- News Brief
- Research & Policy
- Culture and Review
- Media Centre
Reach tens of thousands of people instantly by advertising with Ekklesia. Find out more
If anyone wonders what Bishops get up to in the Second Chamber, then they should read the exchange in the House of Lords yesterday during a debate on the use of titles. (If you are a male peer you wife gets one, but if you a female peer your husband is deprived).
It began when Baroness Trumpington mentioned that when her husband was alive, he loved being called "m'lord". Not only did he enjoy running up a drinks bill and then charging it to the Baroness, it also added a bit of spice to there, er, love life. Or as the Baroness put it in more Parliamentary language it "added a certain frisson to staying in an hotel together".
Lord Wright suggested that things might have been more naughty if her husband had checked in under a common name. The minister Lord Bach responded saying he hoped other female members of the chamber would bear all this in mind.
But a few male members were also interested. It seems that by this point, the Bishop of Chester's ears had pricked up and he too intervened in the discussion. He was (perhaps understandably) concerned that Bishops' wives didn't get titles, (and presumably that bishops were being potentially excluded from some of the 'frisson' previously described).
Who knows what images were actually going through the bishops' mind, but he did warn the minister that if the anomoly wasn't satisfactorily addressed, then he may well find a depuation of bishops' wives on his doorstep - "a prospect I would not wish on him" he added.Tweet