Sir Tim Shadbolt kneels before Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy as he is knighted. Why do we behave as if we're in the middle ages?

OPINION: In a few days we will know who the recipients are for the New Year honour list.

It's one of two days of the year – the other being Queen's Birthday – when some men become "Sir" and some women become "Dame". By default, wives of knights may use the courtesy title of "Lady" – for example Lady Mary Smith – but husbands of dames are "not accorded a courtesy title".

Is that sexist? I suppose that depends on your ideological positioning.

What we do know is that Clarke Gayford won't be getting a courtesy title when Prime minister Jacinda Ardern retires from politics. Mind you, in case the "powers that be" read this column and amend the rules to allow husbands of dames to take on a courtesy title, Gayford had better hurry up and set the wedding date because the rules do not recognise de facto partners for courtesy titles.

READ MORE:

* Knights and dames storm NZX boardrooms

* Honours system expanded to include public servants

* Editorial: John Key knighthood follows long tradition of honouring PMs

Also, despite legal recognition of same-sex marriage in New Zealand since 2013, there doesn't seem to be any courtesy titles for same-sex husbands and wives. I can only assume that some gay husbands of knights might not be happy to take on the courtesy title of "Lady" – although some might prefer it. And what is the alternative title of "Lady" for lesbian wives of dames, who assume masculine roles?

Confusing, isn't it? Well, here's my wonderful but not original solution: Abolish the New Zealand royals honours system. Problem solved.

According to the official website of New Zealand royal honours, the "purpose of the... system is to recognise those who have served and achieved". Let's be real, the upper echelon of the honours system has more to do with social class status than recognition of our fellow citizens who have "served and achieved".

Take a quick browse of the list of existing knights or dames grand companion, or knights or dames companion of The New Zealand Order of Merit, and you will see why. The list includes business magnates, former politicians and judges, retired professors, retired sporting celebrities, arts patrons and people who have made lucrative careers consulting to boards.

Most of them were awarded their titles for simply doing their highly paid jobs. Take for example, the high number of judges who feature throughout the various levels of honours for "services to the judiciary".

OK, I'll admit that every now and then, some ordinary folk are bestowed with a knighthood, such as shearing champion Sir David Fagan, from Te Kuiti. But he is not the norm.

And yes, I know there are a lot of people in the lower echelons of the honours system who have unselfishly contributed to their communities through voluntary service, such as Girl Guides, swimming and the game of bridge.

However, I don't see why our Government, or the Queen for that matter, should have any involvement in handing out awards for contributions such as "services to Girl Guides", when the respective community organisations are in a better position to give their own awards if they choose. Recognition from peers, if it is wanted, is probably more satisfying. Also, why do we need to look to the Government for approval?

It would be interesting to know how the Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee weighted applications against others, and whether favouritism exists. Although we will never know, given that "consideration of New Zealand royal honours is conducted on an in-confidence basis and information on the status and consideration of individual nominations will not be disclosed".

It seems that the entire system is a closed shop – so much for openness and transparency. Yet another reason to get rid of it.

A closed system begs the question whether someone on the outside of accepted socio-political norms would ever stand a chance of receiving an honours award even when they have "served and achieved" for and within their communities. That reminds me of the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who declined the prestigious Nobel Prize in Literature in 1964, saying that he did not want to be "institutionalised".

Although the institutions are different, perhaps – like Sartre – it's better to be on the "outside" than the "inside". Or even better, dismantle the New Zealand royal honours so it no longer exists and drop the fake, pompous titles. The medieval period has long gone – bring on 2020.

Steve Elers is a senior lecturer at Massey University, who writes a weekly column for Stuff on social and cultural issues