View Topic

As many of you know, I completed a grammar check of the Wintrean Laws semi-recently, and I am now working to put those corrections into law. One controversial correction was whether or not to make the distinction between "Lordship" and "Ladyship" in The Royal Titles and Styles Act.

5. Jarls of Wintreath shall be titled His/Her Lordship and addressed as Your Lordship.

would become:

5. Jarls of Wintreath shall be titled His/Her Lordship/Ladyship and addressed as Your Lordship/Ladyship.

@taulover suggested that I start a discussion on this before amending it as a typo. I know the law is never applied and nobody ever actually uses any of those titles, but just ignore that for now and focus on whether the distinction matters.

So, what do you guys think?

(The opposite argument being of course that "Lordship" can be used by women, and given the current His/Her that seems to be the intent.)

I feel that perhaps the use of lordship for everyone may make the most sense. In my head at least, it has always seemed that the use of the word Lady in place of Lord always brought down its authority. This is of course due to sexism and institutionalized misogyny, but I feel that perhaps keeping one title without a gender distinction would give it the same authority without having to worry about subconscious reactions and assumptions. It also streamlines it and makes the writing simpler.

I think it's fine as it is at the moment since there's never been issue with it on that front.  However, I'm also not opposed to a gender neutral alternative if it is an issue for others, as I'm sure a few do exist.

I feel that perhaps the use of lordship for everyone may make the most sense. In my head at least, it has always seemed that the use of the word Lady in place of Lord always brought down its authority. This is of course due to sexism and institutionalized misogyny, but I feel that perhaps keeping one title without a gender distinction would give it the same authority without having to worry about subconscious reactions and assumptions. It also streamlines it and makes the writing simpler.

Subconscious reactions? Ladyship having less authority? Pardon my French but I think you're talking out of your ass. Anyone whose watched/read game of thrones knows for a fact that her ladyship can be just as brutal as his lordship.

I think it's fine as it is at the moment since there's never been issue with it on that front.  However, I'm also not opposed to a gender neutral alternative if it is an issue for others, as I'm sure a few do exist.

What would the gender neutral alternative even be? Your Lardship?

I'm fine with the change, if you don't like being called ladyship you can just choose the other, it's no big deal. Literally no idea why some people are bringing identity politics into this when it doesn't need to be there.

Well, if you look at royal stylings, a woman becomes Queen Consort when she marries a King, but a man becomes Prince Consort when he marries a Queen. Logically, it thus follows that female regnal titles are perceived as lower in the pecking order than male ones.
That doesn't need to be the case here, of course.

But yeah I can't think of a gender-neutral 'Lord' title.

But yeah I can't think of a gender-neutral 'Lord' title.

"Your Grace"
 Is one I think is fine as a gender neutral alternative.

Positionally they'd be called Lord/Lady...but if there's a fuss about having to go by gender divisive pronouns when referring to them, then that's an alternative.

Personally, I think it's fine as is.

lol, I wondered how long it'd be until someone uttered the words 'identity politics' on here. I just always thought it'd be in the serious discussion area instead of here.

Aside from the gender issue (but coincidentally dovetailing with it), I've been wondering lately if we should develop custom titles for our region. I've been playing some Dragon Age lately, and I like how Ferelden has its own unique titles such as Teyrn, Arl, and Bann. It'd be interesting to create unique titles and perhaps an unique feudal culture to go with it, but I feel that the scope of that would be beyond just amending this Act.

I kinda hoped it wouldn't come up, given the pro-LGBT part of the region. You'd think that being on the less fortunate side in one way should make one more understanding in other ways.

I'm white, so even though I try to listen to those who aren't, I know I'll never have the full understanding of the disadvantages that those who aren't white must endure that can only result from experience. I could call it "identity politics". It would be the easy way out. I can walk away and not have to worry about being arrested or getting shot because someone 'felt threatened'. I don't have to worry about being accused of being an illegal immigrant. Nobody is asking me if I speak English. I have the choice to ignore it or just view it as just a political issue because I'm not the one being harmed.

But that wouldn't be right. I am on the less lucky side in other ways, and know what it's like to be on the side of being discriminated against. I am bisexual. When people are being denied service in a store, being denied the right to marry, being denied the right to see their partner in the hospital, that may not just be some political issue for me, that could be my life being affected if I am together with someone of the same gender rather than the other primary gender.

Same thing here. I am a woman. When gender comes up, it isn't just "identity politics" for me. I can't just ignore it and assume it won't affect me. It's about respect, and rights, and what options I get to have in life, things I apparently still have to fight for in 2017. This is not just some fun political issue to debate about in my free time. This affects me. This affects at least half the people I know. This affects my daughter.

Gender, race, sexuality, etc. It's all easy to dismiss as "identity politics" when you're on top. But when you're not, there's far more at stake, and we should fight for everyone regardless of which side we were born on.

You have a daughter?

I know I'm doing it myself, but let's keep things at least somewhat on-topic.

It's easy to dismiss someone's view or feelings that they may possibly have on something that may concern them and not you...but then you're pretty much doing a disservice and disrespecting them since you're narrowing them out of your scope of how you see reality (versus actual reality).

Fact of the matter is, whether it's being PC or being a decent human being, taking gender into account in a gender related situation isn't unheard of.  Asking for a more neutral option is perfectly fine, just as asking for more gender neutral pronouns in real life is perfectly fine.  It may not be your cup of tea, but that's you.  They're them.  You do you, and let them do them.  Just be respectful and accepting of their difference in view/opinion/way of life (and vice versa.  In other words agree to disagree but respect each other) and we'll all get along.

My point is...there are going to be people that may not be comfortable with the gender divisive pronouns. Just because I may be fine with how the current titles and pronouns are doesn't mean everyone is going to feel the same.  Rather than dismissing that point of view, learn to accept it.  This is a region about embracing people regardless of differences, after all.

Aside from the gender issue (but coincidentally dovetailing with it), I've been wondering lately if we should develop custom titles for our region. I've been playing some Dragon Age lately, and I like how Ferelden has its own unique titles such as Teyrn, Arl, and Bann. It'd be interesting to create unique titles and perhaps an unique feudal culture to go with it, but I feel that the scope of that would be beyond just amending this Act.

I mean, it's not that out there. 'Teyrn' is a Welsh term for royalty. 'Arl' is just a variant of 'Earl', and 'Bann' recalls 'Baron' rather easily, I think.

So... should it be changed or not? It sounds like no, but I couldn't tell which side some people were on.

Well, if you look at royal stylings, a woman becomes Queen Consort when she marries a King, but a man becomes Prince Consort when he marries a Queen. Logically, it thus follows that female regnal titles are perceived as lower in the pecking order than male ones.
That doesn't need to be the case here, of course.

But yeah I can't think of a gender-neutral 'Lord' title.

Not in Britain, which is where the language we're all speaking comes from. It's Princess Consort to them. Thus, your argument is based purely on translations into English of foreign titles for the spouses of rulers.

lol, I wondered how long it'd be until someone uttered the words 'identity politics' on here. I just always thought it'd be in the serious discussion area instead of here.

Aside from the gender issue (but coincidentally dovetailing with it), I've been wondering lately if we should develop custom titles for our region. I've been playing some Dragon Age lately, and I like how Ferelden has its own unique titles such as Teyrn, Arl, and Bann. It'd be interesting to create unique titles and perhaps an unique feudal culture to go with it, but I feel that the scope of that would be beyond just amending this Act.

The problem with that is pretty easy to spot. The titles "Arlessa" and "Teyrna" are uttered many, many times. "Bann" is gender neutral but is a term for all nobility, and no royal would ever want to be addressed by it in-universe as it's too lowly. The problem lies in that any noble or important official is called "Bann", and it's not a unique title to the monarch.

It's easy to dismiss someone's view or feelings that they may possibly have on something that may concern them and not you...but then you're pretty much doing a disservice and disrespecting them since you're narrowing them out of your scope of how you see reality (versus actual reality).

Fact of the matter is, whether it's being PC or being a decent human being, taking gender into account in a gender related situation isn't unheard of.  Asking for a more neutral option is perfectly fine, just as asking for more gender neutral pronouns in real life is perfectly fine.  It may not be your cup of tea, but that's you.  They're them.  You do you, and let them do them.  Just be respectful and accepting of their difference in view/opinion/way of life (and vice versa.  In other words agree to disagree but respect each other) and we'll all get along.

My point is...there are going to be people that may not be comfortable with the gender divisive pronouns. Just because I may be fine with how the current titles and pronouns are doesn't mean everyone is going to feel the same.  Rather than dismissing that point of view, learn to accept it.  This is a region about embracing people regardless of differences, after all.

The problem that I'm trying to point out, if you'd listen, is that these titles don't have a
"neutral option", unless you want to use the masculine form as neutral.  I'd just like future rulers having the option to call themselves "Ladyship" if they so please.
If you disagree and believe the monarch's style should be constricted purely for the sake of neutrality when it's entirely the personal choice of the ruler, go ahead and strike me down.

Not in Britain, which is where the language we're all speaking comes from. It's Princess Consort to them. Thus, your argument is based purely on translations into English of foreign titles for the spouses of rulers.

Uh...you're mistaken on that front. It has always been 'Queen'. What you're thinking of is Camilla whats-her-face saying she would be Princess Consort instead of Queen for some ridiculous reason (it's morganatic, so maybe that's it; alternatively it might just be more of the same reasoning that she would be Duchess of Cornwall rather than Princess of Wales) should Charles become King, which is not happening anyway because it's William and Catherine who will be King and Queen of England.
I'd also point out the fact that while a woman is at least styled a peeress if she marries a peer, the same is not true for a man marrying a peeress, but that's marginally less relevant and merely highlights that it does seem that there is however infinitesimally lower a step down from the male to the female stylings, which, in fairness, was probably the case thanks to Salic law in Europe and would probably not be quite so much the case today.

In any event, yeah, I think Lordship/Ladyship as they desire is preferable. Should people prefer a gender-neutral term, I'm sure nobody would object to being called 'Your Dudeness'. /s