# what's the difference between honourable vs. "right honourable" in UK parliament. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 24, 2019, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434 "2019-03-24T00:40:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Banksiaman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banksiaman/32/3334_2.png) [@Banksiaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banksiaman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434/21 "2019-03-25T03:41:59Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > And although state and federal members are still given the title “Honourable” unless they specifically reject it, it is used in speech only by old-line conservatives, often people who have been in parliament for a long time, or on the cover of documents or letters. The Speaker of the House may call a member “Honourable” at the start of business, but after that it’s just “Member for”. And Hansard doesn’t include “Honourable” in the meta-data of online records. In the Australian Federal parliament at least certain speakers were always able to make ‘Honorable’ drip with sarcasm thicker than molasses when discussing the Hon. Member opposite and their apparent shortcomings. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434/22 "2019-03-25T05:57:56Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > . . . since the government re-aligned the court appeal system from the British Privy court to the European International court of appeals. Sorry, what? ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434/23 "2019-03-25T06:52:32Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > Also, are those speakers (i.e. audio equipment) on the Speakers chair? If so, to what/whom are they connected? If you look carefully you might notice hundreds of little microphones hanging down from the ceiling over all the benches. When a Member stands up to speak, the microphone picks up his voice and pipes it through loads of speakers that are built into the benches of the House and the Speaker’s chair. You should be able to see them in between sitting Members’ heads. Useful if a Member is hard of hearing or a bit of a mumbler. Hope you’re enjoying learning about our Parliament. Have you seen any debates in the Lords? You’re in for a treat there! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434/24 "2019-03-25T07:28:37Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Sorry, what? I think that was meant as a slightly garbled reference to incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law and replacing appeals to the Law Lords with the Supreme Court. The Privy Council is another matter, since some Commonwealth jurisdictions still retain an ultimate right of appeal to the Sovereign, handled by the Privy Council’s Judicial Committee in the light of their local laws, not the ECHR. AFAIK Australia opted out of this a long time ago - did it really opt to follow or even to take any notice of ECHR rulings? ---
**Author:** ![Orville\_mogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/aeb1de/32.png) [@Orville\_mogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orville_mogul)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434/25 "2019-03-25T07:33:12Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > Bercows “Or-Derrr” just sounds funny for some reason (except when he’s being very serious or stern). I’d swear it’s a french word for something gross or nasty (e.g. manure, offal, a week-old battlefield). Actually, you are [not far off](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/french-english/ordure)… ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434/26 "2019-03-25T08:01:00Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > I think that was meant as a slightly garbled reference to incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law and replacing appeals to the Law Lords with the Supreme Court. > > The Privy Council is another matter, since some Commonwealth jurisdictions still retain an ultimate right of appeal to the Sovereign, handled by the Privy Council’s Judicial Committee in the light of their local laws, not the ECHR. AFAIK Australia opted out of this a long time ago - did it really opt to follow or even to take any notice of ECHR rulings? The UK has a very limited system of appeals on specific matters from UK courts to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. They still have that system, so anything which starts by talking about the govermnent realigning appeals away from the Privy Council is not talking about the UK. While Australia _did_ have a wider system of appeals from the Australian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, they did away with it some decades ago and, as you point out, did not replace it with a system of appeals to any supranational European Court. I don’t think _any_ country has switched from one of these systems to the other. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434/27 "2019-03-25T22:19:50Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Sorry, what? On re-reading my message, I see that although I was /replying/ to a post about Australia, in the context of a thread about the UK my words were not clear :). Right Honorable Members in Aus, the UK, and Canada, are, as mentioned above, members of the Privy Council. In the UK parliament, that normally means ministers. In Australia, it meant the Prime Minister, except that he is no longer made a member of the Privy council, and is no longer Right Honorable. In Canada, it means a member of the Canadian Privy Council. _Don’t know much about Canada. Could be wrong._ Prime Minister of Aus stopped being a member of the UK Privy Council when Aus replaced appeal from the Aus court system, to the (UK) Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with appeal from the Aus courts to the European appeal system. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434/28 "2019-03-26T00:05:46Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > In Canada, it means a member of the Canadian Privy Council. _Don’t know much about Canada. Could be wrong._ Yes, I’m afraid you are wrong. Canadians haven’t been appointed to the British Privy Council for half a century. Prime Minister Pearson ended that practice as part of Canada’s Centennial in 1967. Instead, the Governor General, the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of Canada automatically are entitled to the honorific of “Right Honourable” for life. In addition, the Gov Gen can appoint other individuals with long public service as “Right Honourable” for life, on the advice of the PM and Cabinet. All Cabinet members are appointed “The Honourable” for life, upon being sworn into office as members of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. > [@](#): > > Prime Minister of Aus stopped being a member of the UK Privy Council when Aus replaced appeal from the Aus court system, to the (UK) Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with appeal from the Aus courts to the European appeal system. I echo **UDS** : Sorry, what? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434/29 "2019-03-26T00:10:52Z")
Getting back to the OP, there are good wiki articles on both “The Right Honourable” and “The Honourable”. > **[The Right Honourable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Honourable)** > > The Right Honourable (abbreviation: Rt Hon. or variations) is an honorific style traditionally applied to certain persons and collective bodies in the United Kingdom, the former British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations. The term is predominantly used today as a style associated with the holding of certain senior public offices in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, Australia. > Right in this context is an adverb meaning 'very' or 'fully'. Grammatically, The Right... > **[The Honourable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Honourable)** > > The Honourable (British English) or The Honorable (American English; see spelling differences) (abbreviation: Hon., Hon'ble, or variations) is an honorific style that is used as a prefix before the names or titles of certain people, usually with official governmental or diplomatic positions. > In international diplomatic relations, representatives of foreign states are often styled as The Honourable. Deputy chiefs of mission, chargés d'affaires, consuls-general and consuls are always given the ... ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434/30 "2019-03-26T01:04:28Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > . . . . Prime Minister of Aus stopped being a member of the UK Privy Council when Aus replaced appeal from the Aus court system, to the (UK) Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with appeal from the Aus courts to the European appeal system. 1. Although Australian Prime Ministers stopped being appointed to the UK Privy Council at around the same time as appeals from Australian courts to the Privy Council were discontinued, the two developments are not directly linked. Sequence of events: (a) 1968: Appeals from Commonwealth Courts to Privy Council abolished. Appeals from state courts continue. (b) 1972: Upon becoming PM, Gough Whitlam declines appointment to the Privy Council. (c) 1975: Upon becoming PM, Malcolm Fraser accepts appointment to the Privy Council. He is the last Australian PM to be appointed. (d) 1983: Upon becoming PM, Paul Keating declines appointment to the Privy Council. (e) 1986: As part of the repatriation of the Australian Constitution, appeals to the Privy Council from state courts are terminated by the _Australia Act 1986_. 2. There is no appeal from the Australian courts to the “European appeal system”, whatever that is. There never has been. None has ever been proposed, SFAIK. The discontinuance of appeals to the Privy Council left the High Court of Australia as the final appeal court in the Australian judicial system. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434/31 "2019-03-26T01:23:13Z")
There’s still the constitutional provision for _inter se_ appeals by Leave of the High Court, isn’t there? But only granted once and the results so bad that the High Court has said “Never again!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-honourable-vs-right-honourable-in-uk-parliament/831434.md?page=1)