 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Use of Titles?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 29 Jul 10 - 09:34 AM We get US telly here in the UK, and I've seen Gordon Ramsey called "Chef Ramsey" on American versions of his telly programme. Likewise US reporters always refer to "Prime Minister Cameron", whereas we'd just use Cameron. You lot also refer to strangers with a respectful "Sir" or "Ma'm". You also use Mr. where we'd simply use the surname. There may be other examples.. Does anyone know how come the British are generally more informal when referring to others (bar specifically those with Knighthoods or medical Dr.s or University Profs), and why the US are more formal? Where does this cultural difference come from? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: IanC Date: 29 Jul 10 - 10:10 AM Dunno about formality. We Quakers don't use titles, but it's sometimes difficult to avoid them (for example online, when you have to be Mr or Dr or something). To me, Elizabeth Windsor is as formal as it gets though, if I knew her well, I'd most likely call her Liz. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: MMario Date: 29 Jul 10 - 10:18 AM I think most people call him "Chef Ramsey" because the censors don't allow them to call him what they would like to call him. I suspect the usage difference came about because we do NOT have heriditary titles / knighthoods, etc. It's like the french revelutionaries all calling each other "citizen" or the communists all calling each other "comrade" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Jim Dixon Date: 29 Jul 10 - 10:45 AM I hadn't noticed that Americans are any more formal than Brits, and I doubt that it's true, on the whole. I'll have to start watching for examples. If you're quoting TV announcers or news reporters, I'd guess that they're using titles by way of explaining who the people are. Standard journalistic practice is to use the full name and title of a person the first time he is mentioned in an article, and afterwards refer to him only by his last name. Here's how 4 newspapers treat the same story. I see that styles vary somewhat, but I would hesitate to characterize either the UK or the US as more formal: From the Guardian (UK):
Obama's third appearance on ABC's The View....
... the president was asked.... The president also praised....
Mr. Obama's chat with the unpredictable co-hosts.... [The Times' style is unique in the US, as far as I know, in that they always use "Mr/Ms" etc. on subsequent mentions.]
They said the majority of the hour will be devoted to Obama's appearance.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 10 - 10:52 AM Partly this is just grammatical rigor--the use of President is appropriate when using it as a title, while president is appropriate (although not always used) when referring to the position. Thus, President Obama was a congressman before being elected president, and gaining the title of President of the United States. He would have been referred to as Congressman Obama when he was a congressman, or Mr. Obama. He should never be referred to as Mrs. Obama. I think the habit of calling people by their last name only is appropriate for drill sergeants, not journalists. Just MHO. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Jul 10 - 10:54 AM I think it was Anthony Sampson, in his book An Anatomy of Britain [Great book], who said. 'In America, a rich butter and eggs man, is just a rich butter and eggs man. Although he may be awarded an LLD by some hungry university. Whereas in England, he would be Sir Benjamin Buttery Bart.' We love titles here, and they give them out for almost anything. It has now reached the stage where they mean nothing. In the same way as Henry Kissinger being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, appeared to Tom Lehrer to signal the death of satire. So in Britain the final nail in the coffin of the Honours system, was the awarding of a baronetcy, to a man who can hardly string two coherent words together. In the higher echelons of the Civil Service, you get an award, because it's your turn, and for no other valid reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:08 AM Well, John, that seems fair and equitable, and terribly polite, no? :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: IanC Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:17 AM Actually, looking at the original post, we seem to be talking about situations in which titles are used. I think it's true to say that in the UK we would be fairly unlikely to describe Gordon Ramsay as "Chef Ramsay" though we might call him "Mr Ramsay". Chief (of police) O'Neill would be another example. It seems to be that it's about whether a job description can be used as a title or not. Of course, we call medical people "Doctor Soandso" or just "Nurse" but other than that it's not common usage in the UK to use job titles (Engineer This or Fireman That). I think Crow Sister might have been commenting that this appears (it does to me, anyhow) to be more common in the USA. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:29 AM I think they call him "Chef Ramsey" to inform the uninitiated as to why this rude and disagreeable man is on TV at all. It is interesting that the US media does and did not use the same standard for Jamie Oliver, Julia Child, Graham Kerr, Yan of "Wok with Yan" or Emeril; all of whom, in my opinion, are more deserving of the title. Likewise, in saying "Prime Minister Cameron", they may be simply informing those who don't closely follow UK politics, just about everyone, which "Cameron" they were talking about; thus preempting thoughts like "Who cares what Kirk Cameron has to say about the banking crisis." On the other hand there are a lot of protocols referring to how the Office of President is to be respected so it is rightly "President" or "Mr." Obama here, just as all of his predecessors were respected. No one expects the UK Press to follow such rules on internal reporting, but if my memory serves me correctly, BBC broadcasts meant for an audience which includes the USA do use these honourifics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Ebbie Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:40 AM "Chef" Ramsey? I didn't even know the man cooks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:47 AM Did anyone note the context-triggered ad that came up with this thread? Noble Titles for Sale It seems that, despite the fact that The Grand Duchy of Pomerania and Livonia doesn't exist any more, the Grand Dukedom of that erstwhile country continues in his family line in exile, with the right to originate or grant titles, appoint officerships in the armed forces of this presently nonexistent country, and so on. So of course the grand-ducal family needs funds (don't we all?), and they are running a sale, I gather. You can be a Duke of Pomerania and Livonia, the site says, for the nominal sum of about $115 if I recall correctly; a baronet for $90; and on and on. (Or of course the feminine equivalents thereof.) To be a general or colonel of the army will be cheaper, of course. I don't recall whether the site indicates that these are hereditary titles or only for life. FASS-kinatin' !! Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Teribus Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:53 AM You lot (Americans) also refer to strangers with a respectful "Sir" or "Ma'm". You also use Mr. where we'd simply use the surname. There may be other examples.. Does anyone know how come the British are generally more informal when referring to others (bar specifically those with Knighthoods or medical Dr.s or University Profs), and why the US are more formal? Where does this cultural difference come from? I think it may come from being brought up properly and the application of good manners and civil behaviour, all things that unfortunately disappeared from the United Kingdom a long time ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: IanC Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:58 AM I'm assuming there's some irony in there somewhere, Teribus. It's certainly a very impolite statement. The use of superfluous titles and the application of good manners and civil behaviour don't, in my experience, bear any relationships to each other. In fact, the use of titles is sometimes prefaratory to a serious insult. :-( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:07 PM I am 51, my good friend is about 63, his two sons are 41 and 39. The sons call me "Mr." and "sir" without fail. It makes me feel even older than I usually do. I cannot get them to stop. I don't know if it is relevant that they are African Americans in the US South. But it is extremely respectful and polite especially since I have done nothing to deserve that extra degree of respect other than being polite to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:09 PM I suspect that the use of titles in the States may be a German influence: In Germany a teacher will be Herr Professor and his wife Frau Professor, while in Britain they wil be Mr and Mrs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Roger the Skiffler Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:22 PM I also prefer the Quaker way. The Ascot racecourse mailing list has an amazing range of options to choose from: "Air Marshall" ,"Archbishop" "Countess" etc. I always thought the US was more formal: "Senator Bloggs", "Congressman Smith", "Officer Krupke", but that just may be my reading of detective fiction. The South seems more formal but also less sincere ("sir" can be as offensive as "boy" in the wrong tone). It also amuses me that those who got an honorary Doctorate or one by mail order or from a dodgy Bible College (yes, you, Paisley, Graham etc) are more likely to use it than those who actually wrote a properly argued thesis: for instance politicians, like Vince Cable or St John Stevas. RtS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:34 PM "The South seems more formal but also less sincere." I have found that politeness in the US south is less conditional than it was in Upper Canada. Having lived in the south for 12 years, I have yet to detect that lack of sincerity. When I lived in Ontario, Canada I encountered it frequently. Folks there were trying to get people to conform. Folks here tend to live and let live and be polite as a matter of course. But that is just my experience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Charmion Date: 29 Jul 10 - 01:22 PM I would give a lot to be addressed as "Mrs. Thomas" or "ma'am" by the brisk young things who handle administrative tasks at wickets and cash registers. Unfortunately, they tend to call me "Uh, Shar ... maine?" in a misguided effort to be friendly, or "miss", which makes me look around for a teenage girl. When Edmund and I dine out at any but the most expensive establishments, the server usually addresses us as "You guys." It costs at least an extra fifty bucks to achieve the dignity of "sir" and "madame." Jim Dixon is correct in identifying house style as the culprit in journalists' use of titles and honorifics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 29 Jul 10 - 03:02 PM I hereby serve notice on all and sundry that, if I succumb to the blandishments of Noble Titles for Sale, (if that's the name of the site), I shall insist (in the second person) on being addressed as "Your Grace". Or in the third person, being referred to as "Duke David". Of course that's assuming that I can find the $115 to $150 that the title would cost me. I wonder if the titles so purchased are hereditary, or for my lifetime only? Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: gnu Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:06 PM I have just begun wearing my Iron Ring again. When I was accepted into the Canadian Enigineers Camp 9 during the secret Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer behind closed doors I was proud as a peacock. I called it "Ticka-ticka night" as I was fially, after a long 5 years of study and sweat and the accompanying financial outlay, to tap my beed glass with my Iron Ring. I wore it proudly as an Engineer-in-Training. When I had done my time, I was proud to be accepted as a full member in The Association of Professional Engineers of New Brunswick and as a full member of the Intitute of Transportaion Engineers (USA) and the Canadian Institute of Transportaion Engineers. Then, I took the ring off whenever I left the office. On accounta most guys who have been building shithouses for 30 or 40 years don't need some university boy to tell them they didn't mount the toilet paper roller on the right side of the shitter as shown in the plans. Now, I never did that, but some must have because I learned early on that wearing my Iron Ring or my WHITE hardhat was telegraphing negative vibes to the guys in the trenches. I have recently put it back on full time as I don't do much "in the field" anymore. And it sure makes a hell of a difference dealing other professionals... doctors, laywers... whoever. I even use my titles in written correspondance when I want the recipient to understand immediately that I am not someone they can ignore. To me, it's a sad commentary that they do so because I deserve no more than the next guy, but I have seen both sides of the fence and it is greener when I use my titles... or wear my Iron Ring... OR just wear a suit rather than my preferred choice of work boots, work pants, tee shirt and peaked cap with the HUGE skeeter on it that says "I gave blood in Harcourt, New Brunswick." As for reliving past glory, that don't mean squat to me. But "using it" helps in some instances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:22 PM I don't think it's only the New York Times that uses honorifics like "Mr.," but it certainly is a distinctive trait of that publication. I think some newspapers that carry Times newswire articles will drop the honorifics from Times articles, but I'm not sure of that. I usually like to be addressed as "Joe," and often ask children to call me that when their parents would like me to be called "Mr. Offer." But when people are trying to get money from me for something, I think it's very rude for them to address me right off as "Joe." When I was a government investigator, I always addressed people with honorifics. I would have dreamed of doing it otherwise. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: gnu Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:43 PM My old man would cuff me on my bump of knowledge with the knuckle of his middle finger if I didn't say "Sir." He use to say, "It's three little letters that sit on the end of every sentence easily." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:45 PM I suspect that in Joe's dreams everyone is either on a first name basis, or known by their ineffable spiritual signature, beyond which any name would be superfluous. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:49 PM So do we call you PEng? PEng Gnu or Mr. Gnu? ;-) How about Pengnu? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:57 PM Or Nuffin, or Sompin, or Forevah Gnu.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Newport Boy Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:03 PM I don't use any titles - membership databases that I've created don't have a title field. I'm 'Phil' to everyone. I registered online for a technical exhibition and had to complete the 'Title' field. For once, I could type it in (where I can't I go for 'Ms'), so I typed 'None'. It was a good talking point at the exhibition, as people read my name tab - 'None Phil Holland'! A friend said that next time I should put 'The', but that would be against my philosophy - I would use 'A'. Phil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Joe_F Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:14 PM It is a remarkable custom that in *introducing* the U.S. president, one simply says "Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States" -- no embellishments as in "his excellency the governor", and no name. Similarly, the polite form of address is "Mr. President". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: olddude Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:25 PM What was that guy on TV who use to do "you can call me ray or you can call me J or you can call me ray J or you ... but ya doesn't has to call me Johnson" As fer Joe ... please refer to his proper title ... "Grand Potentate of the Catter Realm" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:35 PM First Mudcat Grande Poobah and Sublime Protectot of Auricular Frangibilities and Sentiment of All Mudcat Empires and Subjects and Chief Potentate of the Revered Corps of Emissaries of His Holiness the Pope of Rome and Tantalizer of the Prince of Darkness in All Realms Whatsoever Offer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: gnu Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:47 PM Dan... Bill Saluga I recall first seeing him On the David Steinberg show. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: gnu Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:02 PM JtS... you may call me g or Gary or gnu (Gahnew) as all my friends call me. But, if you want me to do any engineering consulting, you may respond to my invoices with my full name followed by P.Eng., M.Sc.Eng. I charge more that way. But I`ll give you a cut rate and claim the rest as unpayed as you are now a Yank whom I cannot enjoin in legal proceedings for recovery of lost revenue unless you own real property or have discernable and identifiable goods or chattels stored or registered in Canuckistan. Just make sure you pay up what you owe on accounta I got cousins down there what got KCGOB after their names... Kent County Good Old Boy. I believe the US equivalent is ``redneck``. I are one as well as a injunear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Jul 10 - 07:38 PM Around here, I prefer to be called.....Joe. Somebody wrote a song about me once and titled it "Just Joe" - I liked that. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: katlaughing Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:34 PM My grandson, when he is with me, calls clerks in stores, etc. "ma'am" or "sir." He forgets and says, "Hey..." then I remind him. It doesn't hurt a child to at least learn good manners; whether they choose to exhibit them later in life is their choice, but at least they know better. If we wanted to be fancy, my Rog and I could be the de La Frances because of some fancy-schmancy ancestor of his, but all it means is "of France" so...duh.:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Anne Lister Date: 30 Jul 10 - 12:25 PM We do have titles, purchased (at no great cost) from the independent kingdom of Hay on Wye. What we haven't yet managed to do is get to an official investiture there, although we will, one day - they're held on April 1st, I'm told. My husband has an enduring ambition to have our membership cards of, say, the National Trust in our titles so that we might have greater respect when we visit stately homes and castles but so far we haven't done anything with them. You could, however, refer to me from here on in as Lady Tregenna. I don't insist on everyone kneeling when I enter a room, though - just certain people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Jul 10 - 01:01 PM "We love titles here, and they give them out for almost anything Well, in some cases there's got to be a reasonable payment of some kind... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Howard Jones Date: 30 Jul 10 - 01:23 PM I think its a question of different protocols rather than greater formality. In the UK, government offices are positions rather than titles and are never attached to the name. The holder is addressed by name or position, but not both. So it is correct to address the Prime Minister (who is, after all, supposed to be first among equals) as "Mr Cameron" or "Prime Minister", but not as "Prime Minister Cameron" or "Mr Prime Minister". US usage is apparently different, and perhaps this rubs off when they address lesser mortals such as "Chef" Ramsay. American children do seem to brought up to show greater respect to their elders, however. If TV programmes are to believed, it appears common for children to address their father as "sir", at least when they're in trouble, something no British child would dream of doing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: gnu Date: 30 Jul 10 - 01:33 PM Prime Minister's Office = PMO And, Stevie Harper sure does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Jul 10 - 06:13 PM Blair or Thacher would never now be addressed as "Prime Minister", in an interview, for example. Both Bushes would be addressed as "Mr President". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: michaelr Date: 30 Jul 10 - 06:26 PM Bartender : "What can I get you, bud?" Me: "Feel free to address me as 'sir'." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: olddude Date: 30 Jul 10 - 07:26 PM Is it really true that you can buy a title in England ... like lord or duke or whatevers that they actually are for sale? someone has to explain that to me I don't get it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 30 Jul 10 - 07:30 PM I think so Olddude! I reckon only expats should be ablr to buy 'em up, specifically y descendents of those that got transported for stealing bread and such. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Jul 10 - 07:56 PM Not legally - things have tightened up since the time of Lloyd George when he had a price list. But as with many things, one hand washes the other, and favours get returned, including financial favours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 30 Jul 10 - 08:01 PM Quite often (more often than my Beautiful Wife likes), when someone addresses me as "sir", I'll respond with "I'm not dignified enough to be a sir!" Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: maple_leaf_boy Date: 30 Jul 10 - 09:31 PM I usually use titles when I'm speaking to somebody I don't know very well, or somebody I consider to be an authority figure. If it's a friend or a relative, I don't use titles. I call my aunts and uncles for example, just by their first name rather than "Uncle..." or "Aunt..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Roger the Skiffler Date: 31 Jul 10 - 06:09 AM In some cases there are "lordships" of certain manors which convey certain land rights but the titles are not hereditary and never included seats in the Lords. These are the titles that are sometimes sold to gullible foreigners (along with London Bridge, the Ritz etc!). Occasionally there are newspaper accounts of tenants falling out with these "lords" over common land, tenancy restrictions etc. RtS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Jul 10 - 06:50 AM There's something to be said for awarding your dodgy backers an OFL (Order of the Flatulent Elephant), or something of the kind, as a payment, rather than a government contract, or privileged access to some rip-off of public assets. I think it might have been Mark Twain who pointed out that the idiosyncrasies of English spelling meant that "Sir" could be spelt "Cur". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Use of Titles? From: Penny S. Date: 31 Jul 10 - 08:50 AM I hate databases which insist on my using a title. Before the 18th century, or if I was cook in a great house, I could use Mrs. I don't like Ms, as it conveys a political attitude, not simply no relationship to a man. At least Mr just stands for what it stands for. If I could think of a suitable study, I would go for a PhD just to use Dr. I had a neighbour who was particularly insistent on his qualifications being recognised. A BSc(Hons), awarding institution not given, and ICIOB. Naturally, those of us who found him a pain went off and googled the latter, which isn't as good as it should be for someone with a BSc(Hons). As I don't go round with my degree trailing after my name except where relevant, I think he though he was showing his superiority. While I was dealing with him on a regular basis, I fell across the information that insistence on recognition of one's qualifications is symptomatic of a particular sort of mindset, over which one has no control. Knowing he couldn't help it didn't make it any less of a pain. |
