Talk:Style (manner of address)
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 The Honourable and Dr.
- 2 The Reverend the Honourable: not and
- 3 Discussion 2003 - 2004
- 4 "Universal" use for republics
- 5 Female marital partners?
- 6 Cardinals and lords
- 7 Wiki styles et al
- 8 Merge from Honorific proposed
- 9 Encyclopedic language
- 10 American Academic Styles
- 11 note on Ireland
- 12 Verification Needed
- 13 Duplicate Titles for Dutch Academia
- 14 Sections and headings
- 15 President of the United States
- 16 U.S. Non-Navy Military Address Etiquette
- 17 New Zealand: "future former"
- 18 Translations second.
- 19 Ex-wife and widow
- 20 The use of "former" as a qualifier
- 21 Anglican clergy women and titles
- 22 Mr. Prime Minister?
The Honourable and Dr.
The Reverend the Honourable: not and
Speaking as a former assistant compiler of Crockford's Clerical Directory I should say that "The (Most/Right/Very) Revd the Hon" is correct - not "The (Most/Right/Very) Revd and Hon". Turn to Crockford and look up FIENNES, The Very Revd the Hon Oliver William (p. 248) in my 2002/03 edition.
I think that "the" is correct before "Hon" - not "and". Google comes up with about 10,100 results for "reverend the honourable" but only about 116 results for "reverend and honourable". Examples of the former include, "[The] Reverend the Honourable Charles Courtenay (1816-1894) (son of 10th Earl of Devon)", "[The] Reverend the Honourable Andrew Elphinstone", "The Reverend the Honourable Winfield Stratford Twistleton Wykeham Fiennes Vicar at Milton Keynes 1880-1910", "The Reverend the Honourable George Thomas Orlando Bridgeman (1823-1895)", and even, "The Right Reverend, the Honourable Sir Paul Reeves" (the comma is unnecessary, if not in fact wrong). (See Police Taser Trial in Government's Ghettos (Maori Party press release, 31 August 2006)).--Oxonian2006 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion 2003 - 2004
What happens when an official is entitled to more than one style? For example, an Ambassador is styled "His Excellency" and a Privy Councillor (UK) is stlyed "The Right Honourable". So when an Ambassador is also a Privy Councillor, how does one address him? "His Excellency Thr Right Honourable..." or "The Right Honourable His Excellency..."?
- Where ministers of religion are also members of the Privy Council their religious style takes precedence (i.e. The Reverend and Right Honourable Ian Paisley). Military ranks are always placed before any other style (i.e. Lieutenant The Honourable George Colhurst St Barleigh). I've never seen an example where one style is of the form The... and the other is His... "His Excellency The Right Honourable" certainly rolls off the tongue better. 22.214.171.124 09:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- In House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 November 2005 (part 4) the Foreign Secretary describes Paul Boateng as His Excellency the Right Honourable.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Any ideas for a better page name? What about a little NPOV too -- people who think styles for "royalty" are a load of old bunk. -- Tarquin 12:40 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)
Styles originated with royalty and in religions but are now widely used by all republics. 'Mr. President', which is how one addresses the US president, is his style. It is irrelevant whether one approves or disapproves of a style. Styles exist so Wikipedia needs to define what they are. As to arguing that on NPOV grounds those who think that they are a lot of 'bunk' should be included is patently absurd. We wouldn't say that French royalists should be able to adapt the page on the Fifth French Republic to give the royalist counter-argument, that German Nazis should have a 'right of reply' to an article on the Weimar Republic or Federal Republic of Germany, that British republicans should be able to put a counter-argument on a page on the United Kingdom, that supporters of the American confederacy should be able to put their views on a page on the United States. The reason is simple. The French Republic exists, so does the FRG, the UK and the US. It isn't a matter of opinion but of fact. Similarly, styles exist, so they should be defined as to what they are and how they are used, if people chose to use them. Arguing that they shouldn't exist or that they are 'bunk' IS a point of view, and so is anything but NPOV.
A second reason for clarifying them is that often people don't understand a difference between a title and a style. It is a subtle difference, but a real one. The constant reference to how Princess Diana lost her 'title' when she ceased to be HRH is a classic example. She didn't, she lost her style, which did not apply to her as a person but as the wife of a HRH. When they divorced, in the same way as the ex-wife of a US president would no longer be 'first lady', as that refers to the wife, not ex-wife, of the President, Diana automatically lost her style Diana could have been specially granted a personal style, as the mother of a future king but wasn't.
As to the title - given that they are called 'styles', there is no other word that can be used to describe them. But as styles also have other meanings, it is necessary to have a secondary clarifying definition, namely that what is being examined is style as in manner of address. JTD 21:10 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)
- I have a somewhat different understanding of style and title. The style is the full form used to refer to someone, not just the prefix. The Prince of Wales bears several titles, including Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, and Duke of Rothesay, but his style is (= he is styled) HRH The Prince of Wales (in England) or HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay (in Scotland). The Duke of Wellington is also the Marquess of Douro, those being titles, but he is styled His Grace The Duke of Wellington, and his son is styled by courtesy Marquess of Douro. This said, I don't know of an alternative term for the prefix such as 'HRH', so I'm not complaining about the wording. Gritchka 09:22 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Regarding the title: what I meant is that a dash in the title doesn't conform to the Wikipedia standard. There's nothing at [[Style]] at the moment, though there probably will be. "Style (manner of address)" is clumsy too. As for the NPOV, I was a little blunt above, I admit. But the article is not NPOV, IMO. It talks of people "retain the use of their style", and "entitled to be called". On what authority? Look at the "fifth world" crackpots who recently invaded Wikipedia -- some style themselves as "HM" etc. Again, on what authority? -- Tarquin 23:46 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)
- A fair point re the dash. I don't know what the solution is. If you can come up with a better solution, by all means do. Re the titles used by exiled monarchs, it is complex but at the same time relatively simple. Monarchical titles are usually presumed to come, to use the version applied to Italian monarchs (I may be slightly inaccurate in the version as I haven't my notes in front of me) 'by the grace of God and will of the people'. The understanding was that a monarchical title was inherited for life, subject to either 'the will of God' or 'abdication'. A 'title' is different to 'office', which is exclusively by 'will of the people' and so can be abolished by legislative decree, Act of Parliament or referendum. Established usage dating back to centuries has always been that where a monarch's office is abolished, their title becomes a personal one for their lifetime, but dies with them. Hence monarchs overthrown in the unification of Italy, monarchs dethroned in the 1918-19 period in Germany, and elsewhere, were allowed in practice to use their title until death, they even been referred to as such in state archives, where files invariably were kept on them in exile. (In my research, I've often had to read such files!!!)
- The only exception was where a monarch had themselves abdicated; hence ex-king Edward VIII of the United Kingdom was retitled 'Duke of Windsor'. Napoleon III was referred to as 'ex-emperor of the French', Louis Phillippe as 'ex-king of the French', Charles X as 'ex-King of France'. Similarly William II of Germany after 1918 was referred to as the 'ex-kaiser'. Where the abdication was forced, as occured in Roumania (contemporary spelling) in the 1940s, the ex-king may still be described as 'king' or 'exiled king', as is generally the case with Michael I, who now has a Rumanian diplomatic passport and the use of a former royal palace in the capital.
- It is a general convention which has evolved over centuries and is applied in most cases. The most notable case of controversy involves Constantine II of the Hellenes (Greece). There, personal animosity between the exiled monarch and the political elite complicates matters. Leaders like Constantine Karamanlis (ex pm and president) and Andreas Papandreou (left wing pm) made no secret of their belief that Constantine's 'incompetent meddling' (their description, though it does match the facts) caused the coup that produced the regime of the colonels in the mid 1960s. Karamanlis called Constantine '(king) Paul's naughty little boy'! Papandreou's personal animosity, (due in part to a clash between Constantine and his father, George. who was his prime minister, over Andreas's position as Minister for Defence) resulted in the illegal seizure of the exiled monarch's personal property and his being stripped of Greek citizenship, acts condemned by the European Court of Human Rights. Constantine in turn blames the politicians for 'shafting him' by not allowing him to return prior to the referendum on the monarchy, even though his return was widely expected. (And yes, there is some evidence to support his claims too.) So whereas most states follow convention by accepting the right of a non-abdicated monarch to be referred to by personal title after the declaration of a republic for the duration of their life, Greece is a notable, high profile (and generally rediculed) exception. In contrast, Italian President Pertini called on the constitution to be amended in the 1980s, to allow 'King Umberto' (his words) to return to die in Italy. (The King was dying and indeed did die before any such change could be made.).
- By the way, Wikipedia wrongly refers to the last Crown Prince of Italy as 'Victor Emmanuel IV'. He may call himself that (exiled royal families often keep up such a pretence) but the kingship of Italy and the all the title 'Victor Emmanuel IV' implies died with his father. Victor Emmanuel is simply the last Crown Prince of Italy, of which there will be no more, merely pretenders, when he dies. I hope this clarifies matters somewhat. I have detailed notes somewhere but it is too late tonight to find them. (Anyway, I am supposed to be working on mybooks, not Wikipedia all the time!!!) JTD 01:01 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)
I'm confused. Should the title of the article go:
HRH Blah Blah Blah, Blah of Blah
His/Her Royal Highness Blah Blah Blah, Blah of Blah? ugen64 02:22, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
- For kings and emperors I've observed that the article title usually follows the formula Name RomanNumeralIfAny of Country eg Napoleon I of France, Elizabeth II of Great Britain. For prince(sse)s the article title formula has usually been Office Name of Area, such as Prince William of Wales. Hope this helps. knoodelhed 16:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I've made a minor correction to the entry for US Presidents, and changed the formatting to conform with the rest of the entries. I've also removed the sentence on former US Presidents under "Styles & Titles of Deposed Monarchs," which was both factually incorrect and totally incongruent with the section it was in.
The style "Mr. President" isn't limited to spoken usage: the correct salutation of a letter to a sitting US President, for instance, is "Dear Mr. President." Also, while it's true that former US Presidents traditionally retain the right to use the title President, it's not at all true that they're referred to as if they were still in office. The correct way of directly addressing a former President is "President Carter," (for instance); it's never correct to call him "Mr. President," which is, strictly speaking, reserved for the sitting President. If you're addressing a letter to a former President, the correct form to use is "The Honorable Jimmy Carter," though that rule is so little-known it could fairly be said to no longer be valid. Even if you address the letter to "President Jimmy Carter," though, it's not at all the same as the correct way address a letter to the sitting President, which is "The President of the United States."
I'd suggest that if we want to deal with this issue here at all, the best way to go about it is to create a separate section for it, perhaps called something like Former Government Officials (and I'm sure that any number of equally complicated rules for the former officials of various other countries also exist and could be included). Shoehorning it in with deposed monarchs just doesn't work.
Narzos 21:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I posted this on the President of the United States page and then noticed that it occurred here as well: according to the Washington Post's Ettiquette Maverick, former presidents may (or should) not be referred to as President (name) but instead by their highest previous title... would we believe the WP? Or has the rule passed out of date or is so little observed (or never existed in the first place) such that it's not worthy of mention? Or should we keep the rule (assuming that someone can confirm it) and note that it's generally ignored? cevonia 14:18, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
This article may not be the place to do it, but the discussion of titles of office in the U.S. Congress (and in the federal gov't generally) needs more work. In particular, the article currently uses the phrase "the distinguished gentleperson" incorrectly. By the rules of each chamber, members are never to refer to each other by given name, nor are they permitted to speak directly of the other body, in the course of debate. All debate must be addressed to the presiding officer, except in the House when engaging in a colloquy. The forms used are:
- In the House of Representatives:
- When addressing the Speaker of the House or the Speaker pro tempore, "Mr. (Madam) Speaker".
- When addressing the Chairperson of a committee (including of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union), "Mr. (Madam) Chairman".
- When addressing the President of the Senate (i.e., the Vice President) or President pro tempore of the Senate, when the House and Senate are in joint session, "Mr. (Madam) President".
- In the Senate:
- On the Senate floor, always "Mr. (Madam) President". (The Senate never resolves into a Committee of the Whole.)
- In committee, "Mr. (Madam) Chairman".
This is different from how members are allowed to refer to each other, and also different from how members of the public would address or introduce a member of Congress:
- When referring to the President (either of the Senate or of the United States), "the President".
- When referring to the Speaker of the House, "the Speaker" (or, in the Senate only, "the Speaker of the House of Representatives").
- When referring to the holder of a specific office (Majority/Minority leader, Chairman of the X Committee, Ranking Member of the X Committee), "the [office], Mr. (Ms. or Mrs.) X". The name of the committee is omitted if it is the sitting committee.
- When referring to any other member of the House of Representatives, "the gentleman (gentlelady) from [state], Mr. (Ms. or Mrs.) X". Representatives are always referred to by the state they represent, not by any particular locality or district, as they legally represent the entire state.
- When referring to any other member of the Senate, "the Senator from [state], Mr. (Ms. or Mrs.) X".
- The adjective "distinguished" may be inserted after the definite article (i.e., "the distinguished gentleman", "the distinguished Senator").
In formal written addresses and very formal introductions, as both sender and recipient, it is standard practice to write "the Honorable Given M.I. Last" for all members of Congress, federal judges (except Justices of the Supreme Court), cabinet secretaries, chairpersons and commissioners of independent agencies, current and former ambassadors. Where this fits with the office varies, but in most cases one would write "XYZ Agency, the Hon. John Doe, Chairman", but one would say "the Chairman of the XYZ Agency, the Honorable John Doe". In written salutations, one writes "Dear [title] [surname]"; e.g., "Dear Congressman Markey" or "Dear Chairman Powell".
On a totally unrelated note, the formal style of the Governor of Massachusetts when referred to in the third person is "His Excellency the Governor". I'd be curious if this is a common usage or just crotchety old Massachusetts.
- 126.96.36.199 05:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Universal" use for republics
Is there any source for the claim that "styles are used universally in republics worldwide"? I'm not disputing it - I know nothing about the subject. I'm just wondering where it came from. -- Vardion 11:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Female marital partners?
Why the revert of my edit? I would expect cleanup to better phrasing, perhaps, but this sentence, although partially true, makes no sense either in total or in its placement:
- Styles are particularly associated with monarchies, where they may be used by a female marital partner of an office holder or of a prince of the blood, for the duration of their marriage.
- What is the 'female marital partner of an office holder' particularly associated with monarchies? What of male partners of reigning females, who also have styles given by virtue of their marriages?
As long as I'm at it; why is the late Diana, Princess of Wales discussed in a section on deposed monarchs?
Quill 07:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The change you made were incorrect. The sentence as written is 100% correct.
- styles are principally used in, and associated with, monarchies.
- male and female marital partners are treated differently. If a woman marries an office holder or prince of the blood she automatically gets a style (eg, when Lady Diana Spencer married the Prince of Wales). When a man marries a royal he does not automatically get a style (eg, neither Captain Mark Phillips and Tim Lawrence, the two husbands of the Princess Royal, had styles. Similarly none of the husbands of the Infantas of Spain have styles. However the wife of the Prince of Asturias has).
- the terms 'office-holder' and 'prince of the blood' are the correct technical terms. Some office holders and all princes of the blood in the Order of Succession have styles.
- Styles received in marriage only exist for the duration of the marriage, and are lost in the event of a divorce, as Diana, Princesss of Wales experienced, as she was not a HRH in her own right but a HRH by virtue of her marriage.
Your change turned a 100% accurate sentence into a largely inaccurate one and I changed it back to the accurate version.
As to where Diana is mentioned, I'll check that out. FearÉIREANN 17:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You're not taking my point. I understand the whole 'Diana losing her title' brou-ha-ha.
- I'm simply saying that male styles are customary given in these cases...or were...the Princess Royal broke with tradition, following the example of Princess Alexandra. As written, this ignores the history of styles and speaks only to styles as given in the late 20th Century.
- What of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Albert the Prince Consort and those Dutch princes? Okay, maybe some of those European princes were already HRH, but I'm sure if we searched we'd see some other style changes.
- As to females, yes, it's usually automatic, but not always, if I remember correctly Marie-Chantal didn't get a style automatically. A title, yes, but her style came by decree later, I think.
- Quill 22:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not so. The process is simple. If you are a woman marrying a prince, you automatically get a style unless a positive decision is taken to deny you one (eg, in Wallis Simpson's case). If you are a man marrying a princess you automatically don't get one (eg, the current Princess Royal's two husbands, the last Princess Royal's husband) unless a positive decision is taken to give you one. Philip and Albert did not get one when they were married. They were given ones specially. In contrast Diana, Sarah Ferguson, Camilla etc were not specifically given one. They automatically got it the moment they married. The rules are completely different for male and female spouses.
- Sigh. I understand all that. That's simply not what that one inadequate sentence says. However, in the great scheme of things, this is just not important enough for me to argue over. Quill 21:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This whole discussion is weird to me. Styles are used by anyone with a title. Primarily by members of royal families or peers, but also by wives of male members of royal families, or wives of peers. To say that they are primarily used by spouses seems wrong. john k 02:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Something like that is certainly implied. Not intended, I know. But it's certainly weird as written. Quill 21:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cardinals and lords
The form "John Cardinal Ryan" is correct, whereas "Cardinal John Ryan" is not. A given peer may be John Lord Smith or Lord John Smith. There is a significance in the position of the title -- before the given name or before the surname.
But -- I don't know the significance, and can't find it anywhere in Wikipedia. I'm an inquirer, not a scholar.
Can some scholar out there elucidate the matter?
- Not a scholar, but my understanding: Lord/Lady X Y is the form for those who have status by virtue of being an immediate descendant of a peer, but who will not inherit the title (because they are not first son); hence, Sayers' fictional sleuth is Lord Peter Wimsey, because he was the second son. If he were the first son, he would have been Lord Wimsey. 188.8.131.52 17:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- That is specifically the English practice. Use of styles in other nations varies. The German use (when Germany was a collection of monarchies) was particularly complex, i undersand, and i don't know anything about the use in, say imperial Japan, but I'm sure it wasn't the same as the English system. DES 23:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but isn't there a seperate form of address for Members of Parliament (in the UK) who hold a military rank and those that are ministers in the Anglican church? If memory serves it's something like "The Most Noble and Brave Member for Somewhere"
- Lord Christian name Surname is the younger son of a duke or marquess (like Lord Alfred Douglas). The eldest son will use a courtesy title. E.g. the eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk is Earl of Arundel, but not the Earl of Arundel. The title of a peer is usually his or her surname these days, often qualified with a territorial attribute in the case of a fairly common name, e.g. Alan Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury, John Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Preston Candover, and David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville. But Frank Soskice, Baron Stow Hill was Lord Stow Hill, not Lord Soskice.
- I don't know if a clergyman in the House of Commons has a special designation. He may be 'the reverend and honourable member' or 'my reverend and honourable friend'. For a long time clergymen couldn't sit in the House so it wasn't an issue and by the time they did begin to sit such styles of address were out of fashion. See House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001. Officers in Parliament were called gallant (and can be still, though it's out of fashion) and lawyers learned. The most noble would be a duke. In the House of Lords bishops are 'the right reverend prelate', the Bishop of London is 'the right reverend and right honourable prelate', and archbishops are 'the most reverend and right honourable prelate'.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wiki styles et al
Lots of duplicate linking going on here, particularly wrt religion where there are duplicate links for archbishop, Roman Catholic and Anglican amongst others. Is there a good reason for this deviation from wikistyle? Frelke 06:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Reading this article, it seems to regard Honorific and Style as meaning (almost) the same thing. That suggests that the small amount of material at the Honorific article would be more easily understood if it were here. What do you think? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- After reading through Honorific I'm not sure whether they are the same thing or not. Given that you would have to know the difference quite well to know which article to go to in the first place I support the merger. Yorkshire Phoenix 11:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am against this merge. Honorific was born out of Japanese honorifics, although most of the content that page originally covered is now in Japanese titles. In any case, Japanese has styles which have nothing to do with honorifics or titles (e.g., the Emperor is referred to as "Ten'nou Heika", which is "His Majesty the Emperor"). The fundamental difference is that styles are a kind of title (sorry, poor word choice) granted by someone, or otherwise associated with an office or position. Titles and honorifics can be applied to anyone (although there are some customs, like who can be called Doctor or Miss). (That said, I am not against cleaning up these pages to make them a little more specific.) Bigpeteb 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Update: I proposed a sort of "reclassification" on Talk:Japanese honorifics#Where is this page going?. If that actually goes somewhere, it should clear up some of the confusion. Bigpeteb 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- As a relatively lay-person reading both of these pages, they seem to be distinct enough to remain that way. They should probably link each other, but a combination would be awkward, and the styles page is long enough. --Spyforthemoon 21:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would vote against this merge. Honorifics are morphemes in language, and in certain situations they are mandatory as in Japanese or many Indo-Aryan languages. In some synthetic languages they may also be incorporated in the noun form. This is very different from the social constructs listed in the styles of address. mukerjee (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- This discussion hasn't been updated in a while. I know that as a layperson wanting to know more on this topic, I had to google a list of titles to find the "Style" page. Since that wasn't the page I'd remembered reading in the past, the Style page reminded me of the term "honorifics" which I then googled again to find the "Honorifics" page. That doesn't seem useful to Wikipedia users. Anyone wanting to do casual reading on this topic would not know the difference, nor know the terms. I'm not voting for a merge necessarily, since I'm not an expert, but if they are kept separate, the distinction should be made clear, and both pages should prominently link to one another in the first few paragraphs. lunaverse (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- The type of honorifics that are grammatical or syntactic are now covered in a separate article, Honorifics (linguistics). I think a "style" in this meaning is a subtype of "honorific title", which has the connotation of being longer and used for nobility and religious leaders. So, I'm making a new proposal for a merge in the other direction. Putting up tags now. -- Beland (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I was consulting this article looking for information, and came across a section which reads (to the uninformed) a bit like an argument between editors. I quote specifically:
However, the style Princess of Wales merely indicated that she was the former Princess of Wales as is obvious from the reason there is no definite article. If there had been a definite article it would mean that she WAS the Princess of Wales. In any event, there was NO definitite article purely for the fact that she was NO LONGER the Princess of Wales.
The language feels slightly unencyclopedic, more along the lines of something posted in a debate in a Talk Page. Several elements of this sentence would not be found a print publication, such as "as is obvious", "in any event", the use of CAPS to emphasize a point, and the repetition.
I will edit it for a more neutral and objective tone. However, since I am clueless about the content itself, if any changes alter the meaning or essence of the sentence, it was purely unintentional. Mip | Talk 10:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
American Academic Styles
The article mentions the following:
"It can be considered offensive, however, to refer to a tenured/tenure-track Professor as "Dr. Jones.""
I have never heard of anyone taking offense at that form of address. I suspect that any professor who did take offense at being referred to as "Dr. Jones" rather than "Professor Jones" would be roundly and rightly ridiculed. Unless some source can be found for this statement, I believe it should be removed.
- Few professors today might take offense at being styled doctor rather than professor but it is a fact that professor is a higher status than mere doctor. There are many doctors out there, but relatively few professors. Calling a professor doctor is to (unintentionally) ignore his higher status. -RobertBlacknut 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Professor" is not a higher status, just a different status. There are plenty of professors who do not have doctoral degrees. When I was an undergraduate, "professor" was reserved for a professor who did not have a doctoral degree; those who had them were called "doctor." When I was in law school, "professor" was standard because the J.D. degree, while supposedly a "doctorate," is not considered the type of degree that entitles you to be called "doctor." All of this is an example of why I have my doubts that it is possible to write a coherent article about manners of address in the United States, where they are not formalized to the extent that they are in many other countries. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that "professor" is a more specific style of address for a person who has attained that position, but i disagree with the wording of the sentence, in that i do not think it would be considered offensive to style an American professor "doctor". German academics might insist on their traditional and highly structuralized differentiation of address, but American academics wouldn't. I see it as similar to using the style "Lordship" rather than "Most Honourable" for a British Marquess: it assigns a style also in use by those of lower rank, but which is still equally appropriate. Fuzzzone 06:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- In the universities with which I am familiar in England it would be either ignorant or offensive to call an actual professor merely Dr. Indeed, not all professors are doctors, e.g. Paul Gifford was until 2004 just 'Mr Gifford' and Michael Crawford (historian) was until 1986 'Mr Crawford'. This is now rare. In British universities, except for some funny Americanisms that have crept in at a handful of places, we use the term professor only for the highest rank of what in other countries are all called professors of one sort or another. Simon Hornblower, Professor of Classics and Grote Professor of Ancient History, UCL, would properly take umbrage at being called 'Dr Hornblower'. The only arguable exceptions are for theologians. Some argue that Doctor of Divinity is a higher status than Professor and thus call the a professor who is also a DD 'Dr'. Professors who are also Canons are also arguably properly called 'Canon'. In practice since there are any number of doctors and canons and just a handful of professors we call them professors. When I was at school and applying to university we were told that a knighted professor is also called professor, though an ennobled one is called Lord.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This is definitely location based. At my undergraduate in Florida, the teachers were "Professor X" while at my graduate school in Illinois they were "Dr. X". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
note on Ireland
The entry on Ireland, although not the fault of the writers, is an example of the nonsense situation where a native English speaking country has Gaelic titles on ministerial positions, as it leads to all sort of miss-uses of the nomenclature language. For example, when addressing a Prime Minister, one should address them as 'A Thaoisigh' (Taoiseach in the vocative case). Pragmatically, though, in English one does not inflect. Secondly, the example of pronunciation is fine (tee-shock) for English, but is ridiculous sounding in Irish
The page contains this entry:
The Most Reverend (abbreviation The Most Rev., oral address Father) — The Leader of "The People of the Aten"
Is there any such group as "The People of the Aten"? The worship of Aten ended with the Ancient Egyptians; it is conceivable that there is a New Age group that continues this tradition, but it seems more likely that someone added this line as a prank.
Duplicate Titles for Dutch Academia
Is this a cut-and-paste error or is the "dean of a faculty" really addressed by the same style as any other professor:
- The highly learned Sir/Madam (De hooggeleerde heer/vrouwe) - dean of a faculty (a professor)
- The highly learned Sir/Madam (De hooggeleerde heer/vrouwe) - a professor
Sections and headings
The sections and headings in this need tidying up. For example, why are there sections on Republics etc., then a section on Commonwealth countries, and then individual sections further down for countries such as the Phillipines? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
President of the United States
I am surprised that "Mister President" is not part of the article. When George Washington was asked what he wanted to be called (such as Your Excellency) he replied "Why not just Mister President?" --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Outside the Navy it is considered disrespectful to refer to an officer by their rank if:
- You are an Enlisted class
- You are a lesser-ranking Officer class
- You are a subordinate Officer class of the same rank
Officers and Enlisted personnel may also refer to a superior Officer as "Sir" or "Ma'am". Enlisted personnel are never referred to as "Sir" or "Ma'am"; this would often be corrected with the phrase: "Don't call me 'sir', I work for a living."
Within the Enlisted ranks
An Enlisted person should refer to a superior Enlisted person (one of higher rank or of the same rank but in a superior position) by their rank alone or by their rank and last name.
Private: "Good morning, Sergeant", or "Good morning, Sergeant Smith".
An Enlisted person may refer to an equal or lower-ranking Enlisted person by their rank alone, by their rank and last name, or simply by their last name.
New Zealand: "future former"
The section on New Zealand has just been edited to refer to "current and future former Prime Ministers", "the current and future former Governor General" and a few others. The phrase "future former" sounds very strange to me, and I don't know what it's supposed to mean. Would someone be so kind as to explain what's intended here, and might it be possible to reword the sentence? Alkari (?), 9 July 2011, 03:39 UTC
- As no one has indicated what "future former" means or why it was added, I've removed the phrase. If there is in fact an important distinction here that I'm missing, please feel free to correct me. Alkari (?), 23 July 2011, 02:35 UTC
The phrase "current and future former Prime Ministers is used due to the issue that the return of the Rt Hon title does not apply to the former office holders who already Have the Privy Council distinction and also to the Former Speaker Margaret Wilson whose want of not having the title prompted the Change to be especially worded to that effect. I'll add back the phrase because it is important to note this Kaiserm (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC) And also Silvia Cartwright, Helen Clark already had the title through the Privy Council so was unaffected. Kaiserm (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Please refer: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/right-honourable-title-back-nzs-elite-127383, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1008/S00014/new-rules-for-use-of-the-right-honourable.htm and dpmc.govt.nz Kaiserm (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Ex-wife and widow
Now it says, "4a Dowager Lady Smith - deceased Baron's ex-wife 4b Elizabeth, Lady Smith - deceased Baron's widow" I don't think an ex would be called a dowager. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The use of "former" as a qualifier
Is there a steadfast rule or guideline as to whether we qualify someone as "former" if they no longer hold an office? Specifically, I am dealing with the title of "Mayor". If in an article we refer to someone who once was a mayor of a major city, do we refer to them as "former Mayor John Doe" or are they always know as "Mayor John Doe"? SueDonem (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Anglican clergy women and titles
I am not familiar with "Mo." for "Mother." I am very familiar with "Mtr." and see it frequently. I am an Episcopal priest and am on distribution lists for the diocese, larger church, etc. It may be that both are in use and Mtr. should be added? T Haynes (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Quote: "Commonwealth realms
Commonwealth prime ministers are usually addressed just as Prime Minister, but the form of address Mr. Prime Minister is also often used in certain countries. "Mr. Prime Minister" remains a common form of address in international diplomacy, "Prime Minister" alone remains more common within domestic politics."
I think some examples need to be provided. I've lived in 3 commonwealth realms and i've never heard a Prime Minister called Mr. Prime Minister. They're always just addressed as Prime Minister. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Prime Minister?
Quote: "Commonwealth realms:
Commonwealth prime ministers are usually addressed just as Prime Minister, but the form of address Mr. Prime Minister is also often used in certain countries. "Mr. Prime Minister" remains a common form of address in international diplomacy, "Prime Minister" alone remains more common within domestic politics."
I think some examples of these countries need to be provided. I've lived in 3 commonwealth realms and i've never heard a Prime Minister called Mr. Prime Minister under any circumstances. This sounds like it's only an American occurrence/assumption. As far as i'm aware they're always just addressed as Prime Minister. The term seems unlikely also because writing Mr. with a full stop is an American form. We don't usually use full stops (periods) in that way. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)