… at least in the law …
It has always been one of The Legal Genealogist‘s pet peeves.
Males, pretty much regardless of age, always have the honorific Mister, abbreviated Mr.
Yeah, yeah, I know that boys were once called Master, and it’s even still technically accepted for very young boys — up to age eight in some parts of the country.1 But addressing any John Jones as Mr. John Jones, regardless of age, is just dandy.
But a female? Sigh… For generations there’s been a distinction between an unmarried female, referred to as Miss, and a married woman, referred to as Mrs., and, of course, with her husband’s surname and not her own.
I mean, seriously, where’s the equality in that kind of terminology, I ask you???
That’s the main reason why I like the honorific “Ms.” If any John Jones is Mr. John Jones, regardless of age, then any Jane Jones should be Ms. Jane Jones.
Alas, the term is still not universally accepted or followed.
So it was actually with a bit of glee that I noted a comment that came in via Facebook yesterday in a discussion about the legal age for marriage in Canada in 1835. “I do find it a bit odd,” one writer noted, “that they refer to the bride as both a spinster and under age.”
Well, no, that’s not odd at all if you consider the legal definition of s spinster in 1835 (and before and after, if we’re being technical here): “The addition given, in legal proceedings, and in conveyancing, to a woman who never has been married.”2
And that prompted another to say that “an unmarried man of any age remains a bachelor.”
Um, no. Not exactly. Not in the legal sense.
In that sense, there really is an equality of terminology. The word “bachelor,” in the legal sense, is a term used to mean only a “man who has never been married.”3
A never-married female is a spinster.
A never-married male is a bachelor.
Equal terms for equal statuses, and both appearing in legal documents we may review as genealogists.
Even if I don’t think I’d recommend addressing a letter that way today…
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Equality in terms,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 28 Jan 2019 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed (date)).
SOURCES
I hope the next time I see you that I can simply say, “Hi, Judy, it’s good to see you again.”
That’d be just dandy. (Calling me by a formal title makes me feel old, and calling me “Dr. Russell” because of my law degree makes me giggle.)
Weren’t some single women given the title Mrs. as a sign of respect whether or not they were married?
Before roughly the middle of the 17th century, the term Mistress (for which Mrs. is an accepted abbreviation) applied to married and unmarried women.
In England and Wales, “spinster” and “bachelor” were official terms for unmarried people on official documents until 2005. I had to go look this up when I reviewed the index of an 1975 parish record that listed an 18 year old girl as a “spinster”. I became curious as to why that term was still being used in 1975. I was a bit surprised to find out that it was being used officially until 2005! The things we find as genealogists!
You gotta love it… 🙂
I was married in Jamaica in 2001. I was referred to as a spinster (and my husband as a bachelor) on the marriage documents.
I emphatically agree with you about Ms. I use it for myself, and keep emphatically telling people that I am NOT Mrs. [husband’s name}.
In the 21st century. Sheesh… 🙂
In the mid 80’s i was taking Business English in a Texas Jr. College. We were instructed by text to use Ms. as female designation.
I remember being told that there was a quota requirement for the production of yarn or thread in the colonies. Because of this, there was often an unmarried woman in the household who earned her keep by helping the family achieve their yarn quota by spinning for them. Thus she was called a spinster. Is that actually true?
There certainly was a quote in early Massachusetts, at least (see the article here) but the term “spinster” to mean spinner of yarn or thread goes back to the 14th century, according to Merriam-Webster (“When spinster first entered English in the mid-1300s, it referred to a woman who spun thread and yarn”).