Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Nomenclature and the civil partnership

Tabitha Tickletooth

09:58 / 21.12.05

Is a new name needed to distinguish a 'partner' recognised in a civil partnership? If so, could it be a good one? Thoughts and suggestions...

Tabitha Tickletooth

10:04 / 21.12.05

Apologies - I put the summary in the wrong place. Have requested change from mods.

So, there was a short but rather interesting discussion about this on R4's Today programme this morning and I was wondering whether people thought a new title for partners recognised in law under a civil partnership would come into common usage - particularly in light of this not, actually, being marriage anywhere but in the tabloids.

There's the question of whether a new title/name of some kind is needed/desirable. Also, there's the idea that a new name might be quite fun.

What do you think?

Mon Oncle Ignatius

10:13 / 21.12.05

How about... Partner, with a capital P. Then a couple could be Pr. Smith & Smith (useful when signing in for a clandestine assignation at a hotel, maybe?) - or would that be Pr. & Pr. Smith?

How non-Civilly Partnered couples would refer to their, erm, partner, then could be a matter of intonation when spoken, stressing the P, maybe?

Tabitha Tickletooth

10:22 / 21.12.05

I think it works for correspondence, but it's very ambiguous in spoken use. I utterly loathe the terms husband and wife and would never use them, but many people like to be referred to, or to refer to their partners in this way. I don't think Pr works as an emotive 'declaration of our love' kind of title in the same way as the old 'my wife...'. Also, partner is used quite widely by heterosexual couples, married or not - I use it, and that's because I don't think it should matter if someone is married or not and this deliberately muddies the waters. Then there's the business partner thing, which particularly might cause confusion for some with one man introducing another.
I like the idea of distinguishing by pronunciation, but I'm not sure it would work.

Ganesh

11:02 / 21.12.05

And with gay cowboys too.

There was an article in one of the broadsheets yesterday by a gay man apparently delighted at being able to refer to his partner as 'my husband', which absolutely sets my teeth on edge. There's a related tendency among the hairier, portlier among us to talk about their 'husbear', which is as bad but with added sickliness.

I think I'll stick with 'partner'.

Mourne Kransky

11:57 / 21.12.05

I think I'll stick with Pet.

Mon Oncle Ignatius

12:04 / 21.12.05

CP? CivPart? Civvy Partny? Civvy Other?

(Yuck to all of those as suggestions by the way - I really hope none of them emerge into usage).

As for gay cowboys - shouldn't the chaps in chaps be called pardner?

Sax

12:04 / 21.12.05

Are you going to have Downtown at your wedding?

Loomis

12:05 / 21.12.05

Now that legal and financial responsibilities have been taken on, how about (future) plaintiff and (future) defendant? The one with more money can be the defendant.

Ganesh

12:06 / 21.12.05

As for gay cowboys - shouldn't the chaps in chaps be called pardner?

Only if one can carry off the accent.

12:21 / 21.12.05

It's "slampiece" all the way for me.

Mon Oncle Ignatius

12:21 / 21.12.05

And the gay cowboys can shorten it to Pard, in traditional faux-Western style, while non-cowpokes with might just have to stick to the (much ruder) Part.

Ganesh

12:22 / 21.12.05

Although if they're poking cows, 'heterobestialist' might suffice.

Mon Oncle Ignatius

12:26 / 21.12.05

Roll on the day when man and cow may enter unto civil pardnership in the sight of the Law.

Add Your Reply