Condign

Condign (pronounced kuhn-dahyn)

(1) Well-deserved; fitting; suitable; appropriate; adequate (usually now of punishments).

(2) As condign merit (meritum de condign), a concept in Roman Catholic theology signifying a goodness that has been bestowed because of the actions of that person

(3) As “Project Condign”, a (now de-classified) top-secret study into UFOs (unidentified flying objects, known also as UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomenon)) undertaken by the UK government's Defence Intelligence Staff between 1997-2000.

1375–1425: From the late Middle English condign, & condigne (well-deserved, merited) from the Anglo-French, from the Old French condign (deserved, appropriate, equal in wealth), from the Latin condignus (wholly worthy), the construct being con- + dignus (worthy; dignity), from the primitive from Indo-European root dek- (to take, accept).  .  The Latin con- was from the Proto-Italic kom- and was related to the preposition cum (with).  In Latin, the prefix was used in compounds (1) to indicate a being or bringing together of several objects and (2) to indicate the completeness, perfecting of any act, and thus gives intensity to the signification of the simple word.  It's believed the UK's MoD (Ministry of Defence) chose “Project Condign” as the name for its enquiry into UFOs (1) because (1) the military like code names which provide no obvious clue about the nature of the matter(s) involved and (2) in the abstract, it conveyed the notion the investigation would provide a measured, proportionate, and sober assessment of the issue (ie a response commensurate with the evidence, not an endorsement of unsubstantiated speculation or explanations delving into the extra-terrestrial or supernatural).  Condign is an adjective, condignity & condignness are nouns and condignly is an adverb; the noun plural is condignities.

In Middle English, condign was used of rewards as well as punishment, censure etc, but by circa 1700 it had come to be applied almost exclusively of punishments, usually in the sense of “deservedly severe”.  Thus used approvingly, the adjectival comparative was “more condign”, the “superlative “most condign”.  That means the synonyms included “fitting”, “appropriate”, “deserved”, “just”, “merited” etc with the antonyms being “excessive”, “inappropriate” & “undeserved”, the latter set expressed by the negative incondign.  However, a phenomenon in the language is that words which have, since their use in Middle English, undergone a meaning shift so complete as to render the original meaning obsolete, can in ecclesiastical use retain the original sense.  In the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, meritum de condigno (condign merit) is that due to a person for some good they have done.  As a general principle, it’s held to be applied to “merit before God”, the Almighty binding Himself, as it were, to reward those who do his will; a kind of holy version of social contract theory.  Among the more simple aspects of Christian theology, the conditions for condign merit are: (1) holding oneself in a state of grace and (2) performing morally good actions.  Not transferable, the beneficiary can be only the person who performs the good act with condign merit based on the revealed fact that God has promised such a reward and as a reward it’s accumulative, each individual condignly meriting an increase of the virtue of faith by every act of faith performed in the state of grace.

Pragmatic parish priests probably are inclined to explain condign merit as a way of encouraging kindness to others (linking it to the notion of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” which is the essence of the Christian morality) but the theologians stress the significance of meritum de condign is it refers to merit based on justice rather than mere generosity of spirit.  It seems a fine distinction and doubtless is, both to doer of deed and beneficiary but, because the act is performed in a state of grace and is proportionate by God’s own ordinance to the reward promised, it’s a genuine claim based on justice, God rewarding such acts not out of mere benevolence but because freely He has so bound himself.

Project Condign: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region (in three volumes).  It turns out they're not out there.

The theologians manage to add layers by stressing meritum de condign can apply only to an individual in a state of grace (and thus justified and acting under sanctifying grace); without grace, no strictly meritorious claim on God is possible.  God may still be generous, but the reward will be granted under another head of power.  Additionally, the act must freely be performed and motivated by charity (love of God); mere kindness in the absence of this love not reaching the threshold.  Unusually, the reward of condign merit is by virtue of a Divine promise, the “justice” not “natural” but “covenantal”, God having imposed upon himself the obligation of reward, therefore it would be incongruum (from the Latin, an inflection of incongruus (inconsistent, incongruous, unsuitable)) for him not to do so and unlike the state in the social contract, God regards Himself truly as bound and the proportion is by divine ordination (ie the proportion between act and reward exists only because God has established it; it is not intrinsic to the act itself.

In certain aspects, the comparison with later legal traditions is quite striking.  Condign merit can apply variously to (1) an increase in charity, (2) an increase of sanctifying grace and (3) heavenly glory (eternal life), insofar as it is the consummation of grace already possessed but crucially, even condign merit presupposes grace entirely: the grace that enables the act is itself unmerited.  In other words, God and the church expect a certain basic adherence and this alone is not enough to deserve condign merit.  The companion term is meritum de congruo (congruous merit) in which a fitting or appropriate reward may be granted but that will be based on God’s generosity rather than being the self-imposed obligation that is condign merit.  If searching for a metaphor, condign merit may be imagined as something given according to a salutatory schedule while congruous merit is more like an ex gratia (a learned borrowing from Latin ex grātiā (literally “out of grace”)) payment (a thing not legally required but given voluntarily).

Santo Tomás de Aquino (Saint Thomas Aquinas, 1476) ,egg tempera on poplar panel by Carlo Crivelli (circa 1430-circa 1495) in a style typical of religious portraiture at at time when some Renaissance painters were still much influenced by late Gothic decorative sensibility.  This piece was from the upper tier of a polyptych (multi-panelled altarpiece) which Crivelli in 1476 completed for the high altar of the church of San Domenico, Ascoli Piceno in the Italian Marche.

Even among the devotional, in the twenty-first century all that may sound mystical or a tiresome theological point but there was a time in Europe when many much were concerned about avoiding Hell and going to Heaven with the Medieval church was there to explain the rules and mechanisms.  The carefully crafted distinction was made by the Italian Dominican friar, philosopher & theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in the Summa Theologiae (Summary of Theology, a work still unfinished by the time of the author’s death) and re-affirmed, essentially unaltered, during Session VI (Decree on Justification) of the Council of Trent (1545-1563).  In modern practice, priests don’t much bother their flock with Aquinas’s finely honed thoughts and instead exhort them to acts of kindness, rather than dwelling too much on abstractions like whether God will reward them by virtue of obligation or generosity, the important message being the Almighty remains sole source of both grace and reward, thus the importance to keep in a state of grace with him.

Google ngram (a quantitative and not qualitative measure): Because of the way Google harvests data for their ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

So while it has always implied “deserved”, Roman Catholic theologians thus still use “condign” in the context of a “reward for goodness” but in secular use it has for centuries been associated only with punishment and, the more fitting the sentence, the more condign it’s said to be.  As Christianity in the twentieth century began its retreat from Christendom, condign became a rare word and some now list it as archaic although as late as 1926, in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Henry Fowler (1858–1933), no great friend of “decorative words” and “elegant variations” though it still worth a descriptive (and cautionary entry: “Condign meant originally ‘deserved’ and could be used in many contexts, with praise for instance as well as with punishment.  It is now used only with words equivalent to ‘punishment’, and means deservedly severe, the severity being the important point, and the desert merely a condition of the appropriateness of the word; that it is an indispensable condition, however, is shown by the absurd effect of: ‘Count Zeppelin’s marvellous voyage through the air has ended in condign disaster’”.

Boris Johnson (right) handling a prize bull (left), Darnford Farm, Banchory, Scotland September, 2019.

Quite what old Henry Fowler would have made of the way the language of Shakespeare and Milton is used on social media and the like easily can be imagined but he’d have been heartened to learn the odd erudite soul still finds a way to splice something like “condign” into the conversation.  One, predictably, was that scholar of Ancient Greek, Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) who, during his tumultuous premiership, needed to rise from his place in the House of Commons to tell honourable members that the withdrawal of the Tory Party whip (“withdrawal of the party whip” a mechanism whereby a MP (Member of Parliament) is no longer recognised as a member of their parliamentary party, even though in some cases they continue for most purposes to belong to the party outside the parliament) from a member accused of sexual misconduct was “condign punishment”.

Mr Johnson was commenting on the case of Rob Roberts (b 1979; MP for Delyn 2019-2024) and while scandal is nothing novel in the House of Commons (and as the matter of Lord Peter "Mandy" Mandelson (b 1953) illustrates, nor is it in the upper house), aspects of the Roberts case were unusual.  In 2021, an independent panel, having found Mr Roberts sexually had harassed a member of his staff recommended he should be suspended from parliament for six weeks.  The panel found he’d committed a “serious and persistent breach of the parliament’s sexual misconduct policy” and although the MP had taken “positive steps”, he’d demonstrated only “limited insight into the nature of his misconduct”, the conclusion being there remained concerns “he does not yet fully understand the significance of his behaviour or the full nature and extent of his wrongdoing.”  Politicians sexually harassing their staff is now so frequent as to be unremarkable but what attracted some interest was that intriguingly, Mr Roberts had identified the problem and it turned out to be the complainant.  When alone together in a car on a constituency visit, the MP had said to him: “I find you very attractive and alluring and I need you to make attempts to be less alluring in the office because it's becoming very difficult for me.”  So it was Mr Roberts who really was the victim and the complainant clearly made an insufficient effort to become “less alluring” because the MP later told the man the advance he had made in the car was “something I would like to pursue, and if you would like to pursue that too it would make me very happy”.  From there, things got worse for the victim (in the sense of the complainant, not the politician).

Official portrait of Rob Roberts, the former honourable member for Delyn.

Mr Roberts had “come out” as gay after 15 years of marriage, the panel noting he’d been “going through several challenges and significant changes in his personal life”, adding these “do not excuse his sexual misconduct”.  Despite his announcement, he also propositioned young female staff members (perhaps he should have “come out” as bisexual), suggesting to one they might: “fool around with no strings”, assuring her that while he “…might be gay… I enjoy … fun times”. In April 2021 the Conservative (Tory) Party had announced that the MP had been "strongly rebuked", but would not lose the whip. Apparently, at the time, it was thought sufficiently condign for him to “undertake safeguarding and social media protection training”.  The next month however, the panel handed down its recommendations and he was “suspended from the services of the house for six weeks”, subsequently losing the Tory whip and had his party membership suspended.  In a confusing coda, after (controversially) returning to the Commons in July 2021, he was re-admitted to the party in October 2021 but was denied the whip, requiring him to sit as an independent until the end of his term.  In the 2024 general election, he stood as an independent candidate in the new constituency of Clwyd East, coming last with 599 votes and losing his deposit.  Privately as well as politically, life for Mr Roberts has been discursive.  After in May 2020 tweeting he was gay and separating from his wife, in 2023, he re-married.

The word even got a run on Rupert Murdoch’s (b 1931) Fox News, an outlet noted more for short sentences, punchy words and repetition than words verging on the archaic but on what the site admitted was a “slow news day”, took the opportunity to skewer Jay Robert “J.B. Pritzker (b 1965, (Democratic Party governor of US state of Illinois since 2019), noting the part the wealth of the “billionaire heir to the Hyatt hotels fortune” had played in defeating a Republican opponent (it couldn’t resist adding that “money in politics” was something crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) “could tell you more about”).  Fox News’s conclusion was “…the shamelessness and even braggadocio with which Pritzker sought to buy the governorship could be a harbinger of things to come.  But, we suppose, having to serve as governor of Illinois is condign punishment for the offense…”

In happier times: But wherever he is in the world, he remains my best pal!  Mandy’s (pictured here in dressing gown, tête-à-tête with Jeffrey Epstein) entry in the now infamous "birthday book", assembled for the latter’s 50^th birthday in 2003.

The matter of condign punishment has in Westminster of late been much discussed because of revelations of the squalid behaviour of Mandy and his dealings with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019).  Undisputedly, one of politics great networkers, Mandy’s long career in the Labour Party was noted not for any great contribution to national life (although he did good work in the project which was "New Labour" but whether he now should regard that a proud boast or admission of guilt he must decide) or achievements in policy development but blatant self-interest, conflicts of interest and repeated recovery from scandal; twice he was forced to resign from cabinet because of matters classed as “conflict of interest” and his whole adult life has been characterized by seeking association with rich men who, for whatever reason, seem to become anxious to indulge his desire to receive generous hospitality and large sums of cash.  Sir Tony Blair (b 1953; UK prime-minister 1997-2007), clearly seeing talent where many others did not, was most forgiving of Mandy’s foibles, twice re-appointing him to cabinet after decided a longer exile would be most incondign and famously once observed his "mission to transform the Labour party would not be complete until it had learned to love Peter Mandelson."  Even Gordon Brown (b 1951; UK prime-minister 2007-2010) who is believed to have existed in a state of mutual loathing with Mandy, was by 2008 in such dire political straits he brought him back to cabinet, solving the problem of finding a winnable seat in the Commons by appointing him to the upper chamber, the House of Lords.  While the presence of the disreputable in the Lords has a tradition dating back centuries, it was thought a sign of the times that Brown “ennobling a grub like Mandelson” to take a seat in the house, where once sat Wellington, Palmerston and Curzon, attracted barely an objection, so jaded by sleaze had the British public become.

Still, even by the standards of Mandy’s troubled past, what emerged from the documents released by the US DoJ (Department of Justice) was shocking.  Not only did it emerge Mandy had lied about the extent of his connections with Epstein but it became clear they had, despite his repeated denials, continued long after Epstein’s 2008 conviction in Florida on charges of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution for which he received an 18 month sentence.  So well connected in the Masonic-like UK Labour party was Mandy (and there have been amusing theories about how he has maintained this influence), it might have been possible to stage yet another comeback from that embarrassment but his life got worse when it was revealed large sums of cash had been passed to him (or the partner who later became his husband) by Epstein, transactions made more interesting still when it emerged Mandy appears to have sent to Epstein classified files to which he gained access by virtue of being a member of cabinet.  More remarkable still was Mandy, while a cabinet minister, appearing to operate as a kind of lobbyist in matter of interest to what was described as: “Mr Epstein and his powerful banking friends”.

In happier times, left to right: Tony Blair, Gordon Blair & Mandy (left) and the mean girls: Karen Smith (Amanda Seyfried, b 1985), Gretchen Wieners (Lacey Chabert, b 1982) & Regina George (Rachel McAdams, b 1978) (right).

In the early 1990s, detesting the Tory government, the press were fawning in their admiration and dubbed the New Labour trio "the three musketeers" but they came also to be called: "the good, the bad and the ugly, a collective moniker which may be generous to at least one of them.  There is no truth in the rumor the threesome provided the template for the personalities of the "plastics" in Mean Girls (2004, right) although the idea is tempting because both photographs can be deconstructed thus: Tony & Karen (sincere, well meaning, a bit naïve); Gordon & Gretchen (insecure, desperately wanting to be liked) and Mandy & Regina (evil and manipulative). 

All this was revealed in E-mail exchanges during the GFC (Global Financial Crisis) which unfolded between 2008-2012 after the demise of US financial services firm Lehman Brothers (1850-2008), Mandy giving Epstein “advance notice” the EU (European Union (1993)), the multi-national aggregation which evolved from the EEC (European Economic Community), the Zollverein formed in 1957) would be providing (ie “creating”) a €500bn “bailout” to prevent the collapse of the Euro (the currency used by a number of EU states).  Those familiar with trading on the forex (foreign exchange) markets will appreciate the value of such secret information and, given the trade in global currency dwarfs that in equities, commodities and such, the numbers (and thus the profits and losses) are big.  Pleasingly, in the manner commercial arrangements often are, it was a two-way trade, representations to the UK and US Treasuries arranged in both directions.

Mandy also acted as Epstein’s advisor about “back channel” ways to influence government policy (ie the government of which he was at the time serving in cabinet) and political scientists probably would concede his advice was sage; he suggested to Epstein he should arrange for the chairman of investment bank J.P. Morgan to “mildly threaten” the UK’s chancellor of the exchequer (the finance minister).  What a cabinet minister is by convention (and implied in various statures) obliged to do is promote and defend government policy while assisting in its execution; should they not agree with that policy, they must resign from government.  Clearly, Mandy decided what is called “cabinet solidarity” was a tiresome inconvenience and in an attempt to change cabinet’s policy on a bankers’ bonus tax, made his suggestion which Mr Epstein must have followed because J.P. Morgan’s Jamie Dimon (b 1956; chairman and CEO (chief executive officer) of JPMorgan Chase since 2006) indeed did raise the matter with the chancellor although opinions might differ on whether what he said could be classed as “mildly threatening”.  In his memoir, Alistair Darling (1953–2023; UK Chancellor of the Exchequer 2007-2010) described a telephone call from Mr Dimon and recalled the banker was “very, very angry” about the plan, arguing “..his bank bought a lot of UK debt and he wondered if that was now such a good idea.  I pointed out that they bought our debt because it was a good business deal for them.  He went on to say they were thinking of building a new office in London, but they had to reconsider that now.”  The lobbying didn’t change the chancellor’s mind and the bonus tax was imposed as planned.  Mandy can’t be blamed for that; he did his bit.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December, 2011.

Probably the most amusing of Mandy’s reactions to the revelations about his past related to payments he received from Epstein in 2003-2004 (US$75,000 to Mandy and Stg£10,000 to his partner Reinaldo Avila da Silva (the couple married in 2023)).  When late in January, 2026 he resigned from the Labour Party (it’s believed he’d been “tapped on the shoulder” and told he’d be expelled if no letter of resignation promptly was received), he used the usual line adopted these circumstances, saying he wished to spare the party “further embarrassment” and added: “Allegations which I believe to be false that he made financial payments to me 20 years ago, and of which I have no record or recollection, need investigating by me.”  Few seemed to find plausible a man who has such a history of “money grubbing” could fail to recall US$75,000 suddenly being added to his bank balance and, unfortunately for Mandy, various authorities have decided the matters “need investigating by them”. 

In happier times: Mandy (left) with Sir Keir Starmer (right).

One who seems to be taking the betrayals personally is Sir Keir Starmer (b 1962; prime-minister of the UK since 2024) who appointed Mandy as the UK’s ambassador to the US, the prime minister making clear his outrage at the lies Mandy (more than once) told him and his staff during the (clearly inadequate) vetting process.  In one of his more truculent speeches, Sir Keir contrasting himself with Mandy, pointing out that while he’d come late to politics and entered the nasty business with the intention of trying to improve the country, he contrasted that high aim with the long career of Mandy who, it had become clear, viewed “climbing the greasy” pole of public office as a device for personal enrichment.  Hell hath no fury like a prime minister lied to.  Mandy has already resigned his seat in the Lords (now something separate from his possession of the life peerage conferred by Gordon Brown) although, all things considered, that probably was one of history’s less necessary letters.  However, as well as referring his allegedly nefarious conduct to the police and other investigative bodies, the government is said to be drafting legislation to eject Mandy from the Lords and strip him of his noble title: Lord Mandelson.  Given that over the past century odd members of the Lords have been jailed for conduct such as murder, perjury and what was in the statute of 1553 during the reign of Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England (and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547) called “the detestable and abominable vice of buggery” yet not been stripped of their titles, the act will be a bit of a novelty but constitutional experts agree it’s within the competence of parliament, needing only the concurrence of both houses. Not since the passage of the Titles Deprivation Act (1917) have peerages been stripped and that statutory removal happened in the unusual circumstances of World War I (1914-1918) when it was thought the notion of Germans and Austrians holding British titles of nobility was not appropriate though it was a measure of the way the establishment resists change that the war had been raging three years before the act finally received royal assent.

The irony of a gay man becoming entangled in the scandals surrounding a convicted child sex trafficker who allegedly supplied men with girls younger than the age of consent has been noted, some dwelling on that with unseemly relish; it was with both enthusiasm and and obvious relief that members of the Labour Party felt finally free to tell journalists (or anyone else who asked) just what they really thought of Mandy, their previously repressed views views tending to a thumbnail sketch which could be précised as: “evil and manipulative”.  More generally, although it was the English common law which did so much to establish the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, in parliament and beyond, the consensus seems already reached that Mandy is “guilty as sin”; it’s a question of to what extent and what’s to be done about it.  That will play out but what may happen sooner is that Sir Keir could be the latest of the many victims of Mandy's machinations over the decades.  For matters unrelated to Mandy, the prime minister had anyway been having a rugged time in the polls and on the floor of the house and all that that has thus far ensured the survival of his leadership is thought to be (1) the lack of an obvious contender in the Labour Party and (2) the ineptitude of the Tory opposition, the talents of its MPs now thought to be as low as at any time in living memory.  Sadly, when discussing the travails of Sir Keir, it notable how many commentators have described him with terms like "decent", "integrity" and "honorable" (not qualities much associated with Mandy) but it remains unclear if the prime minister's commendable virtues will prove enough for his leadership to survive in the clatter of one of the moral panics the English do so well.  Over the thirty-odd years, quite often the Labour Party apparatchiks have had to ponder: “What are we going to do about Mandy?” but this time it’s serious and there will be much effort devoted to combining “damage limitation” with what the baying mob will judge at least adequately condign.

Inamorata

Inamorata (pronounced in-am-uh-rah-tuh or in-am-uh-rah-tuh)

A woman with whom one is in love; a female lover

1645-1655: From the Italian innamorata (mistress, sweetheart), noun use of the feminine form of innamorato (the noun plural innamoratos or innamorati) (lover, boyfriend), past principle of innamorare (to inflame with love), the construct being in- (in) + amore (love), from the Latin amor.  A familiar modern variation is enamor.  Inamorata is a noun; the noun plural is inamoratas.

Words like inamorata litter English and endure in their niches, not just because poets find them helpful but because they can be used to convey subtle nuances in a way a word which appears synonymous might obscure.  One might think the matter of one’s female lover might be linguistically (and sequentially) covered by (1) girlfriend, (2) fiancé, (3) wife and (4) mistress but to limit things to those is to miss splitting a few hairs.  A man’s girlfriend is a romantic partner though not of necessity a sexual one because some religions expressly prohibit such things without benefit of marriage and there are the faithful who follow these teachings.  One can have as many girlfriends as one can manage but the expectation they should be enjoyed one at a time.  Women can have girlfriends too but (usually) they are “friends who are female” rather than anything more except of course among lesbians where the relationship is the same as with men.  Gay men too have girlfriends who are “female friends”, some of whom may be “fag hags” a term which now is generally a homophobic slur unless used within the LGB factions of the LGBTQQIAAOP community where it can be jocular or affectionate.

A fiancé is a women to whom one is engaged to be married, in many jurisdictions once a matter of legal significance because an offer of marriage could be enforced under the rules of contract law.  While common law courts didn’t go as far as ordering “specific performance of the contract”, they would award damages on the basis of a “breach of promise”, provided it could be adduced that three of the four essential elements of a contract existed: (1) offer, (2) certainty of terms and (3) acceptance.  The fourth component: (4) consideration (ie payment), wasn’t mentioned because it was assumed to be implicit in the nature of the exchange; a kind of deferred payment as it were.  It was one of those rarities in common law where things operated almost wholly in favor of women in that they could sue a man who changed his mind while they were free to break-off an engagement without fear of legal consequences though there could be social and familial disapprobation.  Throughout the English-speaking world, the breach of promise tort in marriage matters has almost wholly been abolished, remaining on the books in the a couple of US states (not all of which lie south of the Mason-Dixon Line) but even where it exists it’s now a rare action and one likely to succeed only in exceptional circumstances or where a particularly fragrant plaintiff manages to charm a particularly sympathetic judge.

The spelling fiancé (often as fiance) is now common for all purposes.  English borrowed both the masculine (fiancé) and feminine (fiancée) from the French verb fiancer (to get engaged) in the mid nineteenth century and that both spellings were used is an indication it was one of those forms which was, as an affectation, kept deliberately foreign because English typically doesn’t use gendered endings. Both the French forms were ultimately from the Classical Latin fidare (to trust), a form familiar in law and finance in the word fiduciary, from the Latin fīdūciārius (held in trust), from fīdūcia (trust) which, as a noun & adjective, describes relationships between individuals and entities which rely on good faith and accountability.  Pronunciation of both fiancé and fiancée is identical so the use of the differentiated forms faded by the late twentieth century and even publications like Country Life and Tattler which like writing with class-identifiers seem to have updated.  Anyway, because English doesn’t have word endings that connote gender, differentiating between the male and the female betrothed would seem unfashionable in the age of gender fluidity but identities exist as they’re asserted and one form or the other might be deployed as a political statement by all sides in the gender wars.

Model Emily Ratajkowski's (b 1991) clothing label is called Inamorata, a clever allusion to her blended nickname EmRata.  This is Ms Ratajkowski showing Inamorata’s polka-dot line in three aspects.

Wife was from the Middle English wyf & wif, from the Old English wīf (woman, wife), from the Proto-West Germanic wīb, from the Proto-Germanic wībą (woman, wife) and similar forms existed as cognates in many European languages.  The wife was the woman one had married and by the early twentieth century, in almost all common law jurisdictions (except those where systems of tribal law co-existed) it was (more or less) demanded one may have but one at a time.  Modern variations include “common-law wife” and the “de-facto wife”.  The common-law marriage (also known as the "sui iuris (from the Latin and literally “of one's own right”) marriage", the “informal marriage” and the “non-ceremonial marriage”) is a kind of legal quasi-fiction whereby certain circumstances can be treated as a marriage for many purposes even though no formal documents have been registered, all cases assessed on their merits.  Although most Christian churches don’t long dwell on the matter, this is essentially what marriage in many cases was before the institutional church carved out its role.  In popular culture the term is used loosely to refer sometimes just about any un-married co-habitants regardless of whether or not the status has been acknowledged by a court.  De facto was from the Latin de facto, the construct being dē (from, by) + the ablative of factum (fact, deed, act).  It translates as “in practice, what actually is regardless of official or legal status” and is thus differentiated from de jure, the construct being dē (from) + iūre (law) which describes something’s legal status.  In general use, a common-law wife and de facto wife are often thought the same thing but the latter differs that in some jurisdictions the parameters which define the status are codified in statute whereas a common law wife can be one declared by a court on the basis of evidence adduced.

Mistress dates from 1275–1325 and was from the Middle English maistresse, from the Old & Middle French maistresse (in Modern French maîtresse), feminine of maistre (master), the construct being maistre (master) + -esse or –ess (the suffix which denotes a female form of otherwise male nouns denoting beings or persons), the now rare derived forms including the adjective mistressed and the noun mistressship.  In an example of the patriarchal domination of language, when a woman was said to have acquired complete knowledge of or skill in something, she’s was said to have “mastered” the topic.  A mistress (in this context) was a woman who had a continuing, extramarital sexual relationship with one man, especially a man who, in return for an exclusive and continuing liaison, provides her with financial support.  The term (like many) has become controversial and critics (not all of them feminists) have labeled it “archaic and sexist”, suggesting the alternatives “companion” or “lover” but neither convey exactly the state of the relationship so mistress continues to endure.  The critics have a point in that mistress is both “loaded” and “gendered” given there’s no similarly opprobrious term for adulterous men but the word is not archaic; archaic words are those now rare to the point of being no longer in general use and “mistress” has hardly suffered that fate, thought-crime hard to stamp out.

This is Ms Ratajkowski showing Inamorata’s polka-dot line in another three aspects.

Inamorata was useful because while it had a whiff of the illicit, that wasn’t always true but what it did always denote was a relationship of genuine love whatever the basis so one’s inamorata could also be one’s girlfriend, fiancé or mistress though perhaps not one’s wife, however fond one might be of her.  An inamorata would be a particular flavor of mistress in the way paramour or leman didn't imply.  Paramour was from the Middle English paramour, paramoure, peramour & paramur, from the Old French par amor (literally “for love's sake”), the modern pronunciation apparently an early Modern English re-adaptation of the French and a paramour was a mistress, the choice between the two perhaps influenced by the former tending to the euphemistic.  The archaic leman is now so obscure that it tends to be used only by the learned as a term of disparagement against women in the same way a suggestion mendaciousness is thought a genteel way to call someone a liar.  Dating from 1175-1225, it was from the Middle English lemman, a variant of leofman, from the Old English lēofmann (lover; sweetheart (and attested also as a personal name)), the construct being lief +‎ man (beloved person).  Lief was from the Middle English leef, leve & lef, from the Old English lēof (dear), from the Proto-Germanic leubaz and was cognate with the Saterland Frisian ljo & ljoo, the West Frisian leaf, the Dutch lief, the Low German leev, the German lieb, the Swedish and Norwegian Nynorsk ljuv, the Gothic liufs, the Russian любо́вь (ljubóv) and the Polish luby.  Man is from the Middle English man, from the Old English mann (human being, person, man), from the Proto-Germanic mann (human being, man) and probably ultimately from the primitive Indo-European mon (man).  A linguistic relic, leman applied originally either to men or women and had something of a romantic range.  It could mean someone of whom one was very fond or something more although usage meant the meaning quickly drifted to the latter: someone's sweetheart or paramour.  In the narrow technical sense it could still be applied to men although it has for so long been a deliberate archaic device and limited to women, that would now just confuse.

About the concubine, while there was a tangled history, there has never been much confusion.  Dating from 1250-1300, concubine was from the Middle English concubine (a paramour, a woman who cohabits with a man without being married to him) from the Anglo-Norman concubine, from the Latin concubīna, derived from cubare (to lie down), the construct being concub- (variant stem of concumbere & concumbō (to lie together)) + -ina (the feminine suffix).  The status (a woman who cohabits with a man without benefit of marriage) existed in Hebrew, Greek, Roman and other civilizations, the position sometimes recognized in law as "wife of inferior condition, secondary wife" and there’s much evidence of long periods of tolerance by religious authorities, extended both to priests and the laity.  The concubine of a priest was sometimes called a priestess although this title was wholly honorary and of no religious significance although presumably, as a vicar's wife might fulfil some role in the parish, they might have been delegated to do this and that.

Once were inamoratas: Lindsay Lohan with former special friend Samantha Ronson, barefoot in Los Cabos, Mexico, 2008.

Under Roman civil law, the parties were the concubina (female) and the concubinus (masculine).  Usually, the concubine was of a lower social order but the institution, though ranking below matrimonium (marriage) was a cut above adulterium (adultery) and certainly more respectable than stuprum (illicit sexual intercourse, literally "disgrace" from stupere (to be stunned, stupefied)) and not criminally sanctioned like rapere (“sexually to violate” from raptus, past participle of rapere, which when used as a noun meant "a seizure, plundering, abduction").  In Medieval Latin it also meant meant also "forcible violation" & "kidnapping" and a misunderstanding of the context in which the word was then used has caused problems in translation ever since .  Concubinage is, in the West, a term largely of historic interest.  It describes a relationship in which a woman engages in an ongoing conjugal relationship with a man to whom she is not or cannot be married to the full extent of the local meaning of marriage.  This may be due to differences in social rank, an existing marriage, religious prohibitions, professional restrictions, or a lack of recognition by the relevant authorities.  Historically, concubinage was often entered into voluntarily because of an economic imperative.  In the modern vernacular, wives use many words to describe their husbands’ mistress(es).  They rarely use concubine.  They might however be tempted to use courtesan which was from the French courtisane, from the Italian cortigiana, feminine of cortigiano (courtier), from corte (court), from the Latin cohors.  A courtesan was a prostitute but a high-priced one who attended only to rich or influential clients and the origin of the term was when it was used of the mistresses of kings or the nobles in the court, the word mistress too vulgar to be used in such circles.

Knickers

Knickers (pronounced nik-erz)

(1) Loose-fitting short trousers gathered in at the knees.

(2) A bloomers-like undergarment worn by women.

(3) A general term for the panties worn by women.

(4) In product ranges, a descriptor of certain styles of panties, usually the short-legged underpants worn by women or girls.

(5) In slang, a mild expression of annoyance (archaic).

1866: A clipping of knickerbockers (the plural and a special use of knickerbocker).  The use is derived from the short breeches worn by Diedrich Knickerbocker in George Cruikshank's illustrations of Washington Irving's (1783-1859) A History of New York (1809), published under the pen-name Dietrich Knickbocker.  The surname Knickerbocker (also spelled Knikkerbakker, Knikkerbacker, and Knickerbacker) is a American creation, based on the names of early Dutch early settlers of New Netherland, thought probably derived from the Dutch immigrant Harmen Jansen van Bommel(l), who went variously by the names van Wy(y)e, van Wyekycback(e), Kinnekerbacker, Knickelbacker, Knickerbacker, Kinckerbacker, Nyckbacker, and Kynckbacker.  The precise etymology is a mystery, speculations including a corruption of the Dutch Wyekycback, the Dutch knacker (cracker) + the German Bäcker (or the Dutch bakker (baker)), or the Dutch knicker (marble (toy)) + the German Bäcker (or the Dutch bakker).  Aside from the obvious application (of or relating to knickerbockers), it was in the US used attributively as a modifier, referencing the social class with which the garment was traditionally associated; this use is now listed as archaic.  Knickers is a noun and is one of those words which serves also as a plural.

Men in knickerbockers.

Washington Irving was a US writer, historian and diplomat, most remembered today as the author of Rip Van Winkle (1819).  Although the bulk of his work was that of a conventional historian, his early writing was satirical, many of his barbs aimed at New York’s high society and it was Irving who in 1807 first gave NYC the nickname "Gotham" (from the Anglo-Saxon, literally “homestead where goats are kept”, the construct being the Old English gāt (goat) +‎ hām (home)).  The name Diedrich Knickerbocker he introduced in 1809 in A History of New York (the original title A History of New-York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty).  A satire of local politics and personalities, it was also an elaborate literary hoax, Irving through rumor and missing person advertisements creating the impression Mr Knickerbocker had vanished from his hotel, leaving behind nothing but a completed manuscript.  The story captured the public imagination and, under the Knickerbocker pseudonym, Irving published A History of New York to critical and commercial success.  The name Diedrich Knickerbocker became a nickname for the Manhattan upper-class (later extended to New Yorkers in general) and was adopted by the New York Knickerbockers basketball team (1845-1873), the name revived in 1946 for the team now part of the US National Basketball League although their name usually appears as the New York Knicks.  The figurative use to describe New Yorkers of whatever status faded from use early in the twentieth century.  Knickerbocker was of course a real name, one of note the US foreign correspondent HR Knickerbocker (1898–1949) who in 1936 was a journalist for the Hearst Press, accredited to cover the Spanish Civil War (1936-1940).  Like many foreign reporters, his work made difficult by the military censors who, after many disputes, early in 1937 deported him after he’d tried to report the retreat of one of the brigades supplied by Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) with the words “The Italians fled, lock, stock and barrel-organ”.

Kiki de Montparnasse lace knickers, US$190 at FarFetch.

It was in the Knickerbocker tale of 1809 that Washington made the first known reference in print to the doughnut (after the 1940s often as "donut" in North American use although that spelling was noted as early as the mid-nineteenth century) although the “small, spongy cake made of dough and fried in lard”) was probably best described as “a lump” because there seems to be no suggestion the size and exact shape of the things were in any way standardized beyond being vaguely roundish.  It’s not clear when the holes became common, the first mention of them apparently in 1861 at which time one writer recorded that in New York City (the old New Amsterdam) they were known also as olycokes (from the Dutch oliekoek (oily cake) and some food guides of the era listed doughnuts and crullers as “types of olycoke”.

For designers, conventional knickers can be an impediment so are sometimes discarded: Polish model Anja Rubik (b 1983), Met Gala, New York City, May, 2012.  Note JBF hair-style and commendable hip-bone definition.

Knickers dates from 1866, in reference to loose-fitting pants for men worn buckled or buttoned at the waist and knees, a clipping of knickerbockers, used since 1859 and so called for their because of their resemblance to the trousers of old-time Dutchmen in George Cruikshank's (1792-1878) illustrations in the History of New York.  A now extinct derivation was the Scottish nicky-tam (garter worn over trousers), dating from 1911, a shortened, colloquial form, the construct being knickers + the Scottish & northern English dialect taum, from Old Norse taumr (cord, rein, line), cognate with the Old English team, the root sense of which appears to be "that which draws".  It was originally a string tied by Scottish farmers around rolled-up trousers to keep the legs of them out of the dirt (in the style of the plus-fours once associated with golf, so-named because they were breeches with four inches of excess material which could hang in a fold below the fastening beneath the knee, the plus-four a very similar style to the classic knickerbocker).  The word “draws” survives in Scots-English to refer to trousers in general.  It also had a technical use in haberdashery, describing a linsey-woolsey fabric with a rough knotted surface on the right side which was once a popular fabric for women's dresses.

Cami-knickers, 1926, Marshalls & Snelgrove, Oxford Street, London.

The New York garment industry in 1882 adopted knickers to describe a "short, loose-fitting undergarment for women" apparently because of the appeal of the name.  By 1884, the word had crossed the Atlantic and in both France and the UK was used to advertise the flimsier of women’s “unmentionables” and there have long many variations (although there’s not always a consistency of style between manufacturers) including Camiknickers, French Knickers and (the somewhat misleading) No Knickers (which are knickers claimed to be "so comfortable you won't believe you're wearing them", said also to be the yardstick used to find the "perfect bra").  From the very start, women’s knickers were, as individual items, sold as “a pair” and there’s no “knicker” whereas the singular form knickerbocker, unlike the plural, may only refer to a single garment.  In the matter of English constructed plurals, the history matters rather than any rule.  Shoes and socks are obviously both a pair because that’s how they come but a pair of trousers seems strange because it’s a single item.  That’s because modern "trousers" evolved from the Old Scots Trews, Truis & Triubhas and the Middle English trouzes & trouse which were separate items (per leg) and thus supplied in pairs, the two coverings joined by a breechcloth or a codpiece.  A pair of spectacles (glasses) is similar in that lens were originally separate (al la the monocle), things which could be purchased individually or as a pair.  The idea of a pair of knickers was natural because it was an adaptation of earlier use for the men’s garments, sold as “pairs of knickerbockers” or “pairs of knickers”.

Advertisement for French lingerie, 1958.  Now owned by Munich-based Triumph International GmbH, Valisère was in the early twentieth century founded as a glove manufacturer by Perrin family in Grenoble, Isère (thus the name).  Until 1922, exclusively it made fabric gloves but in 1922 expanded to produce fine lingerie and instantly was successful, in the coming years opening factories in Brazil and then Morocco.

In English, euphemisms for underwear (especially those of women) have come and gone.  In that, the churn-rate is an example of the linguistic treadmill: Terms created as “polite forms” become as associated with the items they describe as the word they replaced and thus also come to be thought “common”, “rude” or “vulgar” etc, thus necessitating replacement.  Even the now common “lingerie” (in use in English by at least 1831), had its moments of controversy in the US where, in the mid-nineteenth century, on the basis of being so obviously “foreign” and thus perhaps suggestive of things not desirable, decent folk avoided it.  It was different in England where it was used by manufacturers and retailers to hint at “continental elegance” and imported lacy, frilly or silk underwear for women would often be advertised as “Italian lingerie” or “French lingerie”.  That was commercial opportunism because lingerie was from the French lingerie (linen closet) and thus deconstructs in English use as “linen underwear” but any sense of the exclusive use of “linen” was soon lost and the association with “luxury” stuck, lingerie coming to be understood as those undergarments which were delicate or expensive; what most wore as “everyday” wear wouldn’t be so described.

Christmas lights in the centre of Eislingen, Germany, 3 December 2015.

A town of over 20,000 souls in the district of Göppingen in Baden-Württemberg which lies in Germany’s south, the (presumably unintentional), “knickers theme” Christmas lights the good burghers choose in 2015 seem to have induced much envy because on social media there were many posts claiming them for other places including Tomsk, Sevastopol and Kutaisi.

Although apparently seen used in 1866 and by the early 1880s in general commercial use to describe “underpants” (dating from 1871) for women or girls”, “knickers” was not the last word on the topic, “undies” (1906), “panties” (1908) and “briefs” (1934) following.  However, for those with delicate sensibilities, mention of “knickers” (one’s own or another’s) could be avoided because there evolved a long list of euphemisms, including “inexpressible” “unmentionables” (1806); “indispensables” (1820); “ineffable” (1823); “unutterables” (1826); “innominables” (1827); “inexplicable” (1829); “unimaginable” (1833), and “unprintables” (1860).  In modern use, “unmentionables” is still heard although use is now exclusively ironic but the treadmill is still running because as the indispensable Online Etymology Dictionary noted when compiling that list, “intimates” seems (in the context of knickers and such to have come into use as recently as 1988; it’s short for “intimate apparel”, first used 99 years earlier.

Beknickered or knickered: Lindsay Lohan in cage bra and knickers, Complex Magazine photo-shoot, 2011.  In the technical sense, were the distinctive elements of a cage bra truly to be structural, the essential components would be the underwire and gore. 

The bra, like a pair of knckers, is designed obviously to accommodate a pair yet is described in the singular for reasons different again.  Its predecessor, the bodice, was often supplied in two pieces (and was thus historically referred to as “a pair of bodies” (and later “a pair of bodicies”)) and laced together but that’s unrelated to the way a bra is described: It’s a clipping of the French brassière and that is singular.  Brasserie entered English in the late nineteenth century although the French original often more closely resembled a chemise or camisole, the adoption in English perhaps influenced by the French term for something like the modern bra being soutien-gorge (literally, "throat-supporter") which perhaps had less appeal although it may be no worse than the more robust rehausseur de poitrine (chest uplifter) which seems more accurate still.  Being English, "brassiere" was soon clipped to "bra" and a vast supporting industry evolved, with global annual sales estimated to exceed US$60 billon in 2025 although since Donald Trump's (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) imposition of increased tariffs, just about all projections in the world economy must be thought "rubbery".

Danish model Nina Agdal (b 1992), Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Summer of Swim Fan Festival & Concert Bash, Coney Island Beach and Boardwalk, Brooklyn, New York, 28 August, 2016.

Ms Agdal can be described as being “unknickered” or “knickerless”, the choice depending presumably on what best suits the rhythm of the sentence.  Those adjectives reference the absence of knickers whereas “deknickered” describes their removal.  For serious students of fashion, “unknickered” or “knickerless” are used literally but a trap for young players is that there are dresses designed to produce the effect when worn with specially-designed knickers.  In the same way, there is no difference in meaning between “knickered” and “beknickered”, both a reference to having a pair on; they’re now rare but in the US when the wearing of knickerbockers was quite a thing, both would often appear in print.  The phrase “all fur and no knickers” (also as “all fur coat and no knickers”) conveys the critique: Having a superficially positive appearance that is belied by the reality.  That’s a slur suggesting the apparent beauty is but a surface veneer concealing something common and differs from “beauty is only skin deep” in that latter refers to someone or something genuinely beautiful but in some way ugly whereas the former implies the “beauty” is fake.  In that “all fur and no knickers” is related to “mutton dressed-up as lamb” (the even more cutting put-down being “mutton dressed as hogget”) and “all hat and no cattle”, reputed to have originated in Texas.  To “get one's knickers in a knot” or “to get one's knickers in a twist” is to become overwrought or needlessly upset over some trivial matter or event.  Used usually as the admonition: “Don’t get your knickers in a knot (or twist)”, the companion phrase being “keep your knickers on” which means much the same thing: “stay calm and don’t become flustered”.  The term “witches' knickers” is UK slang describing discarded, wind-blown plastic bags snagged in trees and bushes.  Gym knickers traditionally were the large, loose shorts worn by girls during school sports, the style very similar to what are now sold as “French knickers” (known in the US also as “tap pants”).  Camiknickers are a women's undergarment covering the torso; often worn (sometimes in decorated form) under short dresses or with slacks, the industry mostly has switched to marketing them under the names Teddy, Tedi or bodysuit.