| How Do I Address a Knight?Dear Mr. Hickey: We are having a guest who was recently knighted in Great Britain. What do I call him when I am speaking to him? Is it correct to address him as a knight in the US where there are no knights? -- ATC, Summit, New Jersey Dear ATC: Use the forms in my book on page 404. If you are sending an invitation, write his name as: Sir (full name), (initials of the order, honors, decorations) (Address) You should be able to get the correct post-nominals (the initials of the order) when you get his name from your contact. If you are uncertain of what the initials mean, today it is very easy to do an internet search. You will find exactly what they mean in a matter of seconds. If you are speaking to the knight, call him in conversation: Sir (first name) If your guest is not a subject (a citizen) of the United Kingdom -- see page 405. An American citizen would not be addressed as a knight in the US. For example, Rudolf Giuliani was knighted, but he's not orally address as "Sir Rudy". He is orally addressed as Mr. Guiliani and in a biography or introduction you could include he has been knighted by the Queen. -- Robert HickeyHow to Address an American 'British Knight' ? On the rare occasion that one receives a foreign honor (as in the case with Rudy Giuliani) can he put the OBE as a post nominal? **-- Sebastian V.**Dear SV: Knighthoods granted to Americans (non-subjects) are honorary and are not used as part of their name. Hence Mr. Giuliani would not formally include his knighthood's post nominals with his name .... and is not addressed as Sir Rudy. He could of course mention in his bio, or someone else could mention it in an introduction. It's a great honor! However Elton John and Paul McCartney .... who are subjects .... are Sir Elton and Sir Paul and would use their post nominals. -- Robert Hickey **How to Address a British Lord?**I have a question that you would be the best person to ask. We are writing to Lord Peter Goldsmith, who was formerly the Attorney General under Mr. Tony Blair’s administration. I need to know which is the proper way of addressing the salutation, is it Dear Lord Goldsmith, or His Excellency, etc.? I know you know the correct answer. -- Christopher Kaplan Dear Mr. Kaplan: I cover that in my chapter on British forms of address.He is correctly addressed in the salutation by his personal rank: Dear Lord Goldsmith, He's a baron ... but "baron' is never used in direct address. In conversation, in a salutation, or on a place card he is always "Lord." -- Robert Hickey How to Introduce Your Father, The Duke?Presumably, a Duke's title is not usually (or ever) the family surname. For the sake of illustration, let's say there is a British Duke of Highhampton, with the first name of Peter and family surname Cameron. His third son, who works as a minor government official in the Bahamas, introduces him to an American friend who also lives in the Bahamas (and who does not know the family's history) at a casual lunch. In an effort not to drop a conversational bombshell (as has happened with past introductions to Americans), the son does not say "This is my father, the Duke of Highhampton." What would he say instead? Would a member of the British aristocracy ever simply say "This is my father, Peter Cameron"? (If so, presumably the friend would call the father "Mr. Cameron" during the subsequent conversation, intending to show generational respect. However, would a duke find this an offensive come-down from his real title?) Or would it be most plausible that the son would at least say, "This is my father, Peter Cameron, Duke of Highhampton," even when the introduction is in a relaxed setting? -- Florence BrookDear Ms. Brook: I love this question because it superficially about addressing nobility, but it really about making introductions. For formal situations the forms of address are fixed by protocol. Casual situations may call for casual forms of address ... which are the realm of etiquette. Etiquette allows for the individual to interpret what he or she believes is right for the situation. Here's what I think: 1) The job of the introducer is to provide the names for the people being introduced to use when each responds to the introduction. The son will be in the best position to know what his father will like to be called by his son's friends and what his friends will like to be called by his father. It is the son's function as the introducer is to establish the right common ground. 2) Acknowledging the other person's status ... whether a student, military officer, your supervisor, or both father and the holder of a noble title .... is a essential to establishing good communication. Perhaps the best plan is for the son to brief everyone in advance of what he will do and what he thinks each should call the other, so everyone can enjoy the start of a new friendship. Protocol officers typically brief their bosses on what the "call by" names are for people they are about to meet. It's really easy ... and makes things go smoothly. RE: In an effort not to drop a conversational bombshell (as has happened with past introductions to Americans), the son does not say "This is my father, the Duke of Highhampton." Secrets that explode during the event are really planning problems! The purpose of protocol is to establish a stress-free environment so the planned work of the event or meeting can be accomplished. -- Robert HickeyDear Mr. Hickey, Thank you for your insight. It's very kind of you to respond, and charming to me for different reasons, not the least of which is the comment about a secret that explodes. I was once the inadvertent subject at such a moment, and embarrassed a speaker in front of a big roomful of his peers and bosses due to the klutzy job he did introducing me (no loss of face for me, a whole lot of loss of face for him). I don't believe any of his staff ever had the slightest inkling that they should have been abashed for not briefing him properly. They all just stood around and tsk-tsked him for his faux pas. I once met an earl at a friend's house in Oregon. We were hanging around on a summer day in shorts and were introduced by first name only (i.e., not a protocol-officer moment). My friend is rabidly egalitarian, yet even she was quite ready to whisper in my ear that he was an earl. I therefore guess it is unrealistic to think a member of the British aristocracy would ever fail to mention that fact, either prior to an introduction or during, no matter how casual the setting. (A contessa I know is always introduced by only her first and last name, but she points out that her title doesn't mean anything, since Italy is a republic. And though she feels this way, I knew by the end of our first meeting that she is a contessa. The secret just doesn't keep.) The only part of what you said that I wonder about is the assertion that once everyone's status is on the table, they can go forth and enjoy the start of a new friendship. Perhaps, if the room is full of other people of similar stature (wealth, fame, achievement or position). But if the room contains only one duke and some guys, it seems that the title must inevitably impede genuineness. Anyway, many thanks again. I ordered your book last night and am looking forward to learning all the things I did wrong when working at the Senator's office back in the day. -- Florence Brook How to Address a Former British Prime Minister? I have a question for you regarding sending a letter to a former P.M. of the U.K., Tony Blair. What is the proper way to address him in the “Address” line and “Dear” line? One person in our office suggested for the salutation Dear Rt. Honourable Blair. We think the following might be more correct: Address Line: The Rt. Hon. Anthony Charles Lynton Blair Salutation: Dear Mr. Blair: -- Lorenza & Vinayak Dear Lorenza & Vinayak, Your forms look good. Address Line: The Rt. Hon. Anthony Charles Lynton Blair Salutation: Dear Mr. Blair: ... with the following comments: I note on even on his website he refers to himself as "Tony Blair" .... so I'd be inclined to use the form of his name as he presents it: The Right Honourable Tony Blair Using his full name would not be wrong .... but I always say a person's name belongs to them, so the rest of us need to address them as they want us to address them. Check out his website. In the U.K. they routinely abbreviate The Right Honourable to The Rt. Honourable or even The Rt. Hon. .... But's it's completely acceptable to spell everything out too. If you do spell it out use the British spelling Honourable rather than the U.S. spelling Honorable. It's always best to present a name the way the person is accustomed to seeing it presented. -- Robert Hickey How to Address the British Prime Minister in Conversation? I am trying to confirm how one would address a former Prime Minister directly when meeting him/her for the first time. Do you say Hello Mr. Prime Minister or Hello Prime Minister or Hello Mr. Blair? I appreciate your guidance. **-- A. K. @ RWB & Co.**Dear A.K.: I show that form on page 358 in my chapter on British Officials. In conversation a current office holder ... David Cameron ... would be addressed as Prime Minister in conversation. But you mention Mr. Blair. Former prime ministers do not continue to be addressed by as if they were still in office, which would be considered disrespectful to the current prime minister. -- Robert Hickey How Do I Introduce a Former British Prime Minister? How Do I Introduce a Former Mexican President? In the case of wishing to introduce the former British Prime Minister and former President of Mexico during a spoken address, what's the right form? --- Katherine Littefield, New YorkDear Ms. Littlefield: FYI, I cover all this in my book: the UK, Mexico and more than 180 other countries. You didn't mention which individuals, but I am going to answer using Tony Blair and Vicente Fox. If you were going to introduce them to the audience -- here are some good forms: Tony Blair would be The Right Honourable Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1997 to 2007. A British prime minister will have been appointed to the Privy Council, and as a Privy Counsellor is The Right Honourable for life. Vicente Fox would be Vicente Fox, President of the United States of Mexico from 2000-2006. Mexicans don't use the courtesy titles when addressing their officials, so I'd use just (first name)+(last name) for Vincente Fox. Of course you could describe them as formers. Or the United States we identify former Presidents by their number, e.g., the 43rd President. But maybe including the years provides a bit more information? So, do it however you like. Using the formal country names (e.g., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is correct .... just like we most formally say "The President of the United States of America." -- Robert Hickey How To Address a Former Lord Mayor? Do you happen to know if the The Right Honourable may continue to be used by a former Lord Mayor of a city in the UK? In this case, it is the former Lord Mayor of Westminster, who, to my knowledge, carries no other honorifics, titles, peerages, or post-nominals. If so, would it be: The Right Honourable, the former Lord Mayor of Westminster, Mr. Duncan Sandys? - Chris Dear Chris: I include the form for lord mayors on page 377. Absent being a member of the Privy Council or being a peer addressed as The Right Honourable, he reverts to Mr. Duncan Sandys , former Lord Mayor of Westminster. -- Robert Hickey |
| **Privy Counselor? Privy Counsellor? or Privy Councillor?**Dear Mr. Hickey: Which is the correct spelling of a member of the Privy Council? "counselor", "counsellor" or "councillor"? _--- JM in Ottawa_Dear JM: In the United States "counselor" standard spelling for the word, but then again in the United States there is no Privy Council. In the United Kingdom -- where there is one -- a member of the Privy Council is a "Privy Counsellor" Link to the U.K. Privy Council Office's site where they use "counsellor" In Canada, a member of the Privy Council is s "Privy Councillor" Link to the Canadian Privy Council Office's site where they use "councillor" I don't understand where the variant come from ... I just try and get them correct! The correct Canadian form appears in my book as are the forms for the Speaker of the Senate, Senator, and members of the House of Commons who are Privy Councillors. The correct British forms for Privy Counsellors appear on pages 362-363. -- Robert Hickey**Does a US Citizen Bow to a Foreign Head of State?Does the President Bow to a Foreign King or Queen?Mr. Hickey,How deeply does a US citizen bow or curtsy when meeting a king or queen? Then as a follow-up, does the President of the United States bow or curtsy when meeting a king or queen on an official visit to their country? -- Jennifer Ripley, Winchester, TennesseeDear Ms. Ripley, I would follow the advice of Chris Young, President of the Protocol Diplomacy International / Protocol officers Association (he's also Chief of Protocol of the State of Georgia, and Director of International Affairs) when he says “Look no further than the U.S. Constitution, which states in Article I, Section 9, that ‘No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.’ Those weren’t just words that prohibited Congress from naming someone a prince or princess, duke or duchess, lord or lady. Those words were clear signals that in the U.S. all persons are on equal footing: that no nobility would exist here and thus no one had to bow to anyone. Certainly people here have titles such as president, chief executive officer, mayor, chancellor, and the like, but none of those titles was encoded on someone’s DNA. Titles were to be ascending, earned through one’s own sweat equity and remarkable character, rather than descending, simply a generational bequeath to one’s progeny.” So a US citizen when meeting a king or queen – in the United States or in the monarch’s country -- should simply offer nod of the head as a sign of respect and shake the hand of the monarch if it was offered. This contrasts with either a deep bow or curtsy which would be an appropriate sign of fealty from a subject. Regarding the President. again I would quote of Chris Young, when he says both are “equals on the world stage. Both are heads of state …. the only order of precedence that exists between the two is usually an alphabetical one rather than one of rank.” Since they are peers neither would bow to the other. So no, the President of the United States would perhaps offer nod of the head as a sign of respect and shake hands. -- Robert HickeyMeeting The Queen and Prince Philip?Touching the Queen of the United Kingdom?**Dear Mr. HickeyWhen Barack Obama met Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip he called them “Your Majesty” and “Your Highness.” Was that right? Was Michelle Obama putting her arm around the queen wrong? I think it was nice. -- Dana HarrimanDear Ms.Harriman First the form of address question -- a protocol question: The Queen of the United Kingdom, and every queen in the world, is directly addressed as Your Majesty. A queen's name is never used in direct address. When you hear “Queen Elizabeth” in the media, it’s sort of shorthand for Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom and Her Other Realms and Territories – which is a mouthful. The Prince Philip is not a Highness, he is a Royal Highness, and the correct address would have been Your Royal Highness. Even though The President's addres was a mistake, I am certain the whole thing was unimportant to the The Prince Philip. British royals are imminently familiar with Americans and our lack of practice with the forms of address used when addressing nobility. Second the touching question -- an etiquette question: Mrs. Obama putting her arm around the Queen was a more "familiar" gesture than would be correct by British tradition. Ms. Obama's action does indicate that the Obamas were not as knowledgeable of British traditions as they might have been. No one questions the Obamas sincerity or warmth, but the visit was not a personal visit for Barack, Elizabeth, Philip and Michelle ... it was an official, symbolic, photographed (and as such public) first meeting between heads of state. As such, a formal approach would have been appropriate for the situation. If I met The President I would not go up and give him the big hug that is common between men in the US nowadays. Out of respect for him and his office ... I would not. He's entitled to his space! Same with the Queen. There are a many ways to express warmth, sincerity, interest, and respect without touching -- and touching a royal person is not their tradition. -- Robert HickeyHow to Address a Married Woman: Ms? or Mrs.? In my country, we use the British forms of grammar etc. but I’m sure you can help with regard to the usage of the word “Ms.” I will use it if I’m not sure that the lady is married e.g. “Ms. Jane Jones” When I know she’s married and chooses to hyphenate her maiden and married names e.g. Jane Smith-Jones, I will address her as “Mrs. Jane Smith-Jones”. However, I have been told that in this circumstance, she should be addressed as “Ms. Jane Smith-Jones”. Which is correct? With thanks, _Mary Lister (Miss) in the Trinidad_Dear Miss Lister: I am not sure I can advise you of what to do in Trinidad & Tobago but I can tell you what I know is happening in the USA. In the USA it is acceptable to address any woman you don't know personally as Ms. .... e.g., "Ms. Nancy Jones." "Ms." is an equivalent to "Mr." which defines gender but not marital status. Since it's against the law to discriminate on the basis of sex, age, marital status, etc. in employment .... Ms. removes non-pertinent info from the name. When marital status is pertinent as in family activities (social), "Ms. Nancy Jones" may use "Mrs. Henry Jones" and "Mrs. Jones" too. You may run into a woman who wants to be addressed as "Mrs. Nancy Jones" ... but it's increasingly more rare. I have friends where the wife does not like "Mrs. Henry Jones" ... EVER .... she likes: Mr. Henry Jones and Ms. Nancy Jones Address Re: Hyphenated Names: If you encounter someone with a hyphenated name ... in the US we'd just use it as presented with "Ms." like you note: "Ms. Nancy Smith-Jones." Whether that's her married name ... or birth-family name ... doesn't enter into the use of honorific. In the USA the use of "Miss" has been reduced to addressing girls of under ten or twelve years of age ... and once they have become a teenager ... they want to be "Ms." which they see as adult. I just taught a class of 42 students .. none knew anyone who used "Miss" professionally ... and only two people knew anyone who used "Miss" socially -- and they were elderly women. Full disclosure: I met one woman in her 30's last fall in New York at a speaking engagement who used "Miss" professionally. All this said ... in doing the research on my book I found that women in the UK, Australia and Canada use "Miss" and "Mrs." professionally. But you don't see it in the USA: "Ms." has come ubiquitous. -- Robert Hickey |
Back to Main Page of the Robert Hickey's BLOG Robert Hickey is the author of Honor & Respect: The Official Guide to Names, Titles, and Forms of Address_Published by The Protocol School of Washington®Foreword by Pamela Eyring_Copyright © 2011 Robert Hickey. All Rights Reserved.Book Photo: Marc Goodman.