Talk:Style (form of address)
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This article must adhere to thebiographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced orpoorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentiallylibellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue tothis noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please seethis help page. |
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Should it be Dr. The Hon. John Smith or is it The Hon. Dr. John Smith?—Precedingunsigned comment added by219.79.235.70 (talk)05:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a former assistant compiler ofCrockford's Clerical Directory I should say that "The (Most/Right/Very) Revd the Hon" is correct - not "The (Most/Right/Very) Revdand Hon". Turn toCrockford 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). (SeePolice Taser Trial in Government's Ghettos (Maori Party press release, 31 August 2006)).--Oxonian200621:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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..."?
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, ishis 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 Republicexists, 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 speciallygranted 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)
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)
I'm confused. Should the title of the article go:
HRH Blah Blah Blah, Blah of Blah
or
His/Her Royal HighnessBlah Blah Blah, Blah of Blah?ugen64 02:22, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
By title, I mean the title paragraph (i.e. His Royal HighnessPrince Ugen64, Duke of Nerds (bornJune 24,1990) was the Duke of Nerds etc. etc.)...ugen64 02:23, Dec 9, 2003 (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)
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:
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:
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.
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)
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:
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.
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)
Not so. The process is simple. If you are a woman marrying a prince, youautomatically get a styleunless 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 Albertdid not get one when they were married. They weregiven ones specially. In contrast Diana, Sarah Ferguson, Camilla etc were not specifically given one. Theyautomatically got it the moment they married. The rules arecompletely different for male and female spouses.
Apologies in advance, but I don't know where to ask this question, so will start here.I am trying to find a Wikipedia topic or other reference material that clarifies a question I have had for many years:
The US Constitution abolished nobility/titles from being accepted by US citizens. Nor can the US Government bestow knighthoods or similar honors on citizens of any country. This was adopted in the spirit of democracy, equality and a classless society.
Now, if a British noble, styled "Sir John Smith" or "Lady Jane Doe" were to visit the USA, what is the *legal* form of address for that noble when a US citizen addresses them? Must they be addressed by the "Sir" and "Lady" prefixes when they are on US soil being spoken to by a US citizen? What law(s) or US-UK treaties govern this, if any? Could the US citizen take the position that the US Constitution does away with titles/nobility and legally/properly call them "Mr. John Smith" or "Ms. Jane Doe"? Note the question is not what they *should* be called if one were to avoid controversy and/or be polite. The question is if there is any kind of legal requirement to address the UK visitors by the titles granted to the by their monarchs in their own lands?
Thanks,--Vladimir— Precedingunsigned comment added by76.102.46.138 (talk)06:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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?
I thought there was already an agreement concerning how to handle Cardinal's names:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles).Roodog2k20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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"
Lots of duplicate linking going on here, particularly wrtreligion where there are duplicate links forarchbishop,Roman Catholic andAnglican amongst others. Is there a good reason for this deviation from wikistyle?Frelke06:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this article, it seems to regardHonorific andStyle as meaning (almost) the same thing. That suggests that the small amount of material at theHonorific article would be more easily understood if it were here. What do you think? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk)10:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
11:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]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 thecontent itself, if any changes alter the meaning or essence of the sentence, it was purely unintentional.Mip |Talk10:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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".—Precedingunsigned comment added by83.249.244.179 (talk)23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
KJN, 2007-12-06—Precedingunsigned comment added by212.159.102.166 (talk)15:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a cut-and-paste error or is the "dean of a faculty" really addressed by the same style as any other professor:
If the later, why do we need the extra line?Originalname37 (talk)16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed/93.96.236.8 (talk)20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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?93.96.236.8 (talk)20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"His name is never used in his presence"? Where did that come from?163.231.6.87 (talk)16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that "Mister President" is not part of the article. WhenGeorge 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)[reply]
Outside the Navy it is considered disrespectful to refer to an officer by their rank if:
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."
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.
Sergeant: "Good morning, Private", "Good morning, Private Jones", or "Good morning, Jones".—Precedingunsigned comment added by167.102.32.194 (talk)14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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
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 SpeakerMargaret 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 thisKaiserm (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)And alsoSilvia 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.nzKaiserm (talk)10:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest that the translations of non-English forms should follow, not precede.CecilWard (talk)13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now it says,"4a Dowager Lady Smith - deceased Baron's ex-wife4b Elizabeth, Lady Smith - deceased Baron's widow"I don't think an ex would be called a dowager. Anyone?— Precedingunsigned comment added by82.181.173.242 (talk)19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An ex is not a Dowager. Diana, Princess of Wales, was never Dowager. The whole section on Dowager needs correcting.(Jacksoncowes (talk)19:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 calledMr. Prime Minister. They're always just addressed asPrime Minister.121.73.7.84 (talk)01:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 calledMr. 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 asPrime 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.121.73.7.84 (talk)01:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links onStyle (manner of address). Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online02:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am from Russia and I am here because a wanted to know term to syntax part of sentence, addressing to someone. However, instead of linguistic related page I came here, to etiquette related page. So, I doubt, that this page is correctly linked to russian Wikipedia. With regards, -212.75.128.236 (talk)16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
It is clear that some contributors believe that there is currently a "Kingdom of England". That kingdom has not existed since 1707. While the titles and styles may have origins that could be traced back to that kingdom, this article is referring to people that exist now. The country headed currently by Queen Elizabeth II is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.— Precedingunsigned comment added by202.93.217.182 (talk)03:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was:moved as requested, unopposed for two weeks.Dekimasuよ!05:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Style (manner of address) →Style (form of address) – PerWP:CONSISTENCY withForms of address in the United Kingdom,Forms of address in Spain,Forms of address in the Russian Empire. Or else perhaps the derivated articles should change in accordance with the preexistingStyle (manner of address).PPEMES (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)—Relisting. SITH(talk)13:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article has many instances of the archaic “he or she.” While it would be more accurate and inclusive to use “they,” I’m not sure if this applies to the use of honorifics unless they are used. While pronouns that differ from he and she are obviously used in English, honorifics differ on their usage. Of course their are likely many judges, doctors, and honorary people who identify as gender non-binary and may not use “his/her honor,” I’m not sure if one would use “their honor” and if an example of that would justify changing ALL the his/her honorifics to “their.”
Since it’s certainly possible that one could say “their honor” I move to do that for the sake of inclusivity, though I would love for someone else to weigh in before this entire page is altered.Dabblequeen (talk)22:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are literally just legally protected, preferred pronouns67.246.67.187 (talk)03:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectTitle of office (address) has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 13 § Title of office (address) until a consensus is reached.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)09:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
