<p>And the equally practical reason for not having equivalent male honorifics was what? Making certain the women you were pursuing couldn’t tell if you were married?</p>
<p>Nice try, Beliavsky, but almost certainly wrong, since your theory doesn’t account for the use of Mrs. by divorced and widowed women, and also for the fact that if a male got close enough for meaningful pursuit he could probably notice a woman’s wedding ring or lack thereof. More likely the honorific indicated whether a woman was sui juris (or subject to a husband’s control) or subject to her father’s control.</p>