POSTNOMINAL ORDER
conor_...@my-deja.com
I am glad to see that my other posting has bloomed and grown into a
nice discussion as I had hoped.
I have another question that I wish to throw out to all my friends in
the Heraldry World:
How does one list their postnominals, if they belong to more than one
order?
1) Alphabetically?
2) First granted appears first?
3) By prestige?
4) Other?
Please let me know as I am curious about which style is used as I have
seen many variations on this theme.
Hope to hear from you all soon.
CMC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
conor_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Hello, Again My Friends:
>
> I am glad to see that my other posting has bloomed and grown into a
> nice discussion as I had hoped.
>
> I have another question that I wish to throw out to all my friends in
> the Heraldry World:
>
> How does one list their postnominals, if they belong to more than one
> order?
>
> 1) Alphabetically?
> 2) First granted appears first?
> 3) By prestige?
> 4) Other?
>
I do not know if this is a serious request but I shall try to answer
anyway (from a British/Commonwealth perspective).
Post-nominals are placed in order of precedence. The senior Order is
placed before the junior Order. However if one has a higher grade in a
junior Order than one has in a senior Order the junior Order takes
precence (ex: GBE before CB). The Victoria Cross and George Cross, in
that order, take precedence over all others (neither VC nor GC confer
precedence in terms of status).
To type out the entire order of precedence for orders, decorations and
medals would take far too long. However if we limit the list to the
knightly grades we have the following (in the U.K.):
KG Garter
KT Thistle
GCB Bath
OM Merit
GCSI Star of India
GCMG Michael & George
GCIE Indian Empire
GCVO Victorian Order
KCVO
GBE
CH
KCB
KCSI
KCMG
KCIE
KCVO
KBE
(If you are interested in a complete list then I would suggest that you
consult a work such as *Debrett's Correct Form*).
In Canada the order is as follows:
VC (almost eliminated by an earlier government but now an entrenched
part of the honours system)
GC
CC Companion of Order of Canada
CMM Commander of Order of Military Merit
CVO Commander Victorian O.
OC Officer of Or. Canada
OMM Officer of OMMerit
LVO Lieutenant Victorian O.
CM Member of Or. Can.
MMM Member of OMMerit
MVO Member of Victorian O.
All grades of St. John (no post-nominals)
(Note that there are no knighthoods in the Canadian Honours System. The
highest grade of the Order of Canada is Companion. Her Majesty does not
award Canadians the GCVO or KCVO)
Then follow Provincial Orders in the following order:
Ordre National du Quebec (GOQ, O.Q. CQ)
Saskatchewan Order of Merit (SOM)
Order of Ontario (O.Ont)
Order of British Columbia (OBC)
Alberta Order of Excellence (AOE)
----------------------------
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
raf...@home.com (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)
hey...@hotmail.com
traf...@england.com (London, England)
"I have no intention of passing my remaining years in explaining or
withdrawing anything I have said in the past, still less in apologising
for it." Sir Winston S. Churchill.
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo wrote:
> GCIE Indian Empire
> GCVO Victorian Order
> KCVO
Obviously KCVO does not belong there. Sorry.
JAIME & DEBBIE DRURY
I am curious also in which order the following would be placed:
The Equestrian Order of the KHS; The Knights of Malta; and The Venerable
Order of St. John.
I have seen it arranged many ways and was just curious if there was a
definite order as none of these are military honors as were mentioned in the
previous postings.
Thanks
Jim
Francois R. Velde
>To type out the entire order of precedence for orders, decorations and
>medals would take far too long.
But one can always glance at
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm
which allows to rank gongs down to MBE.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
The decorations of the SMOM and EOHS are not officially recognised in
the UK and consequently they should not be worn at official functions or
be used as post-nominals in official correspondence. Also remember that
the EOHS is not a sovereign order. As Guy has pointed out in an earlier
discussion, France, Italy and Spain (and possibly others) allow EOHS
decorations but this was due to the fact that special persmission had
been granted.
As for St. John, post-nominals may only be used for correspodence within
the order (at least this is the Canadian position).
Officially recognised foreign decorations should follow the decorations
of one's home country. In Canada, for example, foreign orders are worn
after Canadian and Commonwealth orders and decorations.
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
--
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
"Francois R. Velde" wrote:
>
> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Rafal Heydel-Mankoo <raf...@home.com> os suum:
> >To type out the entire order of precedence for orders, decorations and
> >medals would take far too long.
>
> But one can always glance at
> http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm
> which allows to rank gongs down to MBE.
Yes but that would be far too easy!
Rafal
(who has not visited heraldica.org for a long time but is about to make
a return trip!)
Michael F. McCartney
>How does one list their postnominals, if they belong to more than one
>order?
You will (have already?) received several useful responses; so at the risk of
offending a few out there, & from a rabidly republican (small-r) viewpoint, how
about: don't list them at all, except in internal correspondence within each
order, & then using only the postnomials appropriate to the one order involved?
Actually (IIRC - apologies if not) I was under the impression that the
Venerables followed some such rule or practice, at least re: the post-nomials
of that order.
Obviously many if not most members of orders aren't gonna follow my r-r
(rabidly etc) approach, but seriously - how often is it necessary, useful, or
pleasingly modest to use more than one set of post-nomials? If you're the
Queen & therefore of necessity tied to a bunch of them, it may be more politic
to list them all than to offend by omission; but even she only uses her full
royal titles on the fanciest of occasions. If Elizabeth R is good enough for
her for everyday use, why is the alphabet soup necessary for mere mortals?
M.F.McCartney, OG (order grump :)
Michael Fannin McCartney
Fremont, California
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
correctly. While you may not approve of a person displaying his own
gongs at every opportunity surely it is only proper that in
correspondence with an important person one address him in the correct
manner?
Similarly, if one has invited say General Sir Charles Guthrie to speak
at a formal dinner would it not be proper and polite to list on the
programme his post-nominals?
Also, I would argue that just as one "earns" an academic degree (M.A.,
D.Phil. etc.) so too one "earns" an honour. Or are you suggesting that a
doctor of law should not place "LL.D" after his name?
Finally, if one is a knight one should have the correct post-nominals so
as to avoid confusion. Knights Bachelor do not receive post-nominals and
consequently there would be no way to distinguish between a Knight
Bachelor and a Knight of the Garter! Also how would one distinguish
between a baronet and a knight?
Even though I am a monarchist to the core I certainly have no problem
with your position as a "rabid republican". However this issue has
little to do with that tired debate. I see this as an issue of
politeness and common decency. But then I'm an old-fashioned young fogey
out of touch with the real world.
Regards,
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
--
Michael F. McCartney
>correctly. While you may not approve of a person displaying his own
>gongs at every opportunity surely it is only proper that in
>correspondence with an important person one address him in the correct
>manner?
"Dear Sir" or "Dear Madam" is what I was taught for formal correspondence; &
"yes sir" & "no sir" for formal conversation.
Where I work the official culture is to address everyone by their first name;
you can always tell a newbie by the use of "Mr. Smith" insteat of "Jim." Yeah,
its a bit artificial at times, but the intent is to reduce artificial
heirarchy, by a (hopefully less) artificial informality. The belief is that
after a while, belief follows behavior.
>Similarly, if one has invited say General Sir Charles Guthrie to speak
>at a formal dinner would it not be proper and polite to list on the
>programme his post-nominals?
Oh, OK, I'll make an exception for the General. (Who is he anyway? I had to
read it twice to see you hadn'tsaid "DeGaulle")
>Also, I would argue that just as one "earns" an academic degree (M.A.,
>D.Phil. etc.) so too one "earns" an honour. Or are you suggesting that a
>doctor of law should not place "LL.D" after his name?
On his business cards & law journal articles, fine; but socially? Bah humbug!
A doctor here is a doctor of medicine - someone who heals - not a doctor of
laws, who is just one more bad lawyer joke. "How many LLD's does it take to
screw in a light bulb?" etc.
>Finally, if one is a knight one should have the correct post-nominals so
>as to avoid confusion. Knights Bachelor do not receive post-nominals and
>consequently there would be no way to distinguish between a Knight
>Bachelor and a Knight of the Garter!
Gee, this hasn't been a BIG problem at Rotary lately...
> Also how would one distinguish
>between a baronet and a knight?
The little shield with the red hand, maybe?
(hey, this IS rec.heraldry)
>Even though I am a monarchist to the core I certainly have no problem
>with your position as a "rabid republican". However this issue has
>little to do with that tired debate. I see this as an issue of
>politeness and common decency. But then I'm an old-fashioned young fogey
>out of touch with the real world.
>Regards,
>Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
Yeah, I'm just a grumpy old republican (both R & r) - a new-fangled old fogey I
guess!
If you saw the string of alphabet soup some of our order-phreaks include after
their names - not your KG's, but the be-knighted followers of the sad remains
of deposed old-world dynasts & pseudo-d's; you'd probably adopt the "less is
better" philosophy too. I agree that if its gonna be done, it should be done
correctly; but is it too much to hope for moderation in this as in all things?
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
"Michael F. McCartney" wrote:
>
> "Dear Sir" or "Dear Madam" is what I was taught for formal correspondence; &
> "yes sir" & "no sir" for formal conversation.
I was referring to the envelope and/or formal invitation.
>
> Where I work the official culture is to address everyone by their first name;
> you can always tell a newbie by the use of "Mr. Smith" insteat of "Jim." Yeah,
> its a bit artificial at times, but the intent is to reduce artificial
> heirarchy, by a (hopefully less) artificial informality. The belief is that
> after a while, belief follows behavior.
I must confess that I cannot stand this first name basis. After an
acquaintance is developed certainly it is fine to address a person by
their christian name. But on a first meeting I would not dream of
addressing someone by their first name. My 'trendy' law professors
(thankfully in the minority) insist that we address them by their
christian names. I have steadfastly refused.
But then again you live in California so I shouldn't be surprised at
your care-free manner! :)
>
> >Similarly, if one has invited say General Sir Charles Guthrie to speak
> >at a formal dinner would it not be proper and polite to list on the
> >programme his post-nominals?
>
> Oh, OK, I'll make an exception for the General. (Who is he anyway? I had to
> read it twice to see you hadn'tsaid "DeGaulle")
He is the Chief of the Defence Staff (as an aside he is also the patron
of the British-Polish Council's General Sikorski Statue Appeal Fund).
His post-nominals, in case you were wondering, are GCB, LVO, OBE, ADC
Gen.
>
> >Also, I would argue that just as one "earns" an academic degree (M.A.,
> >D.Phil. etc.) so too one "earns" an honour. Or are you suggesting that a
> >doctor of law should not place "LL.D" after his name?
>
> On his business cards & law journal articles, fine; but socially? Bah humbug!
> A doctor here is a doctor of medicine - someone who heals - not a doctor of
> laws, who is just one more bad lawyer joke. "How many LLD's does it take to
> screw in a light bulb?" etc.
I am not referring to informal gatherings. It is rather 'non-U' in my
view to use such things in an informal situation [then again these days
it is probably 'non-u' or at least 'passe' to use the term 'non-U'!!].
Your opposition to post-nominals appeared to be a sweeping opposition to
their use in any context. My examples were restricted to formal
situations (with which you have now conceded you do not have a problem)
not to purely informal social events.
>
> >Finally, if one is a knight one should have the correct post-nominals so
> >as to avoid confusion. Knights Bachelor do not receive post-nominals and
> >consequently there would be no way to distinguish between a Knight
> >Bachelor and a Knight of the Garter!
>
> Gee, this hasn't been a BIG problem at Rotary lately...
>
> > Also how would one distinguish
> >between a baronet and a knight?
>
> The little shield with the red hand, maybe?
> (hey, this IS rec.heraldry)
Are you suggesting that all baronets sew their arms on to their blazer
pocket for easy identification?! :)
>
> If you saw the string of alphabet soup some of our order-phreaks include after
> their names - not your KG's, but the be-knighted followers of the sad remains
> of deposed old-world dynasts & pseudo-d's; you'd probably adopt the "less is
> better" philosophy too. I agree that if its gonna be done, it should be done
> correctly; but is it too much to hope for moderation in this as in all things?
Don't misunderstand me. I am not in favour of excess. I am also a
stickler for precision and correctness. If I receive an email from a
person and he includes all his 15 post-nominals in the "from" section I
do get a bit wary. However respectable types rarely, if ever, do this.
Those chaps that do include them usually sport post-nominals which I
have never heard before and they tend to add "Chevalier" or "Count" to
their name. Interestingly these charlatans never tend to have a grade
lower than Knight Commander and will usually also go to great pains to
explain that they are a Grand Poobah of the Most Exalted Order of the
Drunken Skunk etc. Indeed, in this context post-nominals serve as a
useful warning signal. Whenever I get such a letter or email I can
immediately tell that I am dealing with yet another gong-collecting
nutcase. Another reason to keep post-nominals!
Dr J.C. Horton
> Obviously many if not most members of orders aren't gonna follow my r-r
> (rabidly etc) approach, but seriously - how often is it necessary, useful, or
> pleasingly modest to use more than one set of post-nomials? If you're the
> Queen & therefore of necessity tied to a bunch of them, it may be more politic
> to list them all than to offend by omission; but even she only uses her full
> royal titles on the fanciest of occasions.
The Queen has no post-nominal initials (in the sense they're being discussed here).
> If Elizabeth R is good enough for
> her for everyday use, why is the alphabet soup necessary for mere mortals?
That's the Queen's signature.
Post-nominal initials (in the usual meaning of the phrase) never appear in anyone's
signature. Apart from the "R." quoted above, the only other post-nominal initials
(in the literal sense) that I have seen are "E.M." (for Earl Marshal) and "A.F."
(Admiral of the Fleet).
Dr J.C. Horton
Dr J.C. Horton
> On his business cards & law journal articles, fine; but socially? Bah humbug!
> A doctor here is a doctor of medicine - someone who heals - not a doctor of
> laws, who is just one more bad lawyer joke. "How many LLD's does it take to
> screw in a light bulb?" etc.
Why treat a doctor in one faculty so much differently to a doctor in another
faculty as to actually deny even the existence of the doctorate?
> >Finally, if one is a knight one should have the correct post-nominals so
> >as to avoid confusion. Knights Bachelor do not receive post-nominals and
> >consequently there would be no way to distinguish between a Knight
> >Bachelor and a Knight of the Garter!
> Gee, this hasn't been a BIG problem at Rotary lately...
I think the poster was raising this as a general argument and not implying it to be
one that you personally may have encountered.
> If you saw the string of alphabet soup some of our order-phreaks include after
> their names - not your KG's, but the be-knighted followers of the sad remains
> of deposed old-world dynasts & pseudo-d's; you'd probably adopt the "less is
> better" philosophy too. I agree that if its gonna be done, it should be done
> correctly; but is it too much to hope for moderation in this as in all things?
You're now moving into the sphere of bogus orders and their status. I think you
will find your views here accord with those of many other people.
JAIME & DEBBIE DRURY
I think that my question was misunderstood as I live in the US and we do not
have the postnominals of military service used commonly . I was asking my
question in reference to letterhead and the order of the EOKHS, KOM, and
OStJ would occur in that context.
Thanks again
Jim
Glen Cook
>>doctor of law should not place "LL.D" after his name?
>
Actually, in the U.S., no in either case.
Remember folks, we are talking about two different cultures: UK (or
Commonwealth, if you will) and U.S. I follow Debrett's in UK matters. It
would be seen as as ridiculous to include my postnomials on everyday U.S.
correspondence or programs. And it's J.D. in the U.S. now. <G>
Glen Cook
Coo...@aol.com
James Hyder
Doctor). The LLD is an honorary degree. Lawyers never use the
J.D., except for law professors who use it in academic circles
(and they are seldom real lawyers anyway ! ;-) The LLD is given
most often to non-lawyers; and the largest group of LLD holders
are probably the clergy. Lots of "Rev. Dr." such and so running
around.
You see the legal profession using Esq. as a "post nomial" (as a
courtesy title, if you will.) We generally never refer to
ourselves as Esq., but will address correspondence to other
lawyers using that suffix.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Francois R. Velde
os suum:
>Michael F. McCartney wrote:
>
>> On his business cards & law journal articles, fine; but socially? Bah humbug!
>> A doctor here is a doctor of medicine - someone who heals - not a doctor of
>> laws, who is just one more bad lawyer joke. "How many LLD's does it take to
>> screw in a light bulb?" etc.
>
>Why treat a doctor in one faculty so much differently to a doctor in another
>faculty as to actually deny even the existence of the doctorate?
There was a New Yorker cartoon a while back showing a maitre d' in a fancy
restaurant taking down a phone reservation, and saying: "Very well, table for 4
at 6pm for Dr. Johnson. May I ask if this is a true medical doctor or merely a
Ph.D.?"
My impression is that, in the US, and outside of universities, the use of
"Doctor" for others than holders of M.D. is not common.
--
François Velde , N.P.N. (*)
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
(*) No Post-Nominals
Francois R. Velde
>>My impression is that, in the US, and outside of universities, the use of
>>"Doctor" for others than holders of M.D. is not common.
>
>jobs usually will. You will also find few people outside of academia who have
>a doctorate, except in the clergy.
By "outside of universities" I think I meant physically outside; i.e., people
with doctorates, outside of an academic context (e.g., at a restaurant), will
not use the title or the post-nominal. At least that's my experience in my
profession. Of course, in the same profession, no one would use for himself or
herself the post-nominal or the title within an academic context either (though
others may use it when addressing them). I have heard the same as you for
psychologists, though, and I suppose that reflects the fact that there are
people with Ph.Ds and people without who do the same sort of thing and have the
same kind of position, leading those with Ph.Ds to try and remind everyone how
different they are, because you couldn't necessarily tell otherwise...
Which brings me to my personal attitude to the matter: those who would need to
know already do, those who don't couldn't care less, so why ever bother? And
I've seen enough .sigs with "N.N." to be vaccinated against the notion that
post-nominals are of any use. Rafal's argument is that, out of politeness, one
ought to indulge people's vanity and sprinkle the coveted initials after the
names of those who obtained them. I'd rather indulge their modesty and spare
them the embarrassment of having their achievements belabored in public.
--
François Velde
KauttWH
>From: Francois R. Velde velde@heraldica_nospam.org
>Date: 4/11/2000 6:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <k9f7fsop6m2krlfnh...@4ax.com>
>
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit "Dr J.C. Horton"
><ccz...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk>
>os suum:
>>Michael F. McCartney wrote:
>>
>>> On his business cards & law journal articles, fine; but socially? Bah
>humbug!
>>> A doctor here is a doctor of medicine - someone who heals - not a doctor
>of
>>> laws, who is just one more bad lawyer joke. "How many LLD's does it take
>to
>>> screw in a light bulb?" etc.
>>
>>Why treat a doctor in one faculty so much differently to a doctor in another
>>faculty as to actually deny even the existence of the doctorate?
>
>There was a New Yorker cartoon a while back showing a maitre d' in a fancy
>restaurant taking down a phone reservation, and saying: "Very well, table for
>4
>at 6pm for Dr. Johnson. May I ask if this is a true medical doctor or merely
>a
>Ph.D.?"
>
>"Doctor" for others than holders of M.D. is not common.
That depends, psychologists, and those who actually use their degree in their
jobs usually will. You will also find few people outside of academia who have
a doctorate, except in the clergy. Then they will use the title or if
Protestant, will frequently wear their doctoral robes too....
And in the US in universities, most Drs call themselves "professor" regardless
of the rank of professor, while it is my experience in the UK that (since there
are very few professors) most academic staff members will go by "doctor" until
they are a Professor or Mr. or Ms until they are a Dr or Professor.
Michael F. McCartney
>But then again you live in California so I shouldn't be surprised at
>your care-free manner! :)
It is fairly widespread here, but in the case of my employer, the practice of
using first names was started back East while Teddy Roosevelt was President.
For the US, that's ancient history!!
>I am not referring to informal gatherings. It is rather 'non-U' in my
>view to use such things in an informal situation [then again these days
>it is probably 'non-u' or at least 'passe' to use the term 'non-U'!!].
>Your opposition to post-nominals appeared to be a sweeping opposition to
>their use in any context. My examples were restricted to formal
>situations (with which you have now conceded you do not have a problem)
>not to purely informal social events.
Of course, most every event in California is informal, except maybe the Oscars,
where I doubt you'd find many post-nomials used!
(Oh, yeah, there are occasional wonk-a-thons where "Doctors of Education" and
such gather for a formal evening of mutual back-patting, but those are too dull
to consider.)
>> > Also how would one distinguish
>> >between a baronet and a knight?
>>
>> The little shield with the red hand, maybe?
>> (hey, this IS rec.heraldry)
>
>Are you suggesting that all baronets sew their arms on to their blazer
>pocket for easy identification?! :)
Out here, that would more likely be screen-printed on a sweatshirt...
>>.... I agree that if its gonna be done, it should be
>done properly; but is it too much to hope for moderation in this as in all
>things?
>
>Don't misunderstand me. I am not in favour of excess. I am also a
>stickler for precision and correctness. If I receive an email from a
>person and he includes all his 15 post-nominals in the "from" section I
>do get a bit wary. However respectable types rarely, if ever, do this.
>
>Those chaps that do include them usually sport post-nominals which I
>have never heard before and they tend to add "Chevalier" or "Count" to
>their name. Interestingly these charlatans never tend to have a grade
>lower than Knight Commander and will usually also go to great pains to
>explain that they are a Grand Poobah of the Most Exalted Order of the
>Drunken Skunk etc.
Ooh I like that one - where do I join??
> Indeed, in this context post-nominals serve as a
>useful warning signal. Whenever I get such a letter or email I can
>immediately tell that I am dealing with yet another gong-collecting
>nutcase. Another reason to keep post-nominals!
Ah, I get it now - post-nomials serve to warn the world? Gongs as
bell-the-cat??
We've probably carried this "debate" farther than it's worth. De gustibus non
disputandem; or as we say in la-la-land, differnt strokes for different folks.
Nothin' here worth dyin' for...
Michael F. McCartney
>faculty as to actually deny even the existence of the doctorate?
Just a different cultural view as to the value to the community of various
occupations, and a general scepticism or dislike of putting on airs. Rightly or
wrongly (if those terms have any universal meaning re: social mores) Americans
(or at least those without a PhD!!) don't tend to view a non-medical doctor as
a "real" doctor - which to us instinctively means "the guy who can make you
well again" even when we know that the term has other definitions. Someone
flaunting a non-medical doctorate here (unless its qualified e.g. "Reverend
Doctor" - the other ethical pillar in small-town life that still defines much
of our culture) is likely to be suspected of coattail-riding.
Michael F. McCartney
>"Doctor" for others than holders of M.D. is not common.
>
In fact, it ranks right up there with the $3 bill (& even if there once was
one, the average citizen would be amused or outraged if you tried to pass one
today)
Michael F. McCartney
>courtesy title, if you will.) We generally never refer to
>ourselves as Esq., but will address correspondence to other
>lawyers using that suffix.
Hmmm...James Hyder of that Esq.??
I like it! :)
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
"Francois R. Velde" wrote:
Rafal's argument is that, out of politeness, one
> ought to indulge people's vanity and sprinkle the coveted initials after the
> names of those who obtained them. I'd rather indulge their modesty and spare
> them the embarrassment of having their achievements belabored in public.
Not quite. I did state quite specificially that I was referring solely
to formal engagements NOT informal social gatherings. I'm not
suggesting that I would introduce someone as Sir X BBC, ITV, AC/DC when
he is 'having a pint' at the Dog & Fox.
All I am stating is that post-nominals should be used:
On the envelope of a formal letter
On the invitation to a formal function
On the programme at such a function
And in similar circumstances.
When one receives a grant of arms are the awards of the grantee along
with the heralds not included on the grant? Most certainly.
For example..."The Most Noble Miles Francis Stapleton Duke of Norfolk
Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter Knight Grand Cross of the
Royal Victorian Order Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath
Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire upon whom
has been conferred the Decoration of the Military Cross Earl Marshal and
Hereditary Marshal of England"
Saying that I favour "sprinkling" post-nominals to "indulge" a person's
vanity is not really fair. I was writing about formal occasions and I
certainly have tradition on my side in that respect.
Regards,
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
"Michael F. McCartney" wrote:
>
> Ah, I get it now - post-nomials serve to warn the world? Gongs as
> bell-the-cat??
Well with regards to the bogus orders they certainly do.
> We've probably carried this "debate" farther than it's worth. De gustibus non
> disputandem; or as we say in la-la-land, differnt strokes for different folks.
Very good then. Case closed. The next topic please......
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, B.A. (hons.), LL.B (pending), MLC, RCS, ICS, RSS,
ESU.
Glen Cook
>Oscars,
>where I doubt you'd find many post-nomials used!
Or much in the way of clothing.
Glen Cook
Coo...@aol.com
Glen Cook
>lawyers using that suffix.
and others <G>
Glen Cook
Coo...@aol.com
Francois R. Velde
> Saying that I favour "sprinkling" post-nominals to "indulge" a person's
> vanity is not really fair. I was writing about formal occasions and I
> certainly have tradition on my side in that respect.
I didn't mean this personally agaisnt you, and I admit that it was unfair.
I do think that the tradition which is on your side can be characterized
the way I did. When introducing the invited speaker, one often does rely
on his vita as a way to justify why the audience should pay attention to
him, and that can be useful. But the mailman has no need to be informed
of the addressee's medals and degrees, and the addressee knows them already.
Of course, medals are all about flattering egos; that's why they're supposed
to be worn, etc. So the tradition is in keeping with the nature of these
objects. Degrees, in my opinion, are not the same thing. They are originally,
and in spirit, certifications that an individual has the prerequisites to exercise
some kind of activity, or has achieved some level of some kind. Their award
is based on objective and verifiable criteria. But there is little need to
display them after one's name. As postnominals for memberships in clubs or
societies, I find that rather baffling.
--
François R. Velde, LAD(Ill) *
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
*: licensed automobile driver, state of Illinois
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
"Francois R. Velde" wrote:
>
> I didn't mean this personally agaisnt you, and I admit that it was unfair.
No offence taken.
As postnominals for memberships in clubs or
> societies, I find that rather baffling.
I agree.
Bryan J. Maloney
The best way to list them is if you can figure out a way to spell
something silly with them. Otherwise, get very drunk and throw darts at
pieces of paper with the various alphabet soup chunks. Then set fire to
them all and forget about it. Let the butler introducing you worry about
whether or not he wants to bother.
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
KauttWH
>From: "Francois R. Velde" ve...@heraldica.nospam.org
>Date: 4/12/2000 8:47 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8d2296$1okt$1...@news.enteract.com>
>
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Rafal Heydel-Mankoo <raf...@home.com> os suum:
>
>> Saying that I favour "sprinkling" post-nominals to "indulge" a person's
>> vanity is not really fair. I was writing about formal occasions and I
>> certainly have tradition on my side in that respect.
>
>the way I did. When introducing the invited speaker, one often does rely
>on his vita as a way to justify why the audience should pay attention to
>him, and that can be useful. But the mailman has no need to be informed
>of the addressee's medals and degrees, and the addressee knows them already.
>
>Of course, medals are all about flattering egos; that's why they're supposed
>to be worn, etc. So the tradition is in keeping with the nature of these
>objects. Degrees, in my opinion, are not the same thing. They are
>originally,
>and in spirit, certifications that an individual has the prerequisites to
>exercise
>some kind of activity, or has achieved some level of some kind. Their award
>is based on objective and verifiable criteria. But there is little need to
>display them after one's name.
Except that if one has the title of "doctor" and is not a physician, one would
want to be differentiated from the medical profession. After all, the
doctorate as a university degree has been around as long or longer than the use
of "doctor" by physicians.
When addressing a letter, it is as correct to address a PhD as Dr. rather than
Mr., Mrs., Ms, etc. as much as it would be to address a military officer by
their rank rather than Mr or Ms (yes, with the exception of some warrant
officers and Naval officers below the grade of CDR).
I once saw a movie where the female lead asked: "are you a 'mister' or do you
have a profession?" Very telling as the traditional professions (clergy,
military, medicine, law, and sometimes academia) all bestow titles on their
members.
Andrew Yong
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo <raf...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38F47C4E...@home.com...
> Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, B.A. (hons.), LL.B (pending), MLC, RCS, ICS, RSS,
> ESU.
Now there's a load of abbrevs. I haven't seen. I'm assuming MLC isn't Member
of the Legislative Council, otherwise you'd be an 'Hon.'
andrew
Andrew Yong
Dr J.C. Horton <ccz...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:38F2FD15...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk...
> Why treat a doctor in one faculty so much differently to a doctor in
another
> faculty as to actually deny even the existence of the doctorate?
D.D.s certainly are always suffixed. Further, if someone is a full M.D./D.M.
I would certainly use the suffix in recognition of the fact.
andrew
Bryan J. Maloney
<andre...@chch.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Incidentally, I found this in The Times style guide
> (http://www.the-times.co.uk/styleguide/):
>
> DOCTOR the title Dr should no longer be confined to medical practitioners.
> If a person has a doctorate from a reputable institution, and wishes to be
> known as Dr Smith, he or she should be so titled. If in doubt over
> "reputable", consult the revise department. See APPELATIONS
Dr. Smith?
Oh, the humiliAtion! To have one's title forGOTten by the unwashed! It's
nearly as bad as that execrable robot's attempt at creating an appertif.
Bryan J. Maloney
<andre...@chch.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> In the United Kingdom, the order is:
>
> 1. Decorations & Honours:
>
> VC GC KG KT KP GCB OM GCSI GCMG GCIE CI GCVO GBE CH KCB KCSI KCMG KCIE
> KCVO KBE
> CB CSI CMG CIE CVO CBE DSO LVO OBE ISO MVO MBE RRC DSC MC DFC AFC ARRC
> AM DCM
> CGM GM DSM MM DFM AFM QGM BEM QPM SGM VD ERD TD ED RD VRD AD
>
LBJ took the IRC down to 4th St., USA.
When he got there, what did he see?
The youth of America on LSD.
LBJ,
IRC,
USA,
LSD.
LSD,
LBJ,
FBI,
CIA.
FBI CIA LSD,
L
B
J.
(Good Lord, I did that from memory.)
Francois R. Velde
>want to be differentiated from the medical profession.
Easily done in the US, by not calling oneself a doctor.
>After all, the
>doctorate as a university degree has been around as long or longer than the use
>of "doctor" by physicians.
True, and once upon a time some doctorates conferred nobility, and doctors
dressed differently. (They still do once a year for the enjoyment of the
tuition-paying parents.) Things change.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Francois R. Velde
>I find the bit about 'reputable' institutions quite amusing.
I didn't think there were any other kind in the UK.
<lightbulb>
Oh, they had in mind disreputable *American* institutions....
Andrew Yong
Francois R. Velde <ve...@heraldica.nospam.org> wrote in message
news:8d2296$1okt$1...@news.enteract.com...
> him, and that can be useful. But the mailman has no need to be informed
> of the addressee's medals and degrees, and the addressee knows them
already.
I think it's very important to include post-nominals on envelopes, if not
elsewhere. I'd think it improper to leave out even the 'R.N.' behind the
name of a lowly naval cadet, let alone someone's VC (God forbid.)
andrew
Andrew Yong
Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldica_nospam.org> wrote in message
news:k9f7fsop6m2krlfnh...@4ax.com...
> My impression is that, in the US, and outside of universities, the use of
> "Doctor" for others than holders of M.D. is not common.
Incidentally, in Britain most doctors are not M.D. or D.M., but mere B.M.
B.Ch. (Bachelor of Medicine & Chirurgy). The title 'Dr.' is an honourific.
The only people with D.M.s tend to be academics.
The title Dr. is not used by surgeons, who are plain Mr. (and get very
stroppy when they are addressed as Dr.!), as are gynaecologists in England &
Wales (Dr. elsewhere)
andrew
Andrew Yong
In the United Kingdom, the order is:
1. Decorations & Honours:
VC GC KG KT KP GCB OM GCSI GCMG GCIE CI GCVO GBE CH KCB KCSI KCMG KCIE
KCVO KBE
CB CSI CMG CIE CVO CBE DSO LVO OBE ISO MVO MBE RRC DSC MC DFC AFC ARRC
AM DCM
CGM GM DSM MM DFM AFM QGM BEM QPM SGM VD ERD TD ED RD VRD AD
CC OC CM in Canada, and ONZ in New Zealand, will come immediately after
VC and GC
In Australia, AK follows OM, AC follows GBE, AO follows KBE, AM follows
DSO
In Barbados, KA follows CH
2. Appointments made by or on behalf of The Queen
PC (only when necessary) ADC QHP QHS QHDS QHNS QHC QC JP DL
3. University Degrees
In Oxford in ascending order, in Cambridge in descending order.
Degrees below that of Doctor are rarely listed
4. Medical Qualifications other than University Degrees
Medical, then surgical, then others, e.g. FRCP FRCS
5. Fellowships/Memberships of Learned Societies & Professional Institutions
In order of foundation
6. Appointments or Offices
e.g. MP MLA MLC CC WS
Andrew Yong
DOCTOR the title Dr should no longer be confined to medical practitioners.
If a person has a doctorate from a reputable institution, and wishes to be
known as Dr Smith, he or she should be so titled. If in doubt over
"reputable", consult the revise department. See APPELATIONS
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
No no no! I trust everyone realised I included those in jest!! As email
can be so often misinterpreted I suppose I should have included a smiley
face ":-)".
They are simply abbreviations of some of the societies which are
unfortunate enough to have me as a member:
Monarchist League of Canada (MLC)
Royal Stuart Society (RSS)
Royal Commonwealth Society (RCS)
English Speaking Union (ESU)
International Churchill Society (ICS)
I should have added BBC, ITV, CH4, CBS, NBC, BSB to make sure no one
took it seriously.
I would never list my memberships as post-nominals. "It's simply not
done" as my old house master would say. Be assured that I am fully aware
of what is and is not permitted.
Regards,
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo (who shall avoid all future attempts at humour!).
--
Glen Cook
>officers and Naval officers below the grade of CDR).
FWIW, while I have not seen the msg., I am informed the (US) Navy has now
decided that Mr. is inappropriate for Jr. officers (O-1 -O-4). First, they
took away our beards...
Glen Cook
Coo...@aol.com
Michael F. McCartney
As the saying goes re: actresses, it's not the clothing; she'd look just as
good without it!
Michael F. McCartney
>Incidentally, in Britain most doctors are not M.D. or D.M., but mere B.M.
>B.Ch. (Bachelor of Medicine & Chirurgy). The title 'Dr.' is an honourific.
Once again, in the words of Winston Churchill, Hon. Citizen of the USA by Act
of Congress (is there a postnomial for that?? :)
"Two peoples divided by a common tongue"
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
"Michael F. McCartney" wrote:
>
> >
> >Incidentally, in Britain most doctors are not M.D. or D.M., but mere B.M.
> >B.Ch. (Bachelor of Medicine & Chirurgy). The title 'Dr.' is an honourific.
> >The only people with D.M.s tend to be academics. (etc - snipped)
>
> Once again, in the words of Winston Churchill, Hon. Citizen of the USA by Act
> of Congress (is there a postnomial for that?? :)
> "Two peoples divided by a common tongue"
Churchill never said this. Also the correct phrasing is "common
language". I believe G.B. Shaw is the author of this particular
quotation. At any rate not Churchill.
As for Churchill's Hon. Citizenship (1963) you raise an interesting
point. I assume it carried post-nominals but then again there have only
been two or possibly three such grants in U.S. history so it is
difficult to find sources.
Churchill's complete list of orders, decorations and medals are as
follows (in no particular order):
The Most Noble Order of the Garter
War Medal 1939 – 1945
Grand Cross of the Order of St. Olav of Norway
The Order of Merit
Territorial Decoration
Grand Cross of the Order of the Oak Crown of Luxembourg
Companion of Honour
Order of Military Merit (Spain)Ist Class
Medaille Militaire de France
India Medal 1895
Spanish Medal, Cuban Campaign 1895 – 1898
Sudan, 1896 –1897
U.S.A. Distinguished Service Medal (Army)
Nobel Prize for Literature 1953
S. Africa Queen Victoria’s Medal 1899 – 1902
Khedives Sudan Medal 1896 – 1905
Privy Councilor 1907
1914 – 1915 Star
Belgian Croix de Guerre (avec Palme) 1939–1945
Elder Brother of Trinity House
British War Medal 1914 – 1920
Luxembourg War Medal
Lord Warden of the Cinque-Ports
Victory Medal
Danish War Medal 1945
Honorary Academician Extraordinary
1939 – 1945 Star
French Croix de Guerre (avec Palme) 1939–1945
Honorary Citizen of The United States of America 1963
Africa Star
French Croix de la Liberation
King George V Coronation 1911
Italy Star 1943 – 1945
Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Leopold of Belgium
King George V Silver Jubilee 1933
France and Germany Star 1944 – 1945
Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Lion of the Netherlands
King George VI Coronation 1937
Defence Medal 1939 – 1945
The Order of the Elephant of Denmark
Queen Elizabeth II Coronation 1953
(In Churchill's case post-nominals are normally limited to: KG, OM, CH,
PC, MP)
Regards,
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo wrote:
>
> "Michael F. McCartney" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Incidentally, in Britain most doctors are not M.D. or D.M., but mere B.M.
> > >B.Ch. (Bachelor of Medicine & Chirurgy). The title 'Dr.' is an honourific.
> > >The only people with D.M.s tend to be academics. (etc - snipped)
> >
> > Once again, in the words of Winston Churchill, Hon. Citizen of the USA by Act
> > of Congress (is there a postnomial for that?? :)
> > "Two peoples divided by a common tongue"
>
> Churchill never said this. Also the correct phrasing is "common
> language". I believe G.B. Shaw is the author of this particular
> quotation. At any rate not Churchill.
This has been annoying me. It definitely is not Churchill but I have not
yet been able to confirm its true origin. I couldn't find a reference in
Bartlett's, the Oxford Dict. or the Penguin Dict of Quotations. Then a
distant memory of a Wilde quote popped in to my mind. I managed to find
the following in *Oscar Wilde's Wit and Wisdom*: "We have really
everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course,
language." The Canterville Ghost.
I assume that is the origin of the later variant (which I still believe
belongs to that other Irish wit).
Completely off-topic. Apologies.
To rectify that: Does anyone know if either of these two authors was
armigerous?
Francois R. Velde
>>
>> Churchill never said this. Also the correct phrasing is "common
>> language". I believe G.B. Shaw is the author of this particular
>> quotation. At any rate not Churchill.
I have seen it attributed to Shaw, but I don't have a reference.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>"Michael F. McCartney" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Incidentally, in Britain most doctors are not M.D. or D.M., but mere B.M.
>> >B.Ch. (Bachelor of Medicine & Chirurgy). The title 'Dr.' is an honourific.
>> >The only people with D.M.s tend to be academics. (etc - snipped)
>>
>> Once again, in the words of Winston Churchill, Hon. Citizen of the USA by Act
>> of Congress (is there a postnomial for that?? :)
No, Oscar Wilde in The Catnterville Ghost, chapter I "We have really everything
in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language."
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University
Press. Copyright © 1993, 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
>
>Churchill never said this. Also the correct phrasing is "common
>language". I believe G.B. Shaw is the author of this particular
>quotation. At any rate not Churchill.
No, as above.
>
>As for Churchill's Hon. Citizenship (1963) you raise an interesting
>point. I assume it carried post-nominals but then again there have only
>been two or possibly three such grants in U.S. history so it is
>difficult to find sources.
>
>Churchill's complete list of orders, decorations and medals are as
>follows (in no particular order):
You omit something from this list of which he was particularly proud,
Churchill was also an Honorary member of the Society of the Cincinnati,
to which he was also entitled as a Representative officer.
>----------------------------
>Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
>raf...@home.com (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)
>hey...@hotmail.com
>traf...@england.com (London, England)
>
>"I have no intention of passing my remaining years in explaining or
>withdrawing anything I have said in the past, still less in apologising
>for it." Sir Winston S. Churchill.
Guy Stair Sainty
Stair...@msn.com
www.ChivalricOrders.org
Dr J.C. Horton
> In article <20000411092656...@ng-ff1.aol.com>,
> coo...@aol.comnojunk (Glen Cook) wrote:
> Yes, the professional law degree in the U.S. is the J.D(Juris
> Doctor). The LLD is an honorary degree. Lawyers never use the
> J.D., except for law professors who use it in academic circles
> (and they are seldom real lawyers anyway ! ;-) The LLD is given
> most often to non-lawyers; and the largest group of LLD holders
> are probably the clergy. Lots of "Rev. Dr." such and so running
> around.
In the U.K., the degree of LL.D. is a substantive degree which can also be
granted _honoris causa_. Perhaps you could explain why clerks in holy orders
should most frequently be admitted to the degree of LL.D. (h.c.). The degree of
Doctor of Divinity seems more suitable to me.
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> >> Once again, in the words of Winston Churchill, Hon. Citizen of the USA by Act
> >> of Congress (is there a postnomial for that?? :)
> >> "Two peoples divided by a common tongue"
>
> No, Oscar Wilde in The Catnterville Ghost, chapter I "We have really everything
> in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language."
>
> The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University
> Press. Copyright © 1993, 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Thank you Guy. As I stated in a follow-up post I remembered that early
variant too. However I believe Shaw used it in a slightly different form
as quoted supra (Churchill himself pilfered the odd phrase including
"Iron Curtain").
> >
> >Churchill's complete list of orders, decorations and medals are as
> >follows (in no particular order):
>
> You omit something from this list of which he was particularly proud,
> Churchill was also an Honorary member of the Society of the Cincinnati,
> to which he was also entitled as a Representative officer.
Thank you for this. I forgot all about it. According to my records
Churchill was awarded the honorary membership by General Hume, the
President General of the Society in January 1952. A few days later on
January 24th the General died. [Curiously, this was the same date of
Churchill's death in 1965 and it was also the date that Sir Winston's
father, Lord Randolph Churchill, died in 1895.]
Dr J.C. Horton
> Which brings me to my personal attitude to the matter: those who would need to
> know already do, those who don't couldn't care less, so why ever bother?
How do those in the first category find out?
"Those who would need to know already do" sounds like a proverbial chicken and egg
situation. As someone who has been in such a situation occasionally, I can comment
that discovery of such matters as post-nominal letters can be far from easy.
James Hyder
the S.J.D. = Doctor of Sacred Theology). I do not believe that
divinity degrees are given honoris. For whatever reason, the
LL.D. has evolved (devolved?) into an honorary degree given to
all sorts of folks, mostly for giving money to the University.
The clergy seek out honorary degrees because it tends to raise
their standing (and salary), they get called Dr. instead of Rev.
and, in many denominations (Methodist and Presbyterian and
others), they get to wear those nice stripes on the sleeves of
their robes! And the LL.D. is just more common than other
honorary degrees and not too hard to get, if you don't care
about where it comes from. You can order LL.D.s online, I
think. ;-). (Another honorary is the D.H.L. (Doctor of Humane
Letters, and the S.J.D, but I do not know what that stands for)).
James Hyder, B.B.A.; J.D.; Esq., (all earned), of that Bilk
Augusta, GA
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dr J.C. Horton
> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit "Dr J.C. Horton" <ccz...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk>
> os suum:
> There was a New Yorker cartoon a while back showing a maitre d' in a fancy
> restaurant taking down a phone reservation, and saying: "Very well, table for 4
> at 6pm for Dr. Johnson. May I ask if this is a true medical doctor or merely a
> Ph.D.?"
Reflecting the widespread assumption that one can be a doctor in the faculty of
medicine only ...
> My impression is that, in the US, and outside of universities, the use of
> "Doctor" for others than holders of M.D. is not common.
In the U.K., it is also used by the holders of certain bachelors' degrees.
Bryan J. Maloney
<jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid> wrote:
> The clergy seek out honorary degrees because it tends to raise
> their standing (and salary), they get called Dr. instead of Rev.
> and, in many denominations (Methodist and Presbyterian and
Father Epiphianos has no degree and he is called Father Epiphianos.
Father Stephen has a Bachelor's and he is called Father Stephen.
Father Jack has a Doctorate and he is called Father Jack.
Sometimes, the old ways are best.
> others), they get to wear those nice stripes on the sleeves of
> their robes! And the LL.D. is just more common than other
> honorary degrees and not too hard to get, if you don't care
My own undergrad school would hand out honorary PhD degrees, for example.
Mind you, they were not accredited to hand out REAL PhD degrees, since
they were a purely undergraduate institution.
Bryan J. Maloney
<jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid> wrote:
> James Hyder, B.B.A.; J.D.; Esq., (all earned), of that Bilk
> Augusta, GA
HOW on EARTH does one "earn" an "Esq." in the USA? I could style myself
"Esq." in the USA with exactly as much legitimacy as you do.
Bryan J. Maloney
<raf...@home.com> wrote:
> Churchill's complete list of orders, decorations and medals are as
> follows (in no particular order):
>
And a Partridge in a Pear Tree!
Bryan J. Maloney
<Guy_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> You omit something from this list of which he was particularly proud,
> Churchill was also an Honorary member of the Society of the Cincinnati,
> to which he was also entitled as a Representative officer.
Now that IS something unusual for an Englishman to hold!
James Hyder
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>In article <03588df3...@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com>, James
Hyder
><jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> James Hyder, B.B.A.; J.D.; Esq., (all earned), of that Bilk
>> Augusta, GA
>
>HOW on EARTH does one "earn" an "Esq." in the USA? I could
style myself
>"Esq." in the USA with exactly as much legitimacy as you do.
>
>"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
>should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
>dealing with our mental health crisis today."
>
when I was admitted to practice law. (I posted a complete
explanation about this within the past year, as I recall.) You
can call yourself the King of Siam, if you wish, in the U.S. or
anywhere else, for that matter (except perhaps Siam, I suppose ;-
)). But if you call yourself Esq. in the U.S., and you are not
a lawyer, you had best be careful. If you actually try to
practice law without a license, you will be set upon by jack
booted thugs working for the Bar association! And it is a
misdemeanor crime.
James Hyder
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>
> In article <8d4evc$19...@drn.newsguy.com>, Guy Stair Sainty
> <Guy_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > You omit something from this list of which he was particularly proud,
> > Churchill was also an Honorary member of the Society of the Cincinnati,
> > to which he was also entitled as a Representative officer.
>
> Now that IS something unusual for an Englishman to hold!
>
You are forgetting his American mother. "I am myself an English Speaking
Union" he once said. A critical biography of Churchill is entitled "The
Yankee Marlborough". His ancestors were officer's in Washington's army.
Quite fitting then.
Francois R. Velde
I only speak of my personal experience, and my personal attitude. They know
because the context provides enough clues. I don't recall ever having to
say to someone: "I think you should know that I have a Ph.D." (and certainly
not to my mailman). When people want or need to know my degrees, they ask,
and I tell them. I don't walk around with my CV on my forehead either;
it's available upon request.
If I lived in the UK, my experience and my attitude would presumably be
quite different.
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Dr J.C. Horton
> >Why treat a doctor in one faculty so much differently to a doctor in another
> >faculty as to actually deny even the existence of the doctorate?
>
> Just a different cultural view as to the value to the community of various
> occupations, and a general scepticism or dislike of putting on airs. Rightly or
> wrongly (if those terms have any universal meaning re: social mores) Americans
> (or at least those without a PhD!!) don't tend to view a non-medical doctor as
> a "real" doctor - which to us instinctively means "the guy who can make you
> well again" even when we know that the term has other definitions. Someone
> flaunting a non-medical doctorate here (unless its qualified e.g. "Reverend
> Doctor" - the other ethical pillar in small-town life that still defines much
> of our culture) is likely to be suspected of coattail-riding.
Fascinating.
James Hyder
Horton" <ccz...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>Francois R. Velde wrote:
>
>> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit "Dr J.C. Horton"
<ccz...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk>
>> os suum:
d' in a fancy
>> restaurant taking down a phone reservation, and saying: "Very
well, table for 4
>> at 6pm for Dr. Johnson. May I ask if this is a true medical
doctor or merely a
>> Ph.D.?"
>
>Reflecting the widespread assumption that one can be a doctor
in the faculty of
>medicine only ...
>
>> My impression is that, in the US, and outside of
universities, the use of
>> "Doctor" for others than holders of M.D. is not common.
>
>In the U.K., it is also used by the holders of certain
bachelors' degrees.
>
>
>
name. Are you a physician, a cleric, a professor (a diesel
mechanic)?
inq...@my-deja.com
>
>
>
> In the U.K., it is also used by the holders of certain bachelors'
degrees.
>
doctor as a title. Here a chiropractor studies, I believe 4 years (a
typical time frame for earning a bachelors' degree) and they are
refered to as doctors same with optometrists. Can you give a few
examples in the UK?
Thanks
Brian Gaylord Francis Jeffs (I'll skip the post-nominal)oh no! my ego
won't let me....it's typing them anyways ahhhh!!! MS CPG
Bath, MI-USA
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>In article <bjm10-13040...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
>bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>>In article <03588df3...@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com>, James
>Hyder
>><jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> James Hyder, B.B.A.; J.D.; Esq., (all earned), of that Bilk
>>> Augusta, GA
>when I was admitted to practice law. (I posted a complete
>explanation about this within the past year, as I recall.) You
>can call yourself the King of Siam, if you wish, in the U.S. or
>anywhere else, for that matter (except perhaps Siam, I suppose ;-
>)). But if you call yourself Esq. in the U.S., and you are not
>a lawyer, you had best be careful. If you actually try to
>practice law without a license, you will be set upon by jack
>booted thugs working for the Bar association! And it is a
>misdemeanor crime.
Is it the case that the title "esquire" has some legal protection
to insure its use only by lawyers? I find that astonishing. Is this
a federal crime, or a crime in one or more States? If the latter,
which ones?
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>>>Which brings me to my personal attitude to the matter: those who would need to
>>> know already do, those who don't couldn't care less, so why ever bother?
>
>> How do those in the first category find out?
>
>>"Those who would need to know already do" sounds like a proverbial chicken and
>>egg
>>situation. As someone who has been in such a situation occasionally, I can
>>comment
>> that discovery of such matters as post-nominal letters can be far from easy.
>I only speak of my personal experience, and my personal attitude. They know
>because the context provides enough clues. I don't recall ever having to
>say to someone: "I think you should know that I have a Ph.D." (and certainly
>not to my mailman). When people want or need to know my degrees, they ask,
>and I tell them. I don't walk around with my CV on my forehead either;
>it's available upon request.
>
>If I lived in the UK, my experience and my attitude would presumably be
>quite different.
Actually I think relatively few people use their academic distinctions in
ordinary circumstances - probably only when applying for a job. It is
usual for academics to employ them as they are indicators of their
qualifications for the job in hand. Honorifics (British) are used because
they confer not only particular social status and precedence, but a title (in
the case of a Knight) that is also enjoyed by the latter's spouse.
While this is not the practice in France, it is the practice in Italy,
for example, where rabnks such as "Cav(aliere)", "Comm(endatore)",
"Gr(ande) Uff(iciale)" and "Gr(ande) Cr(oce)" are in common use, as
are academic or professional distinctions such as Ingegnere, Dottore,
Avvocato, etc. This is most unusual, however, in Great Britain, except in
the case of medical doctors.
The latter is also common practice in Germany. Until 1918
nobiliary and knightly titles were always used, and the former are used
as part of the name. Those Frenchmen with hereditary titles and many without,
use such titles on a daily basis in Society, and sometimes in their
professional lives also.
Obviously the use of titles (of nobility) is inappropriate in US society,
although there are occasions when it may be correct socially, and it
is (in my view) unnecessarily rude of some newspapers (the New York Times
is a notorious example) to refer to European nobles as "Mr" when reporting
some event in Europe (Britain, for example, where Peers are routinely
referred to as Mr X..... once their name is first given, or Knights
likewise).
Edwin King
>
> In the U.K., the degree of LL.D. is a substantive degree which can also be
> granted _honoris causa_. Perhaps you could explain why clerks in holy orders
> should most frequently be admitted to the degree of LL.D. (h.c.). The degree of
> Doctor of Divinity seems more suitable to me.
Most universities in the UK have a Faculty of Law. Many don't have a
Faculty of Divinity (awarding theology degrees through the Faculty or
Arts) and therefore aren't in a position to award DDs.
I'd dispute the statement that the largest number of LL.D holders are
the clergy.
I was also once told that DDs were "higher" doctorates, but am not quite
sure what was meant by this. Within the Ancient Universities DDs had
special privileges as they did within the Established Church.
Edwin
Francois R. Velde
>There is no love lost between me and the Prime Minister of Malaysia, but
>whenever I see an article by the IHT (or was it the AWSJ?) that calls him
>"Mr Mahathir" (he is a medical doctor), I assume that the newspaper has
>nothing worth telling me and I stop reading.
Perhaps they have the same style guide as the Times. Was the conferring
institution reputable?...
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Andrew Chaplin
society,
> although there are occasions when it may be correct socially, and it
> is (in my view) unnecessarily rude of some newspapers (the New York
Times
> is a notorious example) to refer to European nobles as "Mr" when
reporting
> some event in Europe (Britain, for example, where Peers are routinely
> referred to as Mr X..... once their name is first given, or Knights
> likewise).
>
(who had his attempt to accept a title from the Queen scotched by the
PM). I have read several articles today about the retirement of
Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire, CMM, MSC, CD; some of the papers
referred to him as Mr. (?!) Dallaire. He has not even had a chance to
put his uniform into a suitbag and they've already busted him to a long-
haired, banjo-eyed, low-life civvy. (Sorry, I didn't know my rant mode
was on.)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
Andrew Yong
Guy Stair Sainty <Guy_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:8d5e6d$8...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Obviously the use of titles (of nobility) is inappropriate in US society,
> although there are occasions when it may be correct socially, and it
> is (in my view) unnecessarily rude of some newspapers (the New York Times
> is a notorious example) to refer to European nobles as "Mr" when reporting
> some event in Europe (Britain, for example, where Peers are routinely
> referred to as Mr X..... once their name is first given, or Knights
> likewise).
There is no love lost between me and the Prime Minister of Malaysia, but
whenever I see an article by the IHT (or was it the AWSJ?) that calls him
"Mr Mahathir" (he is a medical doctor), I assume that the newspaper has
nothing worth telling me and I stop reading.
andrew
Andrew Yong
<inq...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8d59i3$6u1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I am curious, which bachelors degree (subject of study) holders use
> doctor as a title. Here a chiropractor studies, I believe 4 years (a
> typical time frame for earning a bachelors' degree) and they are
> refered to as doctors same with optometrists. Can you give a few
> examples in the UK?
Bachelors of Medicine and Surgery.
andrew
Andrew Yong
Edwin King <edwin...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:38F64F...@virgin.net...
> I was also once told that DDs were "higher" doctorates, but am not quite
> sure what was meant by this. Within the Ancient Universities DDs had
> special privileges as they did within the Established Church.
The seven faculties in which doctorates are awarded are, in order of
precedence, Divinity, Law, Letters, Medicine, Music, Philosophy, and
Science.
Oxford gives DCLs (Doctor of Civil Law) and not LLDs: I wonder why the
distinction, since there seems not to be a doctorate of canon law.
andrew
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
Andrew Yong wrote:
>
> Edwin King <edwin...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:38F64F...@virgin.net...
>
> > I was also once told that DDs were "higher" doctorates, but am not quite
> > sure what was meant by this. Within the Ancient Universities DDs had
> > special privileges as they did within the Established Church.
>
> The seven faculties in which doctorates are awarded are, in order of
> precedence, Divinity, Law, Letters, Medicine, Music, Philosophy, and
> Science.
Are you sure? According to Debrett's the corect order (at Oxford) is
Divinity, Law, *Medicine*, Letters, *Science*, Music, Philosophy.
>
> Oxford gives DCLs (Doctor of Civil Law) and not LLDs: I wonder why the
> distinction, since there seems not to be a doctorate of canon law.
>
Also at Oxford (as with most universities) degrees are placed in
ascending order (B.A., M.Sc., D.Phil) whereas at Cambridge they are
placed in descending order (following the protocol for decorations).
Glen Cook
>their standing (and salary), they get called Dr. instead of Rev
And some are VERY particular in pointing out that theirs is an earned degree.
Glen Cook
Coo...@aol.com
Glen Cook
>a lawyer, you had best be careful.
Umm, I would disagree. Unless you can show a person is using the appelation as
an indication s/he's an attorney, there is absolutely no prohibition in using
the "title." Indeed, at one time (possibly before your birth, he said, dating
himself <G>) it was customarily used on Eastern U.S. social correspondence
among at least a certain class of people (I'll let others define what that
class was) and for Foreign Service Officers serving abroad. See, e.g.,
Debrett's Correct Form, p.358 (1970).
If you actually try to
>practice law without a license, you will be set upon by jack
>booted thugs working for the Bar association! And it is a
>misdemeanor crime.
As well it should be! My former partner was chair of our Bar's UPL committee.
Great fun. The Bar Counsel was authorized to prosecute violations (Class B
Misdemeanor).
>
>James Hyder
>Augusta, GA
Does GA still waive the bar exam for in state law graduates? As a young JAG,
we were terribly envious of GA grads.
>
Glen Cook
Coo...@aol.com
Glen Cook
>say to someone: "I think you should know that I have a Ph.D." (and certainly
>not to my mailman).
Based on my experience, he probably knew anyway.
Glen Cook
Coo...@aol.com
Michael F. McCartney
>> examples in the UK?
>
>Bachelors of Medicine and Surgery.
Ah--real doctors!!
Michael Fannin McCartney
Fremont, California
Edwin King
>
> Oxford gives DCLs (Doctor of Civil Law) and not LLDs: I wonder why the
> distinction, since there seems not to be a doctorate of canon law.
Only because Henry VIII abolished it...
Derek Howard
>
> "Francois R. Velde" wrote:
>
> > ought to indulge people's vanity and sprinkle the coveted initials after the
> > names of those who obtained them. I'd rather indulge their modesty and spare
> > them the embarrassment of having their achievements belabored in public.
>
> Not quite. I did state quite specificially that I was referring solely
> to formal engagements NOT informal social gatherings. I'm not
> suggesting that I would introduce someone as Sir X BBC, ITV, AC/DC when
> he is 'having a pint' at the Dog & Fox.
>
> All I am stating is that post-nominals should be used:
> On the envelope of a formal letter
> On the invitation to a formal function
> On the programme at such a function
> And in similar circumstances.
>
> When one receives a grant of arms are the awards of the grantee along
> with the heralds not included on the grant? Most certainly.
>
> For example..."The Most Noble Miles Francis Stapleton Duke of Norfolk
> Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter Knight Grand Cross of the
> Royal Victorian Order Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath
> Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire upon whom
> has been conferred the Decoration of the Military Cross Earl Marshal and
> Hereditary Marshal of England"
<snip>
Did the man not go to University? (I don't know the answer). This in
fact a worse example of what happens when too many titles are used - the
surname is lost.
Anyhow, we never see the Prince of Wales using or being addressed with
his BA or whatever in anthropology from Cambridge.
Derek FitzFather-Howard BA(Hons).
Derek Howard
>
> "Michael F. McCartney" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Incidentally, in Britain most doctors are not M.D. or D.M., but mere B.M.
> > >B.Ch. (Bachelor of Medicine & Chirurgy). The title 'Dr.' is an honourific.
> > >The only people with D.M.s tend to be academics. (etc - snipped)
> >
> > Once again, in the words of Winston Churchill, Hon. Citizen of the USA by Act
> > of Congress (is there a postnomial for that?? :)
> > "Two peoples divided by a common tongue"
>
> Churchill never said this. Also the correct phrasing is "common
> language". I believe G.B. Shaw is the author of this particular
> quotation. At any rate not Churchill.
>
> As for Churchill's Hon. Citizenship (1963) you raise an interesting
> point. I assume it carried post-nominals but then again there have only
> been two or possibly three such grants in U.S. history so it is
> difficult to find sources.
>
> Churchill's complete list of orders, decorations and medals are as
> follows (in no particular order):
>
> War Medal 1939 – 1945
> Grand Cross of the Order of St. Olav of Norway
> The Order of Merit
> Territorial Decoration
> Grand Cross of the Order of the Oak Crown of Luxembourg
> Companion of Honour
> Order of Military Merit (Spain)Ist Class
> Medaille Militaire de France
> India Medal 1895
> Spanish Medal, Cuban Campaign 1895 – 1898
> Sudan, 1896 –1897
> U.S.A. Distinguished Service Medal (Army)
> Nobel Prize for Literature 1953
> S. Africa Queen Victoria’s Medal 1899 – 1902
> Khedives Sudan Medal 1896 – 1905
> Privy Councilor 1907
> 1914 – 1915 Star
> Belgian Croix de Guerre (avec Palme) 1939–1945
> Elder Brother of Trinity House
> British War Medal 1914 – 1920
> Luxembourg War Medal
> Lord Warden of the Cinque-Ports
> Victory Medal
> Danish War Medal 1945
> Honorary Academician Extraordinary
> 1939 – 1945 Star
> French Croix de Guerre (avec Palme) 1939–1945
> Honorary Citizen of The United States of America 1963
> Africa Star
> French Croix de la Liberation
> King George V Coronation 1911
> Italy Star 1943 – 1945
> Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Leopold of Belgium
> King George V Silver Jubilee 1933
> France and Germany Star 1944 – 1945
> Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Lion of the Netherlands
> King George VI Coronation 1937
> Defence Medal 1939 – 1945
> The Order of the Elephant of Denmark
> Queen Elizabeth II Coronation 1953
>
> (In Churchill's case post-nominals are normally limited to: KG, OM, CH,
> PC, MP)
I wonder whether he individually cleared the acceptance of each of the
foreign awards with the responsible authority?
Derek Howard
Justin Howery
was an LLB, which about that time was upgraded across the country to a
doctoral level degree and redesignated as a JD. Supposedly,
universities allowed their graduates to trade in the old LLBs for new
JDs. This assertion was part of that person's proposition that law was
not a "real" doctorate, but had only entered the field through the
shameless self-promotion of lawyers. All of this was supposed to
explain why attorneys don't call themselves Doctor.
Is there any truth to this account?
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:21:52 -0700, James Hyder
<jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <20000411092656...@ng-ff1.aol.com>,
>coo...@aol.comnojunk (Glen Cook) wrote:
>>>Or are you suggesting that a
>>>>doctor of law should not place "LL.D" after his name?
>>>
>>>On his business cards & law journal articles, fine; but
>socially?
>>
>>Actually, in the U.S., no in either case.
>>
>>Remember folks, we are talking about two different cultures:
>UK (or
>>Commonwealth, if you will) and U.S. I follow Debrett's in UK
>matters. It
>>would be seen as as ridiculous to include my postnomials on
>everyday U.S.
>>correspondence or programs. And it's J.D. in the U.S. now. <G>
>>Glen Cook
>>Coo...@aol.com
>>
>>
>>
>Yes, the professional law degree in the U.S. is the J.D(Juris
>Doctor). The LLD is an honorary degree. Lawyers never use the
>J.D., except for law professors who use it in academic circles
>(and they are seldom real lawyers anyway ! ;-) The LLD is given
>most often to non-lawyers; and the largest group of LLD holders
>are probably the clergy. Lots of "Rev. Dr." such and so running
>around.
>
>You see the legal profession using Esq. as a "post nomial" (as a
>courtesy title, if you will.) We generally never refer to
>ourselves as Esq., but will address correspondence to other
>lawyers using that suffix.
James Hyder
that it had ever been waived. And I did not mean to state that
there is some sort of legal prohibition against adding the
suffix to your name. But, as you point out (and as I meant to
make clear), if one holds himself out as a lawyer (and is not
one), then he commits a misdemeanor under state law. Given the
fairly widespread understanding that "Esq." at the end of a name
means "this person is a lawyer", I think one would have a
difficult time explaining that his use of the suffix was
anything other than an attempt to deceive others.
James Hyder
Augusta, GA
James Hyder
<Guy_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <1206c258...@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com>, James
says...
>>
>>In article <bjm10-13040...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
>>bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>>>In article <03588df3...@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com>,
James
>>Hyder
>>><jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> James Hyder, B.B.A.; J.D.; Esq., (all earned), of that Bilk
>>>> Augusta, GA
>>I was given the suffix "Esq." by the Supreme Court of Georgia
>>when I was admitted to practice law. (I posted a complete
>>explanation about this within the past year, as I recall.) You
>>can call yourself the King of Siam, if you wish, in the U.S. or
>>anywhere else, for that matter (except perhaps Siam, I
suppose ;-
>>a lawyer, you had best be careful. If you actually try to
>>practice law without a license, you will be set upon by jack
>>booted thugs working for the Bar association! And it is a
>>misdemeanor crime.
>
protection
>to insure its use only by lawyers? I find that astonishing. Is
this
>a federal crime, or a crime in one or more States? If the
latter,
>which ones?
>
is not protected, per se. But practicing law without a license
is a misdemeanor under state law.
inq...@my-deja.com
"Andrew Yong" <andre...@chch.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> <inq...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8d59i3$6u1
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
(a
> > typical time frame for earning a bachelors' degree) and they are
> > examples in the UK?
>
> Bachelors of Medicine and Surgery.
>
>
Do these people study the typical 8 years plus specialization and
residency, etc., as they do in the USA? Typically at least in the USA
a bachelor is about 4 years of study, give or take. As for me it was
give, give, give.
BGJ
James Hyder
Howery <be...@tde.com> wrote:
>Someone told me once that until the 1950s the standard US law
degree
>was an LLB, which about that time was upgraded across the
country to a
>doctoral level degree and redesignated as a JD. Supposedly,
>universities allowed their graduates to trade in the old LLBs
for new
>JDs. This assertion was part of that person's proposition that
law was
>not a "real" doctorate, but had only entered the field through
the
>shameless self-promotion of lawyers. All of this was supposed to
>explain why attorneys don't call themselves Doctor.
>
>Is there any truth to this account?
>
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:21:52 -0700, James Hyder
><jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid> wrote:
>
Discussion Network *
>>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in
Usenet - Free!
>
>
professional law degree was once the LL.B. and is now the J.D.
Lawyers do not call themselves "Dr." for historical reasons
(lawyers in some other countries are called "Dr." or the
linguisitic equivalent). Whether or not a J.D. is a "real"
doctorate is in the eye of the beholder. Something similar
happened to the clergy where the B.Div was elevated to the
M.Div. But that degree(old B.Div., now M.Div.) is awarded after
4 years of post gradute work - the J.D. is only 3 years of post
graduate study. Go figure. In the academic community, the J.D.
is certainly seen as a lesser degree than the Ph.D., and in many
ways it probably is.
Derek Howard
I lost the correct posting to attach it to but thought folks might be
interested in the following from the 1870s:
Table of accademic precedence
1. chancellors
2. high stewards
3. vice-chancellors
4. recotrs
5. principals
6. heads of colleges and halls
7. doctors of divinity
8. doctors of law
9. doctors of medicine
10. doctors of music
11. bachelors of divinity
12. proctors
13. professors
14. masters of law
15. masters of arts
16. bachelors of law
17. bachelors of medicine
18. bachelors of music
19. bachelors of arts
Members of different institutions take precedence accoring to the
several faculties and degrees and the relative antiquty of the
university in the order of Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, Glasgow,
Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Dublin, London, Durham, Queens, Sydney, Melbourne,
Catholic, Royal, Victoria...
Dr J.C. Horton
> > In the U.K., it is also used by the holders of certain bachelors'
> degrees.
>
> I am curious, which bachelors degree (subject of study) holders use
> doctor as a title. Here a chiropractor studies, I believe 4 years (a
> typical time frame for earning a bachelors' degree) and they are
> refered to as doctors same with optometrists. Can you give a few
> examples in the UK?
The obvious example is those physicians who are not surgeons. Dentists
have recently been allowed to. As far as I know, vets have not. I'm
afraid I have no idea about people like chiropractors and optometrists.
Bryan J. Maloney
<jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid> wrote:
> I was given the suffix "Esq." by the Supreme Court of Georgia
> when I was admitted to practice law. (I posted a complete
> explanation about this within the past year, as I recall.) You
> can call yourself the King of Siam, if you wish, in the U.S. or
> anywhere else, for that matter (except perhaps Siam, I suppose ;-
> )). But if you call yourself Esq. in the U.S., and you are not
> a lawyer, you had best be careful. If you actually try to
"Esq." has no specific legal recognition in and of itself. Likewise, one
could illegally practice law WITHOUT using the term "Esq."
I would like to see a citation of the specific legislation limiting the
use of "Esq." IN AND OF ITSELF in a US Jurisdiction.
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
Bryan J. Maloney
<jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid> wrote:
> one), then he commits a misdemeanor under state law. Given the
> fairly widespread understanding that "Esq." at the end of a name
> means "this person is a lawyer", I think one would have a
> difficult time explaining that his use of the suffix was
> anything other than an attempt to deceive others.
It is not "fairly widespread". I've used it myself on and off and didn't
hear about the lawyerly use until quite recently.
The lawyer: A profession whose primary function is to protect people from
members of his own profession...
Bryan J. Maloney
<jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid> wrote:
> Please see my response to Glen Cook. The bare use of "esquire"
> is not protected, per se. But practicing law without a license
> is a misdemeanor under state law.
Prove that the use of "Esquire" is identical to practicing law without a
license.
Bryan J. Maloney, Esq.
Dr J.C. Horton
> Oxford gives DCLs (Doctor of Civil Law) and not LLDs: I wonder why the
> distinction, since there seems not to be a doctorate of canon law.
Not now; it disappeared at the Reformation.
At the time that there seemed some possiblity that Cambridge's vet school
would be closed down (about ten or fifteen years ago) and hence Cambridge
would produce no more Vet.M.B.s, it was claimed that this would be the first
Cambridge degree to disappear since King Henry VIII stopped the teaching of
canon law. The restriction on teaching canon law still seems to apply in
England. A canon law course has recently been instituted in Wales (University
College, Cardiff), however, and an acquaintance of mine was one of the first
people to take the course.
Dr J.C. Horton
> Anyhow, we never see the Prince of Wales using or being addressed with
> his BA or whatever in anthropology from Cambridge.
M.A.
inq...@my-deja.com
Thank you for the info. What I would like to know is do general
practise doctors (non surgeons) in the UK only attend university for 4
years? What other education do they have? Do surgeons have more
education? Just curious.
Brian Jeffs
Bath, MI-USA
James Hyder
hmmm. . not sure about that.
>Likewise, one could illegally practice law WITHOUT using the
>term "Esq."
Huh? You mean legally, right?
>I would like to see a citation of the specific legislation
>limiting the use of "Esq." IN AND OF ITSELF in a US
>Jurisdiction.
No such legislation that I know of, but it would be up to each
of the 50 states, so who knows. I'll see what I can find. I
can tell you that the Bar associations take a dim view of
disbarred lawyers using Esq. and there have been cases where a
disbarred lawyer was prevented from using it.
Edwin King
> A canon law course has recently been instituted in Wales (University
> College, Cardiff), however, and an acquaintance of mine was one of the first
> people to take the course.
This was introduced c1990. The University doesn't create Doctors in
Canon Law, but LL.Ds.
Edwin
Edwin King
Though of course a MA (Cantab) is not a "real" MA.
KauttWH
>From: James Hyder jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid
>Date: 4/14/2000 7:15 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <11ec1ec6...@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com>
>a
>>>courtesy title, if you will.) We generally never refer to
>>>ourselves as Esq., but will address correspondence to other
>>>lawyers using that suffix.
>>>
>Discussion Network *
>>>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in
>Usenet - Free!
>>
>>
>professional law degree was once the LL.B. and is now the J.D.
>Lawyers do not call themselves "Dr." for historical reasons
>(lawyers in some other countries are called "Dr." or the
>linguisitic equivalent). Whether or not a J.D. is a "real"
>doctorate is in the eye of the beholder. Something similar
>happened to the clergy where the B.Div was elevated to the
>M.Div. But that degree(old B.Div., now M.Div.) is awarded after
>4 years of post gradute work - the J.D. is only 3 years of post
>graduate study. Go figure. In the academic community, the J.D.
>is certainly seen as a lesser degree than the Ph.D., and in many
>ways it probably is.
Well, considering that there is a Master of Law and a PhD in Law beyond the
J.D., yes, it is "inferior" in an academic sense, but what does that matter?
Bryan J. Maloney
<jhydeN...@huntermaclean.com.invalid> wrote:
> >"Esq." has no specific legal recognition in and of itself.
>
> hmmm. . not sure about that.
>
> >Likewise, one could illegally practice law WITHOUT using the
> >term "Esq."
>
> Huh? You mean legally, right?
No, one could practice law without a license and never use "Esq." It has
no inherent connection to being admitted to the Bar.
> No such legislation that I know of, but it would be up to each
> of the 50 states, so who knows. I'll see what I can find. I
> can tell you that the Bar associations take a dim view of
> disbarred lawyers using Esq. and there have been cases where a
> disbarred lawyer was prevented from using it.
Those particular people have already gotten themselves into hot water on
other matters. I know folks who call themselves "Doctor", but it's of
"mixology". They don't pretend to be MEDICAL doctors and aren't hauled
before medical boards.
Then there's Doctor Demento!
If one can get away with "Doctor", "Esquire" is peanuts.
Francois R. Velde
Memo to self: file under "there will always be an England".
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/