or doctorate (whether medical or otherwise) and an ecclesiarchal rank as well?

My second question is how large a business card they'd need for all of that. :smallamused:

Back to the original question, if we're talking the modern honours system of the UK, Dame is the female equivalent of Sir for those given knighthoods (Judy Dench, for example, is Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire). There is no such honorific for the husband of a Dame, and I've no idea how it would work when the partner is of the same gender as the recipient (the honours committee's probably got no ideas either yet).

But if you're talking the standard Chivalrous Medieval Knight - Dame or Lady would probably be acceptable in most cases.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-08, 07:22 AM
To those who have corrected me, especially the guy who went into Anglican Church titles, thank you.


When we were little, they told us that an unmarried man should be addressed as "master".

As far as I know, master [surname] is the correct way to address a male under 18, but mister is nowdays used for all men over 18 (and in many cases under 18 as well, it depends on the formality). I believe 'the young master' can also be used, but as far as I know isn't outside of TV butlers.

There's also the fact that some titles can be used with the first name, while others can't be, and sir is always used with the first name (please correct me if this is wrong). Then there are honorrifics that aren't titles.

goto124
2015-10-08, 08:15 AM
I was under the impression Master meant a male who had some sort of rankmor authority, while Mister is more generic.

Are female Masters called Mistress, or Master, or... ?

Ninja_Prawn
2015-10-08, 08:36 AM
I was under the impression Master meant a male who had some sort of rankmor authority, while Mister is more generic.

Are female Masters called Mistress, or Master, or... ?

Personally, I like "mistress" for a female who is a master of something. I don't think it'll catch on though, due to the 'dominatrix' vibe...

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-10-08, 10:25 AM
There is no such honorific for the husband of a Dame, and I've no idea how it would work when the partner is of the same gender as the recipient (the honours committee's probably got no ideas either yet).

The simplest solution would be to go with the gender of the partner. If the partner is female, she gets to be a lady, regardless of the gender of the person who earned/inherited the title.

I don't think the governing bodies of this stuff are going to make that official anytime soon, as it would mean publicly accepting the idea that nobility can be gay, but that's how I'd do it in a fantasy setting (that's not liberal enough to have stopped having or have never developed different rules for titles in men and women).

Grey Watcher
2015-10-08, 10:47 AM
Of course, I wouldn't recommend referring to an enlisted personnel or NCO by "Sir" or "Ma'am". That's a form strictly reserved for officers, and I've taken offense to people calling me "Sir" when my rank clearly says "Sergeant".

Is that the origin of that silly joke "Don't call me 'sir', I work for a living"? (Or 'used to work if the speaker is retired.)


Personally, I like "mistress" for a female who is a master of something. I don't think it'll catch on though, due to the 'dominatrix' vibe...

That and the slightly older usage of "extramarital lady-love of a married man". It's obviously a tangent, but now I'm wondering about the etymological interaction between those two uses of "mistress".... :smallconfused:

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-10-08, 11:03 AM
The simplest solution would be to go with the gender of the partner. If the partner is female, she gets to be a lady, regardless of the gender of the person who earned/inherited the title.

I don't think the governing bodies of this stuff are going to make that official anytime soon, as it would mean publicly accepting the idea that nobility can be gay, but that's how I'd do it in a fantasy setting (that's not liberal enough to have stopped having or have never developed different rules for titles in men and women).
I actually missed a bit out from what I intended to write, which I only spotted on re-reading, it should have been: "Lady has many uses, one of which is as the wife of the recipient of a Knighthood - there is no such honorific for the husband of a Dame..."

However, it's not really the sexuality and marital status of the nobility that's at issue, it's those of the recipients of honours, which is a slightly different thing.

1337 b4k4
2015-10-08, 11:19 AM
I was under the impression Master meant a male who had some sort of rankmor authority, while Mister is more generic.

Are female Masters called Mistress, or Master, or... ?

According to the wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_%28form_of_address%29), Master started as a form of address for people in a higher station than you, was extended to all "respectable" men, and then later supplanted by Mister, with Master being retained for all males under the age of majority.

For women, Miss is considered the rough equivalent of Master. Like Master it was originally applicable to all women, regardless of marital status (having derived from Mistress). In modern usage, Miss is mostly applicable to young women, but with no specific cutoff at the age of majority (and is also considered much less "formal" than Master, e.g. you will often here someone say "Can I help you Miss?" but baring very formal events, you're likely to never here "Can I help you Master"). Growing up I was taught that Miss is the proper form of address for all women until (and unless) corrected by the woman as it neither implied marital status (that being reserved for Mrs.) nor age (some woman object to being referred to as ma'am even though in most cases that is the polite equivalent of "sir"). In the business world, Miss has largely been supplanted by Ms. due to the formers more modern associations with younger and specifically unmarried women (even if it's not officially built into the title).

In short, honnorifics are complicated.

Solaris
2015-10-08, 12:04 PM
Unless I misread his post, Cybren wasn't talking about how soldiers address each other; he was talking about how civilians address them. We're such an informal society anymore, and there are so few situations in everyday civilian life in which we normally use titles anymore, that I have no idea what the correct formal protocol is for a civilian addressing a member of the armed forces, so I don't know if he's right or not. But whatever military regulations say about it, they aren't going to be legally binding on civilians.

College degrees aren't legally binding forms of address, either, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's rude to address a doctor as anything but "Dr" without his assent.
Likewise, (especially) if a servicecritter's in uniform, he's to be addressed appropriately. Don't worry about knowing it, he'll tell you when he introduces himself ("I'm Sergeant Snuffy", "My name is Lieutenant Lost", and so on). Like I said in the post Cybren quoted, just because 99.5% of Americans don't know better doesn't change the proprieties of it.


I was under the impression Master meant a male who had some sort of rankmor authority, while Mister is more generic.

Are female Masters called Mistress, or Master, or... ?

What do you think "Miss" and "Mrs" are derived from?

EDIT: In my defense, l337 b4k4's post wasn't there when I started typing.


Is that the origin of that silly joke "Don't call me 'sir', I work for a living"? (Or 'used to work if the speaker is retired.)

The very same. I've even used it myself with a completely straight face.

Delta
2015-10-08, 01:46 PM
College degrees aren't legally binding forms of address, either, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's rude to address a doctor as anything but "Dr" without his assent.

Can only talk about Germany, but here "Doktor" as a title actually is part of your legal name.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-10-08, 01:58 PM
Can only talk about Germany, but here "Doktor" as a title actually is part of your legal name.

Yet I can still call any doctor mister Doodlyhead. I don't think they can sue me for not calling them doctor. So it's not really a legally binding form of address...

ExLibrisMortis
2015-10-08, 02:18 PM
College degrees aren't legally binding forms of address, either, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's rude to address a doctor as anything but "Dr" without his assent.
That's not the case over here, certainly. I've never adressed anyone by their college degree, and I've never heard anyone do so. Now, I don't know any military personnel, but I imagine the same thing holds for them.

Ravens_cry
2015-10-08, 05:11 PM
Dame works. The trouble with Lady is that, at least in modern peerage, is it's already connected to other, higher ranks. 'Lady Knight' could be used in the same cases as 'Sir Knight', but so could 'Dame Knight', and be one syllable less.

goto124
2015-10-08, 11:35 PM
Personally, I like "mistress" for a female who is a master of something. I don't think it'll catch on though, due to the 'dominatrix' vibe...

Female Knight 1 prefers to be called Master to be equal to the males, and to avoid the dominatrix vibe.

Female Knight 2 prefers to be called Mistress to be set apart from the males, and to emphasize her feminity.

Individuals are different!



IMHO, when Mistress is used, it's to bring in the feeling of an earlier era, before the meaning of "extramarital lady-love of a married man" came about. Is that meaning more modern, and roughly how modern is it?

runeghost
2015-10-09, 02:13 AM
For paladins, or other military-religious orders, something like Sister-Captain, or Mother-Commander might make sense (with the male versions being Brother-Captain, or Father-Commander).

ThinkMinty
2015-10-09, 03:12 AM
Personally, I like "mistress" for a female who is a master of something. I don't think it'll catch on though, due to the 'dominatrix' vibe...

That's why it should catch on.


For paladins, or other military-religious orders, something like Sister-Captain, or Mother-Commander might make sense (with the male versions being Brother-Captain, or Father-Commander).

I decided on Sister n' Brother, to add in the religious bit and solve the problem a bit more thoroughly without having to make more things up.

EccentricCircle
2015-10-09, 11:22 AM
Master is an odd one, since it's an academic degree and a regular title.
A male is "master" until the age of 18, then becomes "mister". You seem to stay mister when you get a masters degree, but not if you are a Jedi.

Solaris
2015-10-09, 11:34 AM
That's not the case over here, certainly. I've never adressed anyone by their college degree, and I've never heard anyone do so. Now, I don't know any military personnel, but I imagine the same thing holds for them.

You don't call a doctor a doctor? So far as I'm aware, that's the only title you get out of a college degree, and then only the more advanced ones.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-09, 12:44 PM
You don't call a doctor a doctor? So far as I'm aware, that's the only title you get out of a college degree, and then only the more advanced ones.

I know that you get the honorrifics bachelor of X or master of X (that's what the letters after your name mean), but I don't believe that translates into the title of bachelor or master, and nobody would use them even if they did.

So I think only doctorates grant two honorrifics, one being a title.

Cluedrew
2015-10-09, 02:46 PM
Dr supersedes Mr, and Professor supersedes Dr.One anecdote about this I've heard is that there is a type of surgeon that goes back to being 'Mr' because... I guess they wanted a higher title but didn't want a new one so they went around to the beginning again. Of course I've only heard this one once and the one telling the story was rather confused I think they may have just gotten confused with a health care provider who was not a doctor. Maybe a nurse who worked in the operating room.

As for the main topic I would like to throw my vote behind "pay more attention to the setting than real life". For instance if you have a fantasy setting and spell casters are divided up into witches and wizards based on gender than it might make sense to have a different title for female knights. Maybe even the historically inspired ones. But if almost everywhere else gender neutral terms are used, than keep with the gender neutral term for knights. There may be other things to influence your decision put that is the general idea.

Ravens_cry
2015-10-09, 02:52 PM
One anecdote about this I've heard is that there is a type of surgeon that goes back to being 'Mr' because... I guess they wanted a higher title but didn't want a new one so they went around to the beginning again. Of course I've only heard this one once and the one telling the story was rather confused I think they may have just gotten confused with a health care provider who was not a doctor. Maybe a nurse who worked in the operating room.

Surgeons, at least in the UK, are called 'Mister*', because they were once barber-surgeons, a trade, not something one got a degree for, unlike medical doctors.
*Or Miss/Misses/Ms.

Cluedrew
2015-10-09, 02:55 PM
Thanks Ravens_cry, that makes sense. So I guess the story wasn't garbled after all.

ExLibrisMortis
2015-10-09, 04:12 PM
You don't call a doctor a doctor? So far as I'm aware, that's the only title you get out of a college degree, and then only the more advanced ones.
You can get the titles Bachelor/Master of Arts/Sciences/Law, and then a doctorate, at least in Europe (the Bologna zone, named after the relevant treaty).

In the Netherlands, a master of sciences in an engineering program awards the title Engineer (a relic of the old system, I'm not sure how official this is, but lots of people use it), law awards 'master', and other masters award 'doctorandus' ("he who should become a doctor"), followed by Doctor if a PhD is attained. An engineer with a PhD will be called 'Doctor Engineer', but the Drs. title is superseded by Dr.. An engineering professor can use three ('professor doctor engineer'/'prof. dr. ir.'). A doctor in law might be Master Doctor, a doctor who also has a law degree is Doctor Master, but both are rarely used.

For all these titles goes the same: I've never adressed anyone by their title, and I've never heard it used. It's customary to do so only during ceremonies - investiture of parliament, graduation, that sort of thing, however you'd call someone 'weledelzeergeleerde' (right noble very learned) or 'hooggeleerde' (highly learned), depending on grade.

I don't call my GP or dentist 'doctor' either, but I do use the formal pronoun.

Gorilla2038
2015-10-09, 07:28 PM
You don't call a doctor a doctor? So far as I'm aware, that's the only title you get out of a college degree, and then only the more advanced ones.

The difference to me is that when I'm in uniform, I am a X rank* of the US government. It doesn't make that you are John Smith, it matters that you are legally a Lt., and therefore a representative of her laws and yadda yadda.

So, the comparison is thus: During office hours, you're a Doctor. Outside, you're just a person. ( to others at least, I understand that the uniform doesn't really come off etc)

The key to all of this is respect, and upholding that respect through your conduct, and the conduct you expect from civilians should reflect the respect asked of the uniform. Sir, Mister, or gender reversed versions should be more than appropriate, if we are defining appropriate as acceptable to the two cultures in communication. They are not correct by regs, but personally, I think it satisfies the form, if not the letter.

Thin red line of heroes...

*unimportant to conversation

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-09, 07:55 PM
So, the comparison is thus: During office hours, you're a Doctor. Outside, you're just a person. ( to others at least, I understand that the uniform doesn't really come off etc)

At least in the UK, a doctor is always a doctor. I may call John Smith by his first name, but he worked hard to get his PhD, which means that as a doctor of physics, any time I address him in a formal context I would have to say doctor, or if I introduced him to someone I might call him 'doctor smith' or 'my doctor friend, john'. A doctor is always doctor, never mister/mistress, but you don't have to use the title if it isn't the correct situation. Similarly, one of my friend's has an aunt who is a GP, and if I met her I would call her doctor.

The point? I believe that this should apply to everything. If somebody became, say, a lieutenant commander, they worked hard at it and should be addressed by that whether they are in uniform or not, assuming you have reason to know their title.

College degrees are a good example of how this works. When I finish my degree I won't be Mr Anonymouswizard, I'd be Mr Anonymouswizard BEng. It may be customary to leave it out, but it would still be one of my titles, and incorporated on official documents. I could, in theory, require people to use it as well, but that's like me excepting people shortening my RL name (it ain't gonna happen).

Also, have you ever heard a general introduced as mister [name]?

goto124
2015-10-09, 09:38 PM
As for the main topic I would like to throw my vote behind "pay more attention to the setting than real life". For instance if you have a fantasy setting and spell casters are divided up into witches and wizards based on gender than it might make sense to have a different title for female knights. Maybe even the historically inspired ones. But if almost everywhere else gender neutral terms are used, than keep with the gender neutral term for knights. There may be other things to influence your decision put that is the general idea.

I would say the gender ideas of the knightly order would be more important than what the rest of society thinks, though the latter does affect the former.

Different countries/societies/knightly orders/etc could also have different gender differentiation (or lack thereof).

Side note: In the Harry Potter verse, wizards and witches are just gender flipped versions of each other. In other settings, the term 'witch' could easily mean an entirely different set of spells from 'wizard'. Be careful :smalltongue:

Khedrac
2015-10-10, 02:09 AM
While we are getting confused by "Doctors", in the UK it gets slightly worse...

Medical doctors - who usually get the courtesy title "doctor" usually don't have doctorates! A lot go on to get one, but I believe they come out of medical school with two batchelor's degrees - Medicine and Surgery.
Academic doctors - who usually only get the title "doctor" in academic circles (and in formal settings, which means more in writing than speech) - are the ones with actual doctorates.
Generally university doctorates are "doctors of philosophy" (or PhDs except for Oxford which gives DPhils) though I think Law has its own doctorates (DL?).
"Doctor of Science" (DSc) tends to be honourary, except for medical research which is where DScs are (or were) usually the degree awarded.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-10, 02:26 AM
The difference to me is that when I'm in uniform, I am a X rank* of the US government. It doesn't make that you are John Smith, it matters that you are legally a Lt., and therefore a representative of her laws and yadda yadda.

So, the comparison is thus: During office hours, you're a Doctor. Outside, you're just a person. ( to others at least, I understand that the uniform doesn't really come off etc)

The key to all of this is respect, and upholding that respect through your conduct, and the conduct you expect from civilians should reflect the respect asked of the uniform. Sir, Mister, or gender reversed versions should be more than appropriate, if we are defining appropriate as acceptable to the two cultures in communication. They are not correct by regs, but personally, I think it satisfies the form, if not the letter.

Thin red line of heroes...

*unimportant to conversation

I usually only refer to people by a title in reference to them, to their face I'm informal regardless of circumstance due to my at-times irreverent notion that people are people.

Ninja_Prawn
2015-10-10, 03:13 AM
While we are getting confused by "Doctors", in the UK it gets slightly worse...
...
Generally university doctorates are "doctors of philosophy" (or PhDs except for Oxford which gives DPhils) though I think Law has its own doctorates (DL?).
"Doctor of Science" (DSc) tends to be honourary, except for medical research which is where DScs are (or were) usually the degree awarded.

They've even been talking about introducing an EngD (doctor of engineering). I was thinking about taking a break from work to study one, mostly because I like the idea of everyone having to call me Doctor Ninja_Prawn!

It's a shame 'Engineer' isn't a formal title here like it is in Germany...

Gorilla2038
2015-10-10, 11:06 PM
Also, have you ever heard a general introduced as mister [name]?

You are entirely correct, especially from your culture. But in the US, which is the only place I speak for, the highest rank you can achieve still is referred to as "Mr. President", so I think the implied weight is very different.

Now, I take your point at face value. It would be rude to refer to a general officer in civilian company as "Mr. Harper", but at lower levels of interaction, it would be pretty acceptable to refer to say, a Major or lower. Maybe not aware and in the wrong company, certainly insulting, but that's set to the situation.

To tie this back to the theme (and its actually relevant), you can have cultures that disdain these kind of titles. It might be neat to have several areas that refuses to acknowledge female knights, some that ignore the title, some that use different terms. Very easy way to expand a world with very little work on your part!


I usually only refer to people by a title in reference to them, to their face I'm informal regardless of circumstance due to my at-times irreverent notion that people are people.

Very egalitarian, but not always applicable. For example, do you call the cop pulling you over "Joe" or "Officer"? People might be people, but talking to people in power, or ones deserving of the respect earned (as anonymous wizard pointed out above) can range from rude, to disastrous. No one walks up to say, Vladimir Putin and says "Hey Poots, one still hanging below the other?" ;)

Edit: Accidental arrogant phrasing?

Delta
2015-10-11, 04:52 AM
It's a shame 'Engineer' isn't a formal title here like it is in Germany...

If you want to see what this looks like when going overboard you gotta look at Austria. Especially among conservatives and older people, everyone needs or has a title there. A chairman of something always gets greeted as "Herr Vorsitzender", you would never dare call someone with a PhD anything but "Herr Doktor" and when neccessary they'll invent titles to be polite, everyone with a technical degree of some kind is quick to get called "Herr Ingenieur" even if his field of study had nothing to do with engineering. The beginning of business meetings there can be pretty ridiculous if you're not used to that kind of stuff.

MrConsideration
2015-10-11, 05:21 AM
It is bizarre to me that some people in 2015 still use the vestiges of medieval titles. I expect to be called Sir or Mr <Name> at work by pupils, but otherwise I'm happy to be called by my name despite degree or honours. But I'm an egalitarian sort of fellow.

'Dame' is the female honorific for a person who has been Knighted, or brought into an order of chivalry.
For paladins, I'd use something derived from religious orders: Mother-Superior Idri, Sister Idri, Abbess, Anchorite. You could also use female versions of the titles from the Teutonic Order or the Knights of St. John, which imitate the above but with extra military elements. A lot of these are gender-neutral eg Knight-Magister.
For aristocratic knights, who have inherited the title and presumably a fief, Lady or some culturally appropriate equivalent like Donna or Domina seems ideal. You could specify that they're a serving knight with some military addition: Captain someone or General someone else.


Female warriors are all but non-existent in the Western Romance tradition so you might find it difficult to find historically accurate terms. If you fancy moving to a different cultural backdrop you could always borrow Shieldmaiden or something.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-11, 05:44 AM
You are entirely correct, especially from your culture. But in the US, which is the only place I speak for, the highest rank you can achieve still is referred to as "Mr. President", so I think the implied weight is very different.

As far as I understand it, President would be the title, whereas 'Mister President' would be equivalent to 'your majesty'. Also, IIRC, Mr President is partially used so it doesn't sound like the President is above everyone.


It is bizarre to me that some people in 2015 still use the vestiges of medieval titles. I expect to be called Sir or Mr <Name> at work by pupils, but otherwise I'm happy to be called by my name despite degree or honours. But I'm an egalitarian sort of fellow.

Good for you, and one of my lecturers was fine being referred to as John, although he was adamant that he wasn't a Mister. Also, a lot of them can be useful for differentiation.

Satinavian
2015-10-12, 03:14 AM
A lot of these are gender-neutral eg Knight-Magister. That is pretty far from gender-neutral. A female variant would be Knight-Magistra and is still a horrible language-mix.

German and Latin tend to provide far less gender neutral title options than modern English as pretty much every noun is gendered and its gender used trhoughout the sentences. Thus it is pretty hard to find real gender neutral titles in the Teutonic Order.

Otoh it is often straightforward to construct female versions of them. So it still might be a good idea to look there.



Another Problem is that title is quite often not the same as honorific. And to adress someone you would want the honorific, not the title.

Doof
2015-10-12, 06:09 AM
While we're on the subject of titles in general, I work in a pharmacy in Australia and young kids are referred to as 'Master [name]' in the scripts.

Tobtor
2015-10-12, 08:29 AM
It is bizarre to me that some people in 2015 still use the vestiges of medieval titles. I expect to be called Sir or Mr <Name> at work by pupils, but otherwise I'm happy to be called by my name despite degree or honours. But I'm an egalitarian sort of fellow.

I agree its bizarre, but I actually find it equally bizarre that someone still expect to be called "sir" or "mr" in a class-room.
I have never in my 32 year old life called any teacher by a formal. But I am from an really egalitarian society (Denmark). In my society we accept children as equals, and allow for them to use first names to teacher etc.

The formal "Hr." (Sir/Mr in engliss) or Fru/Frøken (Mrs/Miss in english), sound old fashioned by now (went out of fashion decades ago). Even offcial documents from the county etc, address me as first-name last-name without titles or formals. When talking to people they mainly use first names even on first meetings etc. Neither do I expect to be called Dr when my dissertation is finished (but then Dr in Denmark is preserved not for PhD, but for Dr phill, which is a separate and more prestigious title awarded to mainly senior researcher/scientist/academics, just to confuse things even more).

In daily life I never address anyone by formal "titles" or even last names (I cannot remember when it last happened, perhaps talking to a very old person once? Or when I was on holyday?). But what is bizarre to one person, is a polite custom for another. I really (secretely) laugh at the Dr Dr professor lastname in Germany (yes two doctors in front of the professor, how pretentious a system can you have?).

ThinkMinty
2015-10-12, 01:50 PM
I agree its bizarre, but I actually find it equally bizarre that someone still expect to be called "sir" or "mr" in a class-room.
I have never in my 32 year old life called any teacher by a formal. But I am from an really egalitarian society (Denmark). In my society we accept children as equals, and allow for them to use first names to teacher etc.

Dammit, Denmark. You gotta share that with the rest of the kinder. Would've made my childhood so much easier.

Honest Tiefling
2015-10-12, 03:14 PM
I agree its bizarre, but I actually find it equally bizarre that someone still expect to be called "sir" or "mr" in a class-room.
I have never in my 32 year old life called any teacher by a formal. But I am from an really egalitarian society (Denmark). In my society we accept children as equals, and allow for them to use first names to teacher etc..

Huh. I'm an American and while some older teachers do tend to expect it, results were...Shall we say, mixed. Unless the teacher was of a past generation, very few insisted on this. Then again, I went to school in Northern California, which I'm just going to go ahead and assume is far less formal then most of the country.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-12, 03:31 PM
Huh. I'm an American and while some older teachers do tend to expect it, results were...Shall we say, mixed. Unless the teacher was of a past generation, very few insisted on this. Then again, I went to school in Northern California, which I'm just going to go ahead and assume is far less formal then most of the country.

As a Brit, I can say it's in full force over here. Unless a member of staff tells you to call them buy their first name (it's only ever learning support staff that do that, and even then not all of them) then you use sir/miss or mr/mrs/miss. Even at university only one member of my course's teaching staff has said he doesn't mind being called by his first name (although he takes great offence to 'mister'). I've had one teacher ask us not to use Sir or his full surname (nobody listened to that second one), but even then there was always the 'mr'.

The thing is, it's not about being non-egalitarian or anything, it's to do with being polite and admitting that, in this case, they are in charge. I almost never use titles in my personal life, and the only occasion I would is introducing a friend who happens to be a doctor. Despite what it might seem like, Britain is not stuck in the middle ages (aaaand I'm going to leave it there).

Jay R
2015-10-12, 04:06 PM
Calling somebody by a correct formal title is formal courtesy. Demanding that one's formal title be used is snobbery.

Some of my students call me "Dr. R...", which is correct. Some call me "Professor R...", which is incorrect. Some use no title. In all cases, it's not a problem.

Even the Queen of England doesn't call herself, "My Majesty". Most public figures with important titles use some form of PR person to introduce them, using their title.

The exceptions to this rule are all situational. When a policeman is trying to bring order to a lawless situation, he should call himself "Officer Jones". When a college administrator is using a position to sort out a difficult situation, she might introduce herself as "Dean Smith".

Medical Doctors and Osteopaths are always called "Doctor" in a hospital, because it matters who the trained medical authorities are. [I once applied for a statistical position in a hospital. They told me that I would be never be called "Doctor" there, for that reason. I replied, "Of course. Nobody should look to me when a patient is going into anaphylactic shock."]

Ceiling_Squid
2015-10-12, 04:08 PM
Master is an odd one, since it's an academic degree and a regular title.
A male is "master" until the age of 18, then becomes "mister". You seem to stay mister when you get a masters degree, but not if you are a Jedi.

The under 18 thing is important. It's why Alfred calls Batman "Master Bruce", and it says so much subtly about their relationship. Especially in how Alfred still remembers the orphan child Bruce Wayne once was. Its a revealing and rather intimate affectation, considering that he still employs the title without correction from "Mister" Wayne.

Its a bit of a tangent, but a very well known example I immediately thought of.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-12, 04:17 PM
Calling somebody by a correct formal title is formal courtesy. Demanding that one's formal title be used is snobbery.

Demanding one's proper title be used is different from demanding that the title be used at all. There's a difference between 'you must call me "Dr Smith"' and saying 'I have a PhD, so do not call me "Mr"' (unless circumstances require that Dr not be used).


Some of my students call me "Dr. R...", which is correct. Some call me "Professor R...", which is incorrect. Some use no title. In all cases, it's not a problem.

Good for you, but some people do care which is used, and seeing how in England Professor is the higher title I've heard several lecturers ask to not be called 'Professor' because they are only doctors (yeah, I've seen it cut both ways, but Professors don't generally mind Doctor because it is also a correct way to address them).


Even the Queen of England doesn't call herself, "My Majesty". Most public figures with important titles use some form of PR person to introduce them, using their title.

The exceptions to this rule are all situational. When a policeman is trying to bring order to a lawless situation, he should call himself "Officer Jones". When a college administrator is using a position to sort out a difficult situation, she might introduce herself as "Dean Smith".

Yes, introductions, which allow you to use your title to establish your position (although I've never seen someone actually use their title outside of police officers introducing themselves as 'Constable X' or 'Sergeant Y' or whatever, it's always a friend or spokesperson because that's just polite).


Medical Doctors and Osteopaths are always called "Doctor" in a hospital, because it matters who the trained medical authorities are. [I once applied for a statistical position in a hospital. They told me that I would be never be called "Doctor" there, for that reason. I replied, "Of course. Nobody should look to me when a patient is going into anaphylactic shock."]

Yes, the reasoning there makes perfect sense. But in other situations Doctor would not mean Medial Doctor, and so someone mistakenly identified could demand that the correct title be used.

goto124
2015-10-12, 08:24 PM
Demanding one's proper title be used is different from demanding that the title be used at all. There's a difference between 'you must call me "Dr Smith"' and saying 'I have a PhD, so do not call me "Mr"' (unless circumstances require that Dr not be used).

'Apologies, but could you please not call me "Mr Smith"? I have a PhD, I prefer to be called "Dr Smith".'



Getting back on topic:

I saw someone suggest Ser. Is it pronounced any differently from Sir? It would have to be clarified in RL games.

Khedrac
2015-10-13, 06:59 AM
Calling somebody by a correct formal title is formal courtesy. Demanding that one's formal title be used is snobbery.

Some of my students call me "Dr. R...", which is correct. Some call me "Professor R...", which is incorrect. Some use no title. In all cases, it's not a problem.

Even the Queen of England doesn't call herself, "My Majesty". Most public figures with important titles use some form of PR person to introduce them, using their title.
Now the snobbery one is all too true. Dad one lost a couple "friend" (I am not sure if the man in question really qualified) by introducing him to the other guests at a dinner party by his first name. Dad's theory is that the man wanted to be introduced as "Lord X" whereupon he could immediately say "call me Y" after his title had been established...

Speaking of the queen, who is normally addressed as "Ma'am" - short for Madam(e) - that gives us another prefix for women not linked to Mistress (my dictionary say it is from the French for 'my lady').

Since I checked the dictionary I had a quick look at "knight" (I must get a better magnifying glass, the one it comes with is not quite powerful enough - hence "quick").
The first couple of meanings, both obsolete, are 'boy' and 'servant'...

Logosloki
2015-10-13, 07:04 AM
Ludovico Ariosto's Orlando Furioso? "Lady" must be the choice of the translator. My mastery of Italian is very poor, but in http://digilander.libero.it/testi_di_ariosto/index.html (http://digilander.libero.it/testi_di_ariosto/index.html)I only see "donzella" used to refer to her, besides her name.

Probably to do with that the english equivalents of Donzella are Damsel or Maiden. Lady sounds better to the modern english speaker's ear.

Delta
2015-10-13, 09:55 AM
I saw someone suggest Ser. Is it pronounced any differently from Sir? It would have to be clarified in RL games.

In Dragon Age (which is the first place I encountered the term) it's pronounced differently, yes (pretty much like you'd expect it to be pronounced, I'm not a linguist though so my phonetic spelling sucks, I'm sure you can find some Let's Play or cutscene on YT or something where you can hear it being used)

Garimeth
2015-10-13, 11:22 AM
Is that the origin of that silly joke "Don't call me 'sir', I work for a living"? (Or 'used to work if the speaker is retired.)

So small story about this actually. This is not where that saying originated, actually - though that is how it is used today.

In feudal society, which is somewhat the basis of US military rank, a "gentleman" was someone who was wealthy and did not work. They typically owned land or business etc, but did not actually run those businesses themselves - so a self made capitalist would not qualify as a gentleman. "Sir" was the form of address used for these individuals. Many of those individuals also served as officers or were nobility of some stripe and the term carried over into the military, and has since never left.

Part of the whole reason I dislike the organization of the rank structure in the US military. Rank is necessary and it has its place, but the way it is implemented smacks of feudalism.


At least in the UK, a doctor is always a doctor. I may call John Smith by his first name, but he worked hard to get his PhD, which means that as a doctor of physics, any time I address him in a formal context I would have to say doctor, or if I introduced him to someone I might call him 'doctor smith' or 'my doctor friend, john'. A doctor is always doctor, never mister/mistress, but you don't have to use the title if it isn't the correct situation. Similarly, one of my friend's has an aunt who is a GP, and if I met her I would call her doctor.

The point? I believe that this should apply to everything. If somebody became, say, a lieutenant commander, they worked hard at it and should be addressed by that whether they are in uniform or not, assuming you have reason to know their title.

College degrees are a good example of how this works. When I finish my degree I won't be Mr Anonymouswizard, I'd be Mr Anonymouswizard BEng. It may be customary to leave it out, but it would still be one of my titles, and incorporated on official documents. I could, in theory, require people to use it as well, but that's like me excepting people shortening my RL name (it ain't gonna happen).

Also, have you ever heard a general introduced as mister [name]?

Generals address each other by first or last name if they are of the same number of stars. If the military member is in a official capacity they should be addressed by their rank if the addresser is a civilian. If the addresser is military and they know the other person's rank, unless they are peers normal customs and courtesies still apply even off duty after hours. For example, my previous boss was an O5. He invited my family and I over to his house for Thanksgiving. I referred to him as "Sir" while we were there, after the first time I said it he asked (i.e. gave me permission) to call him Mark, and I asked him to call me Adam - this was not because WE were uncomfortable with the titles, it was purely for our family's benefit.

Cluedrew
2015-10-13, 06:43 PM
I would say the gender ideas of the knightly order would be more important than what the rest of society thinks, though the latter does affect the former.

Different countries/societies/knightly orders/etc could also have different gender differentiation (or lack thereof).And I think this in the end is really the answer. Because it varies with the organization, its currant views, its view when it was founded (which could be substantially different if it has been around long enough) and what the broader society thinks.

Asides:

Side note: In the Harry Potter verse, wizards and witches are just gender flipped versions of each other. In other settings, the term 'witch' could easily mean an entirely different set of spells from 'wizard'. Be careful :smalltongue:Yeah, one of my favourites has wizard as gender netural, while witches are actually split into witches and warlocks dependant on gender. I have also seen wizards, witches and warlocks all being entirely different things.

It's a shame 'Engineer' isn't a formal title here like it is in Germany...I once wrote a bit of a story where Engineer was a title granted to the most accomplished artificers.

Good for you, but some people do care which is used, and seeing how in England Professor is the higher title I've heard several lecturers ask to not be called 'Professor' because they are only doctors (yeah, I've seen it cut both ways, but Professors don't generally mind Doctor because it is also a correct way to address them).And this is why I address all the academics I know with "Hello" as much as possible... It can be kind of hard to tell some times.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-13, 06:46 PM
And this is why I address all the academics I know with "Hello" as much as possible... It can be kind of hard to tell some times.

Yep, I do this as well. One of my lecturers joked when he was introducing himself that by the end of the year he is always referred to as 'hey, you'.

Solaris
2015-10-13, 06:59 PM
And this is why I address all the academics I know with "Hello" as much as possible... It can be kind of hard to tell some times.

Have a funny story about that. I attend a community college, where the majority of the professors don't take themselves all that seriously. Call them doctor, professor, mister/miss(us), and most of them don't really care. This includes actual, honest-to-goodness medical doctors. We're there to learn, not to engage in exercises of academic masturbation.
Except for one English professor. She very much cares about her title, more than most military personnel I've met and they're legally obligated to do so. I imagine it's because she thinks attending school for a really long time is an impressive accomplishment in and of itself, and hasn't realized that most people really... aren't impressed by titles when you're clearly a blithering idiot. Part of her introduction, you see, is "I am Dr So-and-so, and you will address me as such."

This is a military town, and about a quarter of any given class are soldiers and most of them senior enough to have a rank.

She didn't find it amusing when a student* deadpanned back to her, "I am Sergeant So-and-so, and you will address me as such."
*: Not me, I actually want to have a passing grade.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-13, 07:19 PM
Have a funny story about that. I attend a community college, where the majority of the professors don't take themselves all that seriously. Call them doctor, professor, mister/miss(us), and most of them don't really care. This includes actual, honest-to-goodness medical doctors. We're there to learn, not to engage in exercises of academic masturbation.
Except for one English professor. She very much cares about her title, more than most military personnel I've met and they're legally obligated to do so. I imagine it's because she thinks attending school for a really long time is an impressive accomplishment in and of itself, and hasn't realized that most people really... aren't impressed by titles when you're clearly a blithering idiot. Part of her introduction, you see, is "I am Dr So-and-so, and you will address me as such."

This is a military town, and about a quarter of any given class are soldiers and most of them senior enough to have a rank.

She didn't find it amusing when a student* deadpanned back to her, "I am Sergeant So-and-so, and you will address me as such."
*: Not me, I actually want to have a passing grade.

Yeesh, there's a line between 'don't call me miss' and 'you will address me as supreme overlord'.

And yeah, in the UK having the title Dr will impress until you reveal that you are an *******. I go to a university, so it's expected for me to address all my lecturers as 'doctor/professor' (delete as appropriate) unless told otherwise, although none of them actually mind (one is referred to almost exclusively by his first name by, and I'm not quite sure why, but he wouldn't really care about it). However, no lecturer would actually mind if we were informal enough to use their first name, we just respect them enough not to.

There's even two who students refer to by their last name because one is great at lecturing and one great at one-on-one teaching, and one only ever has his first name omitted in lectures because his surname is just so generic (although he's also considered a great lecturer). What tends to happen is that lecturers tend to be addressed as sir, even though none would be bothered by you, especially outside of formal lecturing hours.

Literally the only thing that will get any of them annoyed is calling them miss or mister, but that's got a lot to do with us being British, and we will try to do things right. It's far less about being formal/informal, but more to do with being proper.

Also, I think I've met an academic that would respond to that by calling them Sergeant So-and-so. But he also picked on the Foreign students whenever he had a meeting abroad, seeing if anybody was from the same city.

Martin Greywolf
2015-10-14, 10:57 AM
Well, this thread got a bit derailed, didn't it? Anyway, maybe I'm too late, but here goes: history time!

Knightly orders and feudalism have a very complicated history and a very simple public perception. Not all noblemen were knights, not all noblemen or knights were feduals and feudalism as you probably imagine it is something that only functioned in France and England. Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Russian, Scandinavian and German systems are all different (sometimes drastically), and not all those nations were nations at the time.

In essence, a knight is one of three things:
1) an adult person of noble birth with arms, armor and supporting people to make an addition to heavy cavalry unit
2) a member of secular knightly order
3) a member of religious knightly order

Different rules apply to all three. Secular knightly orders all have their custom rules, and while they have been often unified, especially in forms of address, it was a rather late unification - think 17th century. More importantly, there were so many orders that a member of one was probably addressed by his/her normal titles (nobles didn't really invite non-nobles into their clubs).

For example, Stibor of Stiboricz, founding member of Order of the Dragon is addressed as Stiborius de Stiboricz alias vaiuoda Transyluanus (Stibor of Stiboricze known as duke of Transylvania) on the founding charter of the order. Queen Barbara, who was also a member, was referred simply as regina.

If nobles wanted to be super formal or emphasize their membership, they usually added "of Order Such-and-such" to their title.

Religious orders were of a different cloth - literally, they were monks. No women there, as you can imagine, but they were either adressed as Brothers, or by their Order ranks. The idea was that their worldly titles were left behind. Teutonic knights did accept women under specific circumstances (I won't go into it here), and they used Halbschwester (half-sister) as title, a feminized version of male of the same rank, though we're unclear on how they were addressed (among many, many things). Also, the link to Women Knights article has it's info slightly wrong on them, but not too much.

Lastly, "normal" knights. They are the most diverse bunch. The idea originally comes from late Roman ordo equestris, a group of elite horsemen, and this role remained emphasized. The title they used was milites, literally meaning "soldier" (sometimes equites, rider). Now, as it happens, women did at times fight in actual wars as heavy cavalry (there is at least one female knight rewarded for valour in combat during Nicopolis crusade, Barbara), but it was very rare.

The women in those situations addressed themselves by their old titles, because they simply weren't knights, having not been knighted at all.

That said, sometimes a woman inherited knightly title, usually by some quirk of succession laws. Two things happened then, either they used their male-form titles (google King Jadwiga of Poland), or they feminized the forms. A nice example is the difference between russian tzarevna and tsaritsa, but we're looking for a rather lower-class title.

One document from Spain comes to my mind, where an abbess of a supposedly military order of nuns signed as militissa - female version of milites. How common this was is a bit questionable in a sense - we know it was rare, but how rare?

tl;dr and practical conclusions

So, long story short, if your female knight had titles before joining the order, she'll use that if the order is secular, or use internal titles if the order is religious - most likely brother/sister with some added adjectives.

If she's fighting in an army, she uses her old titles as well, and will be rewarded with titles appropriate to her gender.

Thing is, you need something more in a hypothetical world were women knights are expected occurence and not only quirks of legal system. Modern(-ish) anglofrench system dealt with this with Dame/Chevalière, Dragon Age dealt with it by using older spelling of Sir and making it gender neutral. Both ways work well and are easy to remember, which should be something of a priority in game design.

MrConsideration
2015-10-14, 02:40 PM
I agree its bizarre, but I actually find it equally bizarre that someone still expect to be called "sir" or "mr" in a class-room.
I have never in my 32 year old life called any teacher by a formal. But I am from an really egalitarian society (Denmark). In my society we accept children as equals, and allow for them to use first names to teacher etc.



I have a burden of care over my students and a legal responsibility for their behaviour. Anything that re-enforces that power helps with ensuring instructions are complied with and a safe and effective learning environment can be guaranteed. I feel a bit ridiculous being called 'Sir', but if they addressed me by my first name it would undermine school policy and my authority in the classroom, and subsequently the outcomes for these (extremely deprived) kids would suffer. It's all showmanship and smoke and mirrors, really, but it works (most of the time....). I guess this is the root of all titles!


There's also the privacy aspect - although my Facebook is in a false name, if a pupil knew my first and second name a cursory google would turn up a lot of info I'm not comfortable sharing (and pupils do google teachers routinely these days - woe betide you if you're easy to find and have a lot of drunk pictures on Facebook!.)

Delta
2015-10-14, 03:42 PM
Thing is, you need something more in a hypothetical world were women knights are expected occurence and not only quirks of legal system. Modern(-ish) anglofrench system dealt with this with Dame/Chevalière, Dragon Age dealt with it by using older spelling of Sir and making it gender neutral. Both ways work well and are easy to remember, which should be something of a priority in game design.

For knights in the military sense, as in "heavy cavalry" with a dose of lofty tradition, I prefer the "Ser" of Dragon Age or a similar unisex solution since I think the implication that a "Ser" (or whatever) is a fighter striving for some kind of "knightly" ideal first, and male/female second, sounds very fitting to me if I imagine a setting in which it is considered normal for both men and women to be knights.

1337 b4k4
2015-10-15, 09:09 AM
Have a funny story about that. I attend a community college, where the majority of the professors don't take themselves all that seriously. Call them doctor, professor, mister/miss(us), and most of them don't really care. This includes actual, honest-to-goodness medical doctors. We're there to learn, not to engage in exercises of academic masturbation.
Except for one English professor. She very much cares about her title, more than most military personnel I've met and they're legally obligated to do so. I imagine it's because she thinks attending school for a really long time is an impressive accomplishment in and of itself, and hasn't realized that most people really... aren't impressed by titles when you're clearly a blithering idiot. Part of her introduction, you see, is "I am Dr So-and-so, and you will address me as such."

This is a military town, and about a quarter of any given class are soldiers and most of them senior enough to have a rank.

She didn't find it amusing when a student* deadpanned back to her, "I am Sergeant So-and-so, and you will address me as such."
*: Not me, I actually want to have a passing grade.


My experience has been anyone who demands to be referred to by their title (as opposed to preferring it) is usually an insufferable git and their title is the only way they are capable of getting respect as no one respects them as a person

Solaris
2015-10-15, 06:16 PM
I don't precisely agree that a setting with greater gender equality is going to abandon gendered titles and forms of address, such as going for 'ser' as a gender-neutral when 'sir' and 'dame/lady' suit just fine. It sticks out in a language that has gender pronouns, and you don't generally get militant orders founded on principles that synchronize with erasing the notion of gender unless they're also hot for erasing the person's identity as a whole (or they're taking "social justice warrior" to a whole new level, which is a deep degree of anachronism that probably has no place in a setting with historical gender equality).

The "You can't tell who you're addressing in the heat of battle" argument is a little silly. 99% of the time, even in a war, you're nowhere near a battle. In a battle, you either know them and their armor well enough that you know what to call them on sight, or they're outside your monkeysphere and only register as friend, foe, or bystander. The modern Army uses nametapes; medieval knights had heraldic devices and colored tabards to identify them.


My experience has been anyone who demands to be referred to by their title (as opposed to preferring it) is usually an insufferable git and their title is the only way they are capable of getting respect as no one respects them as a person

Precisely.

Delta
2015-10-16, 04:36 AM
I don't precisely agree that a setting with greater gender equality is going to abandon gendered titles and forms of address, such as going for 'ser' as a gender-neutral when 'sir' and 'dame/lady' suit just fine. It sticks out in a language that has gender pronouns, and you don't generally get militant orders founded on principles that synchronize with erasing the notion of gender unless they're also hot for erasing the person's identity as a whole (or they're taking "social justice warrior" to a whole new level, which is a deep degree of anachronism that probably has no place in a setting with historical gender equality).

Gotta disagree here, you're using real life historical arguments to argue a situation that hasn't really ever existed in real life in a meaningful enough way to have long-term influence on language. There simply have not been large scale militant orders that have been equally open to both genders for longer periods of time, so of course anything regarding such an order is by definition an anachronism, that's like complaining magic spells, elves, dwarves and orcs are an anachronism in a "medieval" setting, well, duh, of course they are. If however, there had been such an order, in a world where genders were in general treated pretty much equally, then I don't think it's a stretch of any kind to imagine such an order would put its ideals and values above the notion of gender.

Solaris
2015-10-16, 05:53 AM
Gotta disagree here, you're using real life historical arguments to argue a situation that hasn't really ever existed in real life in a meaningful enough way to have long-term influence on language. There simply have not been large scale militant orders that have been equally open to both genders for longer periods of time, so of course anything regarding such an order is by definition an anachronism, that's like complaining magic spells, elves, dwarves and orcs are an anachronism in a "medieval" setting, well, duh, of course they are. If however, there had been such an order, in a world where genders were in general treated pretty much equally, then I don't think it's a stretch of any kind to imagine such an order would put its ideals and values above the notion of gender.

Yes, I'm using real-life examples - but you're wrong, as they have existed. Egalitarian societies were (and are) a thing, primarily in forager and simple horticulturalist bands. They tend to have gendered pronouns, too. That's why I'm saying that even putting its ideals and values above the notion of gender would not likely result in a gender-neutral term unless the language everyone's speaking also lacks gender pronouns. Being as English still has 'em...

Magic spells, elves, dwarves, and orcs aren't an anachronism; they're not part of history at all, not placed in the wrong part of history. A movement similar to our SJW movement in a setting where there is gender equality is; it has no inequality of the sexes to spawn it. There'd thus be no impetus to neuter the language. It's as much an anachronism as sliding a bec de corbin into a Stone Age setting; everything that led to its development simply isn't there.

Satinavian
2015-10-16, 07:29 AM
Gotta disagree here, you're using real life historical arguments to argue a situation that hasn't really ever existed in real life in a meaningful enough way to have long-term influence on language. There simply have not been large scale militant orders that have been equally open to both genders for longer periods of time, so of course anything regarding such an order is by definition an anachronism, that's like complaining magic spells, elves, dwarves and orcs are an anachronism in a "medieval" setting, well, duh, of course they are. If however, there had been such an order, in a world where genders were in general treated pretty much equally, then I don't think it's a stretch of any kind to imagine such an order would put its ideals and values above the notion of gender.
There are many languages where gender does have a far more important role than in modern English. Those tend to have different words/phrases for male/female professions. Doesn't have anything to do with gender equality or not.

There are also some languages with even less gender-related grammar. But that also doen't mean gender equality in the corresponding society.

As for the anachronism, he opposed the notion that "social justice worriors" fighting against gendered lnaguage fit in a setting which has gender equality and has had gender equality for a very long time. Anachronism is probably the wrong word here but i agree with the argument : If a society is equal and there are no male/female stereotypes to any professions at all, gendered language can't be offensive and should not be a target of rights groups.