A Message From The Queen.

[xena]

Ummm, I'm pretty sure a Lieutenant IS a Senior Subaltern.

Nevertheless, she was enrolled in the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service, as an honorary Second (note: not Senior!) Subaltern (which was equivalent to the Army rank of Second Lieutenant), and later promoted to an honorary Junior Commander (which was equivalent to the Army rank of Captain).

It's less of an issue of discrimination (personally, at least) since the Auxiliary Territorial Service had an entirely different rank structure and names for their ranks. At the time, women were not enrolled in the Army proper.

We may think that's discriminatory, but there's no need to re-write history. Her ranks were Second Subaltern and Junior Commander.

[macwilkin]

Contemplating the original story, one other point comes to mind: when Princess Elizabeth was in the army (well, actually, a women’s auxiliary service separate from the British Army) she was a victim of discrimination:
Instead of being styled Lieutenant Elizabeth Windsor, her rank was Senior Subaltern.
Regards,
Mike

Reminds me of the story of when HM King Hussein of Jordan was attending Sandhurst, and was referred to as "MISTER KING HUSSEIN SIR!"

-- http://www.davidhorsfield.org.uk/ch28.asp

T.

[Mike_Oettle]

Xena, I stand corrected. It was Second Subaltern, not Senior Subaltern.
But that does not alter the fact that the WATS was distinct from the army, and that its very existence as a separate service was an act of discrimination.
Second Subaltern was equivalent to Second Lieutenant, but was not the same. A Junior Commander was equivalent to a Captain, but also was not the same.
In fact, I do not doubt that any male army officer would have been held to outrank a woman of equivalent rank.

Todd, thanks for that link. A most interesting account, long before the story reached the Jordanian sovereign.
Regards,
Mike

[xena]

Well, I admit that barring women from the military is discriminatory in our eyes, and I certainly have a bit of an objection to paying women only two thirds the salary of the equivalent ranking male, but:

...as from July 1941 the ATS was given full military status and members were no longer volunteers. Other Ranks now held identical ranks to male Army personnel, but officers continued to have a separate rank system.

Hence, the funny name for HM's rank (Junior Commander vice Captain).

Once they had "full military status" they held proper ranks (even with funny names) that carried the same weight as someone from any other Corps. At the time, NO COUNTRY allowed women in the military - not the US, not the UK, not Germany, not Russia - no one. It may seem like a travesty of discrimination to our modern eyes, but at the time it seemed like less of an issue. Folks were more likely worried about not having to learn to goosestep.

But there is a funny little trick with ranks. Equivalent means to "have the same authority." So trying to say that her rank was equivalent to a Captain, but not the same is not really understanding how ranks work.

Her grandson, when he joined the British Army similarly did not hold the rank of Second Lieutenant. He held an equivalent rank. Was he discriminated against? Of course not! The use of the rank "Cornet" is a Regimental custom and tradition, and a Cornet has every bit of authority (as little as that is!) as any other Second Lieutenant. Is a Colour Sergeant discriminated against because he, or she, isn't called "Staff Sergeant"? Is a Serjeant discriminated against because he, or she, belongs to a Regiment that spells it differently than the rest of the Army? Does a Navy Lieutenant Commander have less authority than an Army Major?

[Mike_Oettle]

Xena, there is a major difference between the discrimination that characterised female officer ranks and the tradition of different rank names in certain regiments.
There is no difference in rank between a Cornet in the Household Cavalry and a Second Lieutenant in another regiment.
Likewise there is no difference between a Corporal of Horse in the Household Cavalry and a Sergeant elsewhere.
(Of course, a Cavalryman might hold a Cornet or a Corporal of Horse to be much better [and to a trooper in the Household Cavalry , the Regimental Corporal-Major might be second only to God], but that is a regimental matter.)
As you say, things changed in 1941, but the discriminatory officer ranks remained.
And then there is the question of the Princess’s rank being honorary.
I could understand if women were denied substantive rank, but why might it be honorary?
When I refer to substantive rank, I am thinking of my father’s status in the army. He was commissioned, and commanded a platoon in Italy, but he did not have war-substantive rank.
In 1946, a week after he had been demobilised, an order came through promoting him to captain and making his rank war-substantive.
Had he volunteered for peacetime service this would have been recognised, but he chose not to. He had had enough of the war.
Regards,
Mike

[xena]

I'll grant that a separate Corps for women was discriminatory (certainly from our modern perspective) but deciding that having different names for the ranks equalled discrimination, in and of itself, is a bit OTT.

Militaries throughout the world are used to having different names for equivalent ranks, and there is no discrimination involved. I was a Master Corporal in the Canadian Forces, which was equivalent to a Sergeant in the USMC, a Petty Officer Second Class in the US Navy, and a Corporal in the British Army, a Master Seaman in the Canadian Navy, and a Staff Sergeant in the US Air Force. An ATF Junior Commander was equivalent to a Captain, in exactly the same way. She wore three pips, and had the authority of anyone else wearing three pips - regardless of what title you put on someone wearing three pips.

I'm not arguing that a separate Corps for women isn't discriminatory. It is. But, a given rank has the same authority as any other equivalent rank, regardless of the name one attaches to it, and regardless what Corps one serves in. That's all.

[Lallans]

Well... I'm a little concerned now that I got the concierge's rank wrong but please know that I transcribed the account from memory about 10 days after hearing the student's letter read out on the radio.

Regarding women's rank during WWII as is now being discussed, I think it's somewhat unfair to the memory of the soldiers of that time to complaint about systemic discrimination. The men were being sent out to die and all, and women were not. Fairness implies equality in roles as well as in ranking systems- both certainly apply in the Canadian Forces today: women are now dying in combat roles.

[Jock Scot]

In fairness to the ladies of Britain in WW2, I have to step in here. Many women served in our armed forces and whilst they did not generally serve in the front line as they do today, the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, for example, had no front line as such. However, many women of Britain serving their country around the World in a multitude of ways, including civilians, lost their lives.

[macwilkin]

The story of the late King Hussein at Sandhurst reminded me of a story that John Masters told in Bugles and a Tiger about Prince Henry, the future Duke of Gloucester and third son of George V. Reportedly a sergeant said to him, "Mr. Prince Henry, if I was your father, I'd...", paused, and instead of saying the traditional "I'd shoot myself!", instead said:

"I'D HADBICATE -- SIR!"



T.

[Lallans]

In fairness to the ladies of Britain in WW2, I have to step in here. Many women served in our armed forces and whilst they did not generally serve in the front line as they do today, the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, for example, had no front line as such. However, many women of Britain serving their country around the World in a multitude of ways, including civilians, lost their lives.

Certainly all true, and according to accounts I've been given, in WWII the Soviet's top army sniper and air combat flyer, plus many other combat aviators, were women as well. Historically women were recruited when a country was backed against the wall and then told they had to step down when the danger had passed. But they did not serve in combat on the Allied side in WWII, that was my point.