BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles

Subject: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 07:14 AM

Just reading on another thread a poster referring to Jimmy Carter as "President Carter", which of course he isn't any longer. And pondering on this, I find the US manner of referring to politicians confusing.

I understand a direct form of address for a president would be "Mr. President" that makes sense. However I find the popular use of "President", which I understand is a job title rather than a formal personal title*, confusing.

To make matters more confusing, our press appear to be adopting this US convention of using a political job title or description as a kind of formal personal title, ie: we now often hear references to "Prime Minister Cameron" rather than "the PM, David Cameron, or even simply (as was more usual) David Cameron or indeed just Cameron.

Have I misunderstood or got things wrong? I'd really be interested to know how this trend came about in the US, or if where the precedent for referring to the president as 'President X' originates. Or indeed where other job titles have been co-opted in popular usage as formal personal titles.


CS








* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title#Formal_social_titles

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 09:27 AM

I tried to get people to address me as "My Lord and My God" but it didn't work. They did address me with several other titles however.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 10:08 AM

Personally, I think it's all the 'media' trying to be sure that no one is more obsequious than the others. It has become common to address any ex-politician with the last and/or highest title they held.... no particular law saying they should, and many times it sounds strange when they are being interviewed about the current holder of the office.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 10:12 AM

I use Prime Minister Trudeau as Pierre Elliott Trudeau's formal title in the context of politics. I do not do the same for Stephen 'the hair' Harper. Harper is just Harper, nothing more. It has to do with the esteem in which I hold the people. However, in written communication I do use formal titles.

I think of Obama as President Obama. I think of Bush as Dubya. For example, I once wrote to Bush. I addressed him as President Bush--I held my breath when I did that, but I didn't want the people who direct the mail to confuse the intended addressee with a plant outside the White House.

I'm Canadian.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 11:53 AM

It's an intriguing one. The UK media is possibly less deferential in it's treatment of our politicians than the US media appears to be with US politicians. Personally I like it that way - it serves as a constant reminder that politicians (irrespective of whatever office they may hold) are not our superiors, but rather our servants, who are -just like all public servants- paid to do a particular job for a set period of time.

The whole area of titles is a mystery to me. Is it correct for example that earned positions of rank in the military, are retained after retirement? I think this is so, usually or often with the addition of (ret.) to indicate that 'Major Blustering-Froth (Ret.)' is no longer in active service. I wonder is it from the military example that the US media are taking their cue when referring to prior presidents as 'President X'? I know it's often made a big deal of that the US president is also military 'commander in chief'.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 12:00 PM

Well in Britain they call someone a knight for dressing flamboyantly and selling a few record albums.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 12:13 PM

Jack, I'm not so much interested in whether individuals are necessarily 'worthy' of a given title (though that's an interesting topic in it's own right, particularly with the political cronyism we get in the UK and the granting of titles) rather the formal and informal conventions surrounding their usage. In particular I'd like to better understand the difference between formal and popular conventions around forms of address for presidents and ex-presidents in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 12:26 PM

Google search for the phrase "Abraham Lincoln" reveals: 68,200,000 results.
Google search for the phrase "President Lincoln" reveals:   2,430,000 results.
Google search for the phrase "Abe Lincoln" reveals:          3,860,000 results.

Seems the more deferential form of address 'President Lincoln' is the least popular form of reference by a long straw, including the very informal 'Abe Lincoln'. I'd imagine that people's particular fondness for Abe as a significant figure of US history would account for the greater popularity of the familiar term of reference over the deferential. Otherwise I can't imagine the trend for referring to ex-presidents as 'President' catching on so much with dead presidents as with those ex-presidents who are still living.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 12:46 PM

This guy clears it up. As Bill D surmises seems it's obsequious modern media speak:

http://www.formsofaddress.info/former.html#FO003

with officials such as mayors, governors or presidents ... only the current office holder is addressed as Mr. Mayor, Governor, or Mr. President ... formers are not addressed that way.
    That's not to say some reporter might not call a former mayor Mayor Smith or a former president President (Surname). But doing so is incorrect and confusing to the public. The former office holder is no longer due the precedence and courtesies we extend to the current office holder. He or she speaks with the authority of a private citizen. We honor former office holder's service, but the 'form of address' -- which acknowledges the responsibilities and duties of office -- belongs only to current office holder.
    With offices of which are many office-holders at a time ... senators, admirals, judges, etc. addressing 'formers' with their former honorific not disrespectful to a singular current office holder.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 01:15 PM

Here's the official website for the proper use of Forms of Address It is written and maintained by a former government official, Robert Hickey, who conducts seminars for those who need to address important people properly.

On the subject of "President", he says that properly, only the sitting president should be called "President", same for any position held by only one person at a time, out of deference to the person who holds the office. For officials such as Senators, Judges, etc, of which there are many, it is ok to use the title after they've left office.

I find it odd that you think America is more deferential to titles that the UK. From our point of view, you have that whole peerage thing where people are given titles just for the sake of having titles;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 01:23 PM

You're right Stim, the whole peerage thing is antiquated fore-lock tugging nonsense! The sooner we set about routing out some of these obsolete pomposities the better.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 02:52 PM

Maybe instead of Mr.President they should make it easy, and call him 'Pinocchio'...and the bankster/globalist corporations could just be call 'Gepetto'!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 07:17 PM

JtS... hahahahaaa!

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Jul 12 - 07:31 PM

I doubt my contribution to this thread is welcome, so before I move along let me say this: Sometimes a less formal title is actually a higher form of respect.

President Harry (the buck stops here) Truman would be called Truman in my household, there being at the time just one Truman in the world. He was respected, period, despite being an American. The same may be said of Churchill, the Briton. (I recently named a toad who comes around Winston, out of respect for Churchill. I would not name any living thing I liked 'Harper'.)

As for the media--which is a plural form here being treated as a singular--, it can't find its arse with two hands, and the day I saw polop-onies in a major newspaper I lost all respect for newspapers and what's left of the printed word.

Neat thread, CS.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: Gurney
Date: 06 Jul 12 - 05:00 PM

This came up in a novel by Dick Francis. The character, a diplomat, pointed out that, to the British, the incumbent carried the title only whilst s/he held the post, but to the Americans it was "Mr. Ambassador," forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jul 12 - 05:34 PM

Comeback. Great book.

It's funny who calls me Dr. and who wants money from me...

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jul 12 - 05:35 PM

I welcome such contributions, 9. I laud and applaud.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: Rusty Dobro
Date: 07 Jul 12 - 07:35 AM

When Alfred, Lord Tennyson (non-UK readers note: this is not a standard title - he adopted it to show that the new Lord Tennyson was the same Alfred Tennyson that people knew as a writer) became a Justice of the Peace, he required his family and staff to be lined up at the foot of the stairs when he rose, to chorus, 'Good Morning, Your Worship!'

I have tried this in similar circumstances, and it met with an unprintable response.

Subject: RE: BS: Job Titles and Formal Personal Titles
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 07 Jul 12 - 08:21 AM

Rapparee and Rusty, there is a magic trick I shall now unveil: wear preposterous clothes and hairstyle, possibly helped by a decent makeup à la Boris Karloff, and people will unfailingly greet you "My God!"