These days with everything that’s going on with gender-identities, pronouns, titles and how you should address a person, trying to juggle everything without making some real, or imagined faux-pas, can become increasingly challenging.

But what about traditional titles, or forms of address? Mister, Missus, Miss, gentleman, layman…where did these all come from? What did they originally mean? Today we’ll find out.

A “form of address”, or an “honorific”, is defined as the most formal, polite, or correct method for addressing a person, and which usually precedes a person’s surname. So, let’s begin.

“Mister” (Mr.)

Dating back to the mid-16th century, “Mister” emerged as a variation of “Master”, and is the honorific given to men who hold no other titles or positions, and is usually followed by their last name. (“Mr. Smith”).

In times past, however, this was not always the case. In earlier times, the prefix “Mister” did not always come before a person’s surname. For example, in a family, where you had a father, mother, and two grown sons, only the head of the household would be “Mr. Smith”. As it was considered rude (and overly familiar) to address someone by their given names, Mr. Smith’s sons would also be called “Mister” – but ahead of their first names, as opposed to their last names (“Mr James”, “Mr. Richard”, etc). In the 1700s and 1800s, and most of the 1900s, this was considered the most proper usage of the term.

If you were addressing multiple men (eg., for a company name), then the convention was to use the contraction “Messrs.”, instead (eg. “Messrs. Wilkins, Wilkins, Entwhistle & Dodd. Solicitors”). “Messrs.” was a contraction of the French “Messieurs”, the plural of the French male honorific, “Monsieur” (typically contracted as “M.”, as in “M. Hercule Poirot”).

In the medical field, male surgeons are traditionally known by the honorific of “Mr.”, as opposed to “Dr.”, because in times past, you didn’t need to earn a medical degree to become a surgeon. And because you didn’t need to earn the degree, it also meant you didn’t earn the privilege of being titled “Doctor”. This tradition started all the way back in the Middle Ages when surgeons were barber-surgeons, and the convention just…stuck.

“Missus” (Mrs.)

“Missus”, the prefix usually given to a married woman, is a contraction of “Mistress”, although the prefix of “Mrs.” before a woman’s surname did not necessarily mean that she was married.

A married woman was traditionally titled as “Mrs. John Doe”, taking her husband’s full name, which was later on contracted to just “Mrs. Doe”. The convention of a wife taking a husband’s full name is now largely dead, except in the most formal of circumstances, such as with official invites (“Mr. & Mrs. John Doe are cordially invited…” etc, etc.).

That said, just because a lady was called “Mrs.” did not always mean that she was married. In some instances, the prefix “Mrs.” was given as a sign of respect. This is most often seen in the 1700s and 1800s with high-ranking female servants.

Mrs. Hughes and Mrs. Patmore, the housekeeper and the cook, in “Downton Abbey” were not married, but by convention, were given the prefixes “Mrs.”, to acknowledge the fact that they held important positions within a nobleman’s household – that of housekeeper – the most senior female servant – and of head cook – the most senior servant in charge of the kitchens. This convention has largely fallen by the wayside these days, but if you’ve ever wondered why in old novels or movies, you see it being used – now you know why. The same goes for Mrs. Bridges, the cook in “Upstairs, Downstairs“. As Hudson the butler said:

“To my certain knowledge…there has been no ‘Mister’ Bridges, the title ‘Missus’ being the usual honorarium enjoyed by cooks of a certain class”.

– “Upstairs, Downstairs”, S03E13 – ‘The Sudden Storm’.

“Miss”

Another contraction of “Mistress”, “Miss” has always been the traditional form of address for unmarried ladies (spinsters), and young girls. Only when there were multiple ‘Miss’es in a family, would the prefix be placed before a girl’s first name, however (“Miss Jane”, “Miss Lucy”), in order to differentiate them, similar to the convention with placing ‘Mr’ before a man’s first name. If there was only one woman and no need for further distinction, then it’d be before the person’s surname (“Miss Marple”).

“Master” (Mast., or Mstr.)

Here’s one you haven’t heard of before!…Or at least, not recently. You’d have to be pretty old to remember the days when the term “Master” was used in everyday correspondence.

Back in the 1700s and 1800s, and right into the early 1900s, the title ‘Master’ was given to prepubescent boys – typically, boys who were below the age of thirteen. A boy of twelve or below was always titled “Master”, while a boy over the age of twelve (and into adulthood) was titled as “Mister”. One of the reasons for this convention was to easily tell at a glance, in a written document, which people mentioned were children, and which were not. On the passenger list of an ocean liner, for example, a family traveling together might be listed as:

“Mr. & Mrs. John Smith
Miss Amelia Smith.
Mast. Edward Smith”

“Master” isn’t as often used today as it once was, but the convention continues to exist, nonetheless. Exactly when a boy transitioned between ‘Master’ and ‘Mister’ is a bit unclear, however. The convention was that ‘Master’ referred to a child or youth below the age of legal adulthood, and that ‘Mister’ referred to a legal adult. In some instances, a boy switched from being a ‘Master’ to a ‘Mister’ at the age of 13. This convention dates back to the Middle Ages, when boys were considered men beyond the age of twelve. Depending on where you read, however, a boy might continue to be addressed as ‘Master’ all the way up until their 18th birthday. The most traditional use of the term generally refers to boys below the age of 13.

Examples of boys being called ‘Master’ include the comic books, TV series and movies featuring the cartoon character Richie Rich, whom his butler, Cadbury, invariably addresses as ‘Master Richie’ – not because he’s the master of the household, but because he’s a little boy, and in ‘To Kill a Mockingbird‘ by Harper Lee, where Calpurnia calls Scout’s older brother ‘Mister Jem’.

“MISTER Jem!?” Scout says.

“Well, he’s just about ‘Mister’ now”, Calpurnia tells her, indicating that Jem Finch is growing up, and as a teenager, can no longer be called ‘Master’ Jem, as he once was.

Gentleman/Gentlewoman

These days, the term ‘gentleman’ (and its less-used counterpart, gentlewoman), usually refers to a person’s behaviour. You might have heard of the expression of “conduct unbecoming an officer, and a gentleman!” as they used to say in military regulations, or a “gentleman’s agreement”.

But what exactly IS a “gentleman”?

Originally, the term ‘gentleman’ referred to a rank in society. At the top you had royalty, below that came the nobility or the aristocracy, and below that, came the gentry. Beneath that were the yeomanry.

A ‘gentleman’ was therefore a person of the gentry class, which typically included people who held no titles of their own (i.e. dukes, earls, counts, viscounts, baron/etc, etc)., but who might be of the mercantile or professional classes – basically what we’d call the upper middle-class today – learned men – teachers, doctors, learned professionals, etc.

Over time, the term ‘gentleman’ became more general, and referred to any well-behaved, cultured male from the upper echelons of society. Since ‘gentlemen’ were usually landowners who earned an income through collecting rent from their landholdings, properties and estates, there was no need to hold down a regular job. This is why, for a long time, the belief was that “gentlemen don’t work! Not real gentlemen!” – as Miss O’Brien says in “Downton Abbey“. Being a gentleman therefore implied being rich enough that you could simply live off the rent from your properties, and the dividends from your investments, and not having to lift a finger otherwise.

“Sire”

A now, rather outdated term used to address a male monarch, or other, high-ranking noblemen, “Sire” is a corruption of the word ‘Senior’ (much in the same way that ‘Alder’ – as in ‘Alderman’, was a corruption of the word ‘Elder’).

“Sir”

A contraction of ‘Sire’, which again, came from ‘Senior’.

“Sirrah”

Unless you read a lot of old books, or novels, or watch TV shows or movies set in the 1700s or 1800s, or even before then, you’re not likely to have come across this title. At the top was ‘Sire’, below that was ‘Sir’…and at the very bottom was ‘Sirrah’ – a derogatory form of address for a man, or boy, who was either younger than you, or of inferior social status. “Sirrah” was often used as an insult or to express contempt or disgust. (“Out of my way, Sirrah!”).

“Esquire” (Esq.)

Although not as often used today as it once was, ‘Esquire’ still remains popular in formal circles. It is what’s known as a “courtesy title” – a title given for the sake of decorum and good manners, to show respect to a person (in this case, a man) who held no other title. A good example is Mr. Sherlock Holmes, Esq., consulting detective!

A Note on Names

These days, it’s extremely common to call just about anybody by their first name, regardless of rank, title, position, or level of acquaintance, but this was not always the case.

In the 1700s and 1800s, and indeed, most of the early 1900s, addressing a person by their given name was rarely done. It was considered rude and overly-familiar to mention a person’s first name – especially a person you didn’t know, or who was your social or professional superior! A person’s rank, title, or other appropriate prefix was used, along with their family name, except when there were multiple members of the same family present. Traditionally, the only people who used a person’s first name were immediate family, close relations, or very, very old friends, whom the person had usually known since childhood.

In instances where people were friends, it was still common for people not to use their first names, again because it was seen as being overly familiar, and something only done between siblings, parents, cousins and other close family. This convention is clearly visible in numerous works of literature written during the 19h century.

Sherlock Holmes never calls his friend ‘John’, and Dr. Watson never calls him ‘Sherlock’, despite being friends for over twenty years. In ‘Tom Brown’s School Days‘, Tom’s best friend, East, is only ever known by ‘East’ (even though his first name is Harry), and the school bully is only ever referred to by his surname – Flashman. Again, in ‘Pride and Prejudice‘, the male lead is almost exclusively called ‘Mr. Darcy’, even though his first name is Fitzwilliam.

Use in Everyday Life

In an age before telephones, telegraph, or high-speed internet, when the most common method for distance communication was through letters, formality of this kind, and adhering to such forms of address was very important, especially when communicating with someone with whom you weren’t particularly well-acquainted. It was all about decorum, not being overly-familiar, and keeping a respectful distance, in a time when rank, title, and social standing were placed on a much higher pedestal than they are today.

This is also why, in letter-writing and etiquette manuals of the era, you get those really elaborate openers and closures in letters, stuff like “I have the honour, sir, to remain your obedient servant“, and so on. Just like everything else, it was all about rank, title and social standing.

Closing Statements

Well – there you have it! A brief history of all the most common titles and forms of address still in use today.

But, what happened to all these niceties? Where did they go? What happened to them!?

The simple answer is – they were no longer seen as necessary! As communications got faster, people found it more convenient to dispense with all but the most rudimentary and necessary of titles. It saved time, and prevented confusion and delay. On top of that, it was seen as excessively formal, and even bordering on being pretentious! People felt more comfortable in being addressed by their first names rather than their surnames. Using titles, prefixes and family names sounded too impersonal, and in a world where people wanted to be more open, inviting and approachable.