Uxorious

Uxorious (pronounced uhk-sawr-ee-uhs, uhk-sohr-ee-uhs, uhg-zawr-ee-uhs or uhk-zohr-ee-uhs).

Doting upon, foolishly fond of, or affectionately submissive toward one's wife.

1590–1600: From the Latin ūxōrius (of or pertaining to a wife; devoted to a wife; ruled by a wife), the construct being ūxor (wife) (genitive uxoris) + -ius (–ious), from the primitive Indo-European uk-sor- (she who gets accustomed (to a new household) after a patrilocal (a term from cultural anthropology describing a people or culture in which newly married couples live with the husband's family) marriage).  The suffix was from the Old Latin -ios, from the primitive Indo-European –yós and used to form adjectives from nouns.  The Middle English suffix –ous was borrowed from the Old French -ous & -eux, from the Latin -ōsus (full, full of); a doublet of -ose in the unstressed position.

The not necessarily related, the  noun uxoricide in 1804 acquired the sense of "the murder of one's wife" which by 1830 had extended to "one who kills his wife", either from the French uxoricide, or as a native construct from the Latin uxor (wife) + -cide.  The suffix –cide was from the Middle French -cide, from the Latin -cīda (cutter, killer), from -cīdium (killing), from caedō (to cut, hew, kill) and was a noun-forming suffix denoting “an act of killing or a slaughter”, “one who kills” or “one who cuts” from the appropriate nouns stems.  In English, the alternative form was –icide.  One who committed uxoricide (or contemplated committing) was sometimes described as uxoricidal which, while etymologically correct, probably wouldn't now in all circumstances be used by criminologists or mental health professionals.  The adjective uxorial meant literally "of or pertaining to a wife" and dated from 1778 but was sometimes used in the sense of uxorius.

The Duke & Duchess of Windsor (left) and the Duke & Duchess of Sussex (right).

That there's a well-established and often-used word to describe men unduly submissive towards their wives yet little history of use of the companion-term coined for similarly disposed women hasn't escaped the attention of critics who usually suggest it's an example of rampant sexism, the idea being a uxorious man is so rare as to deserve a descriptor whereas historically, all women were presumed to be submissive.  Neglected though it may be, a suitable word does exist.  Maritorious (being fond of one's husband to the point of obsession; excessively doting on one's husband) was from the Latin maritus (husband), from mās (male, a male).  The origin of mās is a mystery but the most popular theory is that it may be from the primitive Indo-European méryos (young man) which was the source of the Proto-Indo-Iranian máryas (young man), the Sanskrit मर्य (márya) (suitor, young man), the Ancient Greek μεῖραξ (meîrax) (young girl) and the Old Armenian մարի (mari) (female bird, hen) but etymologists say there's no explanation for the resultant phonetics, particularly the a-vocalism.

Maritorious was a literary creation of the early seventeenth century and the use by the creator remains its most celebrated instance.  It appeared in the Jacobean stage play Tragedy of Bussy D'Ambois (1603–1607) by the English classical scholar George Chapman (circa 1559–1634) who penned the line "Dames maritorious ne'er were meritorious".  The play was based on the life of Louis de Clermont, seigneur de Bussy d'Amboise (1549–1579), a noted bi-sexual in the court of Henry III (Henri III, 1551–1589; King of France 1574-1589) who was murdered after tangled affairs with both men and their wives.  Coined so to pun with meritorious, it did its job on the day but never caught on and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) lists it as a nonce word (also called an occasionalism, a lexeme created for a single occasion to solve an immediate problem of communication), noting its rare appearance in English seemed limited to (1) discussions by etymologists and lexicographers about its rarity and (2) the odd jocular piece prompted by virtue of that very rarity such as this one by an anonymous author:

"There once was a man most uxorious,
Who was married to a dame quite maritorious,
This suited them fine as they wined and they dined,
And produced five offspring all rubicund!"

The Duke of Windsor with his mother (left) and the Duke of Sussex with his mother (right).

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) wrote much about the relationship between men and their mothers, his most famous suggestion being that they imprint the opposite-sex parent as an ideal mate early in life and (since they realize they cannot have the real thing), seek a closely-matching substitute.  By his own admission, Freud didn't know that much about women, suggesting in a 1933 lecture that "...all I have to say to you about femininity is certainly incomplete and fragmentary and does not always sound friendly... If you want to know more about femininity, enquire about your own experiences of life, or turn to poets, or wait until science can give you deeper and more coherent information."  Presumably he has in mind male poets and while pondering the “riddle of femininity” Freud's position was that women were “the problem” although he did offer any of them in the audience the hope that they might be “more masculine than feminine”.  For all his (professional) interest in mothers, Freud really didn't explore whether there was any correlation between the extent to which a man might be dominated first by his mother and later by his wife but it's of some note that British psychoanalyst Ernest Jones (1879-1958) who wrote an admiring biography (in three volumes, 1953-1957), described Freud's relationship with his wife as "uxorious", something which might seem strange to those familiar with revelations about the intricacies of that marriage.  Still, psychoanalysts and princes alike marry the women of their choice and presumably know what they're getting and even if it's not what they need, it'll be what they want.

People will read the Duke of Sussex's memoir (Spare, Bantum, 2023, 416 pp, ISBN-10 0857504797) for their own reasons and take from it what they will but it's clear he half agrees with Philip Larkin (1922-1985):

“They fuck you up, your mum and dad.

They may not mean to, but they do.

They fill you with the faults they had

And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn

By fools in old-style hats and coats,

Who half the time were soppy-stern

And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.

It deepens like a coastal shelf.

Get out as early as you can,

And don't have any kids yourself.”

Philip Larkin, High Windows

Borrowing from Freud, it is tempting to wonder if at least some of the development of Prince Harry's relationship with women ended the night his mother died.   As the Duchess of Windsor might have said to the Duchess of Sussex: "You need just to take them by the hand and lead them; they will follow you".