|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: CofE clergy titles
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Agreed but you don't get anyone being called Teacher (name) do you? The status is sufficient rather than the (often insincere) flattery of "Father"
Indeed not but I think it a leap from the text to say that's what Christ had in mind. I don't particularly have a dog in this fight - if people ask me what they should call me I tell them to call me Mark - I don't think any Christian should have problems with being called by their baptismal name. But people choose to call me various things, including Father (with varying degrees of jocularity), and honestly, in agreement with Angloid, I much prefer that to Reverend (and variants). If I use it of someone, it is in the spirit of the relationship Paul speaks of in the letters to Timothy and Titus, where he describes them as his children in the faith: those who I feel have some role to share and encourage that faith.
To me, a true reading of Christ's warning is that we should not seek to aggrandise ourselves with titles or status. That danger lurks all over the place and it is that they we should be wary of not simply the particular words themselves.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
In the same passage, Christ tells us not to call anyone "teacher" either but I don't see anyone condemning the Sunday Schools of the land, nor yet those "Bible Teachers" that you see so prominently advertised in certain places.
Agreed but you don't get anyone being called Teacher (name) do you? The status is sufficient rather than the (often insincere) flattery of "Father"
You get people being called Professor, however. And Doctor. If you're Jewish and you teach little children their aleph-bet you get called 'Melamed'. You've painted yourself into a corner with your literalism, I think.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Tangent alert: I was surprised during my time working in the UK that first name address was used in professional situations there so much more than in America. What I would like to ask is: how long has this been the case, and what factors contributed to the proportionately greater rise in the use of first name address in Britain relative to the USA?
My entire adult life. So at least since the mid 1970s. At school we called the teachers "Sir" or "Miss" and surname, and they called us by surname when being formal, given name when being friendly - so a shift to surname could indicate that you were being criticised for something.
But from university onwards, including every job I've done, its usually personal names all round.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
You get people being called Professor, however.
Very, very, rarely. And usually in formal situations. Its not something I hear much and I work in a university.
quote:
And Doctor.
Only if you don't know them. But you are supposed to know your pastor. They aren't just someone you have hired for a short time to fix a problem.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
And Doctor.
Only if you don't know them. But you are supposed to know your pastor. They aren't just someone you have hired for a short time to fix a problem.
Never worked in the NHS, ken? Though to be fair, you should never call a surgeon "Doctor". Especially if they have one of the sharper tools of their trade in their hand.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
I work in a University and despite introducing myself to everyone using my first name, I am addressed perhaps more than half the time as "Professor Trick" by students.
That this form of address is voluntarily chosen by so many of my students would seem to indicate that the distance some posters feel implied in titles -- distance that by implication they are eager to erradicate -- is actually comforting or reassuring to a great many people.
(at conferences or professional meetings outside of my university I am pretty evenly addressed as "Prof Trick" or sometimes "Dr Trick" or even "Mr Trick, Professor of Gin Studies, Tanquerray University." I am universally addressed by my given name by colleagues).
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Agreed to soem extent but you don't get builders' labourers (as I once was) being called Labourer Mark. It was usually something far ruder but Mark in a real crisis.
It's not the title nor the clothes nor the background that's important but the depth of character.
I think, as Amos says, you're getting a bit into a literalistic twist.
Of course, it's the character of the minister involved that's important. Only a twit would think otherwise. But the minister must be called something whether formally, informally, on an envelope or in accordance with his job description. 'Father' is no better or worse than any other honorific - though depending on one's own churchmanship etc, some titles might not be regarded as appropriate.
By the way, never heard of 'Capability Brown'; never wondered where surnames came from: Smith, Taylor, Mason, Cooper, Fletcher? Even Simon the Zealot was called Simon the Zealot.
Names and functions may not be so intimately connected as they once were, but in the professions, they still are: Dr, Mr, Prof etc. I personally would prefer not to call an Anglican priest 'Father'; but if he is regarded as, or regards himself as the Father of his spiritual community under the authority of the Church I think it would be counting angels on pinheads to get areated over it.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Ken, I promise you your experience is not universal, even within the UK.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
By the way, never heard of 'Capability Brown'; never wondered where surnames came from: Smith, Taylor, Mason, Cooper, Fletcher? Even Simon the Zealot was called Simon the Zealot
The Zealoting business isn't what it used to be ...
Growing up I would address my Parents friends (particularly the Church ones) as "Uncle X" or "Auntie Y" - it was considered respectful and friendly at the same time. The Vicar was refered to as "Vicar X" on the same basis.
"Father" IMHO is very much a badge of churchmanship which is why it's always fun to refer to any Cleric who has trained at Oak Hill etc as "Father such and such" and amusing to hear people refer to the local housechurch leader as "your Rector".
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
On calling female priests "Father": one former interim rector at my parish was among the first women ordained in her original diocese, and she said she was regularly called "Father Mary" by folks accustomed to addressing priests as "Father." She said "Mother" would have been fine if her given name hadn't been Mary. She also said that if she ever wrote a book about her experiences, the title would be "Even My Husband Calls Me Father."
On the sir/ma'am tangent: calling people "sir" and "ma'am" isn't just a Southern or military thing in the U.S. It's also how you address strangers when you are being careful not to offend. Cops use "sir" and "ma'am" all the time. It's how I invariably address strangers at the church gate where I work.
And while we're being persnickety about language, allow me to note here that the phrase "women priests" is just wrong; "women" is not an adjective any more than "men" is. They're female priests.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Cops use "sir" and "ma'am" all the time.
Not around here, they don't. They scream at us, or demand to see our ID, or want to know where we're going. I can easily recall examples of all of the above, and don't believe I've ever been called "ma'am" by a cop.
Anyway, the point was that people use "sir" and "ma'am" in ordinary conversation. Some kids - mostly from the South, in my experience - are taught to use those forms of address every time they speak to any adult. In every sentence.
That sure doesn't happen around here, either.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Anyway, the point was that people use "sir" and "ma'am" in ordinary conversation. Some kids - mostly from the South, in my experience - are taught to use those forms of address every time they speak to any adult. In every sentence.
Isn't [British] English unusual in not having a polite way of addressing adults or strangers? In French (and most other languages?) it is perfectly natural - indeed expected - to begin a conversation with Bonjour Monsieur etc.
The problem in BrEng is class. "Sir' is expected only from inferiors to superiors. And you can't say "Hello Mister" [or "Reverend"].
It seems to me US southerners have improved the language (though I suspect it may come from linguistic interference from another language - probably French?).
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
First hand experience suggests that the term for addressing a stranger politely in modern Britain is generally considered to be 'mate'. Although 'Vicar mate' doesn't necessarily commend itself.
As ever, I reserve judgement.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ken, I promise you your experience is not universal, even within the UK.
What's that meant to mean?
It wasn't me that was painting the CofE as it looks from one small corner.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
First hand experience suggests that the term for addressing a stranger politely in modern Britain is generally considered to be 'mate'. Although 'Vicar mate' doesn't necessarily commend itself.
Though ' Bishop, matey' might.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
First hand experience suggests that the term for addressing a stranger politely in modern Britain is generally considered to be 'mate'. Although 'Vicar mate' doesn't necessarily commend itself.
The former Dean of Exeter, Keith Jones, tells a lovely story about a bloky bloke he met who wasn't sure what to call him. Just call me 'Dean' said Keith, to which the bloke replied, 'OK Dean, call me Wayne'.
In the same vein, all Archdeacons should henceforth be referred to as 'Archie'.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I like the story Murray Watts tells of a friend of his who was invited to tea by the then Archbishop of York, Donald Coggan. She was very nervous and didn't really know what to call him. Was it 'Your Grace' or 'Archbishop' or 'Dr Coggan'. But when it came to it she fluffed it and called him 'Arch-Coggan'.
(From Watts' 'Rolling in the Aisles' book.)
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
DangerousDeacon
Shipmate
# 10582
|
Posted
Culture is very important here - in Melanesia, I was never, never addressed by first name, unless it was preceded by a title. In that culture, that was the etiquette - in Australia, by and large, it is not once you get to know the person.
However, on the lighter side - late on Anzac Day I was walking back to the rectory past the local pub (this is an Australian country town). Out of the pub staggers a youngish man, who has been commemorating in Australian style the memory of the fallen. He sees this clerical apparition - clerical collar and dark jacket, service medals. There is a dim recognition in his eyes that (especially on Anzac Day) he should be respectful to someone who has served his country. He straightens up, looks me in the eye, and says "Hello, Priest dude sir." Or something to that effect.
--------------------
'All the same, it may be that I am wrong; what I take for gold and diamonds may be only a little copper and glass.'
Posts: 506 | From: Top End | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
There is a retired priest in my church who is always respectfully addressed as 'Canon First Name' - but I suspect it is more to do with the fact that his Christian name is the same as the vicar's and it therefore avoids confusion.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ken, I promise you your experience is not universal, even within the UK.
What's that meant to mean?
It wasn't me that was painting the CofE as it looks from one small corner.
His experience seems similar to mine and we've moved in mianly different circles in different parts of the uk (usually). I called all my tutors at Oxford by their first name (after the initial panic as to how to address them), all my colleagues in the schools I've taught in. Not sure of anyone I *don't* call by their first name in fact. I don't see doctors often, but midwives, health visitors, nurses, all seem to prefer first name. Also all the vicars I've come across so far (although I was at a vicar factory for a while so perhaps that makes a difference, but I've met tons since).
I'm in my 30s so perhaps its slightly a generational thing, but still I'd hardly say Ken's experience was unusual.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
How clergy address their bishops is another one. In one diocese I have served, simple first names were not regarded as in any way disrespectful. In another, I have never heard anyone (except perhaps fellow-bishops or archdeacons) address them as other than 'Bishop', and refer to them in conversation as Bishop (usually Firstname). I wouldn't be surprised if My Lord still lingers in some dioceses.
You would expect laity to be slightly more formal towards their bishops because they have a less direct relationship with them. Clergy have much the same relationship with their bishops as laypeople have with their parish priests. Hence no need for titles (unless, as we have argued ad nauseam, Father is seen as appropriate.)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ken, I promise you your experience is not universal, even within the UK.
What's that meant to mean?
It wasn't me that was painting the CofE as it looks from one small corner.
His experience seems similar to mine and we've moved in mianly different circles in different parts of the uk (usually). I called all my tutors at Oxford by their first name (after the initial panic as to how to address them), all my colleagues in the schools I've taught in. Not sure of anyone I *don't* call by their first name in fact. I don't see doctors often, but midwives, health visitors, nurses, all seem to prefer first name. Also all the vicars I've come across so far (although I was at a vicar factory for a while so perhaps that makes a difference, but I've met tons since).
I'm in my 30s so perhaps its slightly a generational thing, but still I'd hardly say Ken's experience was unusual.
No one has ventured to reflect on my question as to why first name address is more prevalent in the UK than the US. I've wondered if it came about as a way of social levelling and a rather feeble if possibly not fully conscious attempt at eradicating marks of the class system (even though first name address could never achieve this at all). By contrast, the class system in the US has been characterised historically both by greater mobility and by greater ambivalence/less overt hostility of the have-nots toward the haves, thus helping to retain a somewhat greater formality in personal address in the USA (in the South, the culture of sir and m'am is another matter and a deeply entrenched style of address that is reflective of a culture in which a class system is indeed far more entrenched than in other parts of the country).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
By contrast, the class system in the US has been characterised historically both by greater mobility and by greater ambivalence/less overt hostility of the have-nots toward the haves, thus helping to retain a somewhat greater formality in personal address in the USA (in the South, the culture of sir and m'am is another matter and a deeply entrenched style of address that is reflective of a culture in which a class system is indeed far more entrenched than in other parts of the country).
The thing is, I don't see this at all. People here DO call each other by first name in business situations; it's really rare for this not to be the case, at least in this area. I can't think of an instance of using "Mr." or "Mrs." in the situations described here....well, since the 1960s or so. Perhaps this is regional as well?
We call our priests by their first names, too, for the most part AFAIK (except in A-C joints).
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No one has ventured to reflect on my question as to why first name address is more prevalent in the UK than the US. I've wondered if it came about as a way of social levelling and a rather feeble if possibly not fully conscious attempt at eradicating marks of the class system (even though first name address could never achieve this at all).
I seriously doubt it. Or if it is the case its been going on for centuries. You'd have to apply the same to the replacing of "thou" and "thee" by "you". And that started in the 15th century and became common by the end of the 17th. (though it still isn't complete - there are probably about five million English speakers in the north of England who make a T/V distinction at least at home)
If I had to make up a Just So Story to explain it I'd say its that formality has become a mark of social distance in English, so removing these hierarchical distinctions becomes an indicator of social solidarity.
But then I don't believe that social class is more important in England than in the other English-speaking countries, just that its more visible. We talk about it more. You guys all have it too, but you don't notice it so much.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
is there *really* that more mobility in the USA? If you need medical care and don't have insurance or can't afford to go to uni aren't you pretty much stuck at the bottom?
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ondergard
Shipmate
# 9324
|
Posted
As a Methodist, I get used to being referred to as "a Vicar". I have even had phone calls beginning, "Is that the Methodist Vicar?". No matter how many times I try to explain that, whilst all Vicars are Ministers, not all Ministers are Vicars (or Canons, or Deans, or Archdeacons, or Bishops, or Curates or Fathers).
I try and explain that "vicar" is a peculiarly episcopal (Roman or Anglican) job description, rather than personal title, and so shouldn't be used as a form of address... then I hear an Anglican priest round here not only tolerating being referred to, but referring to herself when she phones me, as "Vicar Theresa"* so clearly clergy people go native eventually!
I still fight my corner, though! Please call me either "David" or "Mr Keeston" if you want to be formal, I say. You need only address me as "Reverend David Keston" when talking about me, not when talking to me.
"Okay, Reverend," they respond, cheerfully. "Tonight, we'd like to thank Reverend David for leading this service..."
God give me strength... where's the Circuit shotgun when you need it?
A peculiarity in the Methodist Church is our District's lead clergy person. In the old days, when we didn't ordain women, he was referred to as Chairman of the District, and called "Mr Chairman" in formal conversation or speeches. When we saw the light and began to ordain women, we of course eventually appointed women ministers to the District chair... so now, that's everyone's title who is heading a District - they are all District Chairs, and we refer to them as Madam Chair or Mister Chair, formally.
I happily conform to the new reality, but it always strikes me as the kind of egalitarian logic which confuses function with person. I saw, and see, no confusion about referring to our female district leaders as Madam Chairman, because in that case, surely, "Chairman" is descriptive of function, rather than gender?
If I as in the Royal Navy, I would have no hesitation in referring to a female matelot as "Bo's'un", even though, originally, that title was gender specific ("swain"), if that was her function.
Americans do this all the time. They refer to David Cameron as "Prime Minister Cameron" as if Prime Minister was his title, as President is for Obama. It's totally wrong. He should be referred to as "The Prime Minister", or "The Prime minister, Mr David Cameron".
Or, as I prefer to call him... no, don't go there!
* not her real name, obviously!
Posts: 276 | From: Essex | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr.Andrew
Apprentice
# 16332
|
Posted
As a fairly high church anglican priest in the Church in Wales - I prefer people to call me Father, but I answer to Andy, Andrew, Vicar- which I am not - I've always been non-stipendiiary ie: acting unpaid, - I was a police sergeant and was ordained while still serving in Greater Manchester Police - I was one of their Chaplains to the Police for over 20 years and a serving police officer at the same time. I got called all sorts of things, but as long as I was called regularly for meals and the odd single malt, I couldn't realy care less ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 3 | From: Bodelwyddan | Registered: Mar 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No one has ventured to reflect on my question as to why first name address is more prevalent in the UK than the US. I've wondered if it came about as a way of social levelling and a rather feeble if possibly not fully conscious attempt at eradicating marks of the class system (even though first name address could never achieve this at all).
I seriously doubt it. Or if it is the case its been going on for centuries. You'd have to apply the same to the replacing of "thou" and "thee" by "you". And that started in the 15th century and became common by the end of the 17th. (though it still isn't complete - there are probably about five million English speakers in the north of England who make a T/V distinction at least at home)
If I had to make up a Just So Story to explain it I'd say its that formality has become a mark of social distance in English, so removing these hierarchical distinctions becomes an indicator of social solidarity.
But then I don't believe that social class is more important in England than in the other English-speaking countries, just that its more visible. We talk about it more. You guys all have it too, but you don't notice it so much.
I think the thing is, social class was historically institutionalised in British society in a different way to that which developed in the American colonies and in post-revolutionary America. The institutionalisation of the aristocracy, and the monarch as the font of honour - with the whole attendant system of honours - did indeed create a highly visible class system, augmented by a landed gentry and later a wealthy capitalist class (both of the latter as in America) that often aspired as much as possible to the ways and outward status displays of their aristocratic "betters". However, the higher echelons of the British class system have no equivalent in American society. This is a cause of historically greater social mobility in America than in Britain, since there has never been much chance of being being granted an hereditary peerage, whereas for the exceptionally talented or industrious there has always been a somewhat better chance in both countries of moving into the class of wealthy capitalists or failing that, at least into the ranks of the well-off merchant bourgeoisie. Of course, there are plenty of reasons to think that upward social mobility in America is now declining - perhaps precipitously - but the effects of the different social class systems on either side of the pond upon social manners arguably were determinative in the years after the Second World War as British society sought to modernise and open up social opportunities, whilst American society got stuck - with the exception of some fairly brief interludes - in a reactionary cycle of social conservatism that has tended to worship social authority and hierarchy. Of course, American society is less formal now than in the past, but again the point is that in certain ways these developments have gone further in Britain than in America, so one seeks an explanation for why this might be the case.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I would add to Lietuvas' interesting post that class in the US has a powerful racial and ethnic component (in Canada, it is more regional and linguistic, although one would be foolish to ignore how aboriginal Canadians are usually placed on the lowest possible rung), and in those ways has a strong hereditary component. In both countries, class and accent have a role--note how Mrs Palin was dissed on account of her rural Wasilla accent (and used it, as well) and many looked down upon (ex-PM) Jean Chrétien on account of his nigh-incomprehensible Mauricien French and even more mangled English.
How clergy are addressed here is a shifting scene, partly as older generations more used to Mr (or, in some areas, Father) are replaced by a generation which, while perhaps wishing to be respectful, has little experience of clergy and church life. A further complication, I am reminded, is of a cohort of young non-Xns who cheerfully conflate Xn and Sikh/Muslim terminology. One of my colleagues begged off Sunday duty for an official visit on the grounds that she was helping out at church-- upon my idle coffee-chat enquiry as to which church she attended, I was told it was the Rideau Heights Gurdwara. They've a new reverend there, she continued, who was really good with young people.
As far as the distinctions between Venerable and Very Reverend &c., the (Ismaili) correspondence officer I briefed seemed to have no trouble with it and was grinning with delight when I constructed a table with the RC/ Anglican/ Orthodox/ UCC/ Presbyterian titles all laid out for her. I was very good, and omitted telling her to write "stooping to kiss the hem of the sacred purple" at the bottom of letters to Baptist clergy.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lola
Ship's kink
# 627
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ken, I promise you your experience is not universal, even within the UK.
What's that meant to mean?
It wasn't me that was painting the CofE as it looks from one small corner.
His experience seems similar to mine and we've moved in mianly different circles in different parts of the uk (usually). I called all my tutors at Oxford by their first name (after the initial panic as to how to address them), all my colleagues in the schools I've taught in. Not sure of anyone I *don't* call by their first name in fact. I don't see doctors often, but midwives, health visitors, nurses, all seem to prefer first name. Also all the vicars I've come across so far (although I was at a vicar factory for a while so perhaps that makes a difference, but I've met tons since).
I'm in my 30s so perhaps its slightly a generational thing, but still I'd hardly say Ken's experience was unusual.
All teachers at my (very large) sixth form college were addressed by their first name, including the principal. (Well, expect for Mr Kingsley who wanted everyone to address him as such - we did but it made us think he was a bit of a wally - he was also the only teacher to insist that the no beachwear rule menat no shorts in his lessons). Then at university we reverted to Dr/Prof Lastname for the lecturers which was a bit weird.
My doctor is actually a good friend of Mr Lola's whom I consequently address by his first name, however, I would therefore always ask for my appointment to be with one of the other practise members who I would address as Dr Lastname.
In the business world, working in British operations of large multi-national corporations I have never encountered anything apart from first name usage for everyone right up to senior partners on the main board of big four accountancy practises or the CEO of major PLCs. In fact, the CEO is generally referred to by just his first name because everyone will know who that is.
Within the teams I have worked in/work in people will sometimes use Mr Lastname or Miss Lastname to a colleague they are fond of to be jokey with them. I also once worked in a team where we referred to the senior mgrs that we liked as Uncle Firstname (although not to their faces!).
I don't have lots of experience of the USA although what I do have supports the argument that they are far more formal. My experience was also that there was a big insistence on offices with these perceived as a status symbol. Most UK offices buildings I have worked in have been entirely open plan with maybe two or three offices for the most senior staff or for HR to hold confidential meetings.
Posts: 951 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Lola's tangent is an interesting view into corporateland: in the federal bureaucracy in Canada, my Ottawa-based experience (it is different in the more informal regional offices) is that we tend to try to follow the vous/tu principle. If you would address the person with vous in French, they get Mr/Ms Lastname or very occasionally, Mr/Ms Deputy (for the permanent head of a department), at least in more formal occasions. In smaller meetings, it is firstname for everyone unless you are in a session with a minister or MP or senator, in which case they are always Mr/Ms/Senator Lastname or just minister/senator, and never by firstname.
The private sector I have dealt with is in the publishing and legal areas, and it is normally firstname although a very occasional older partner will get Mr/Ms/Mrs or Monsieur/Madame. With QCs or privy councillors, I use Mr/Ms/Mrs lastname, but they normally then tell me to use the firstname. However, I don't get to go to meetings much these days, so I miss out on these arcane Byzantine joys. Luckily I still get to go to the occasional diocesan activity where I can let myself go.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I have been reflecting on my own experience.
I wonder if Amos is speaking from a largely undergrad experience. I can recall using Prof X and Dr Y when an undergraduate. Although I suspect several assumed I used first names for them*. I am very good at not using names when I am unsure how someone should be addressed. This is over twenty years ago.
That disappeared as soon as I graduated. First Post graduate experience was that the head of department was Roger. It was how all staff referred to him in our presence. So we did too.
In my current job which is in a uni, I suspect staff would be offended if I used titles. Ironically they are consulting me, so deference works the other way around, even though I am neither a Dr nor a Prof. Profs tend to expect to get seen quicker but the worst for that are students hitting a deadline.
With the Open University, I suspect the staff have always been on first name terms just because of the different demographics of their students.
Finally my PhD supervisor would hit the roof if I addressed him with anything but his first name. He is a fairly senior professor within the University I am studying at.
So while I think for undergraduates who actually have comparatively little contact with staff using "Dr" and "Prof" might remain in some cases, this distinction does not happen once a person has graduated. If you are in the senior common room it is usually first name terms.
Jengie
*There are some background anomalies which meant that I was not quite your average student.
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
JohnWesleysHorse
Shipmate
# 14975
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr.Andrew:
As a fairly high church anglican priest in the Church in Wales - I prefer people to call me Father, but I answer to Andy, Andrew, Vicar- which I am not - I've always been non-stipendiiary ie: acting unpaid, - I was a police sergeant and was ordained while still serving in Greater Manchester Police - I was one of their Chaplains to the Police for over 20 years and a serving police officer at the same time. I got called all sorts of things, but as long as I was called regularly for meals and the odd single malt, I couldn't realy care less
are you at the marble church? i used to pass there each on the way to work
Posts: 74 | From: Leeds | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JohnWesleysHorse:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
." Don't think I've ever heard of an English priest being called "mother."
I have, in leeds - http://allsoulsleeds.org.uk/
Every reference to her on the website calls her 'Revd Alice'. But I can believe she is used to 'Mother' as well.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by JohnWesleysHorse:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
." Don't think I've ever heard of an English priest being called "mother."
I have, in leeds - http://allsoulsleeds.org.uk/
Every reference to her on the website calls her 'Revd Alice'. But I can believe she is used to 'Mother' as well.
And in darkest Edmonton:
http://churchnw6.co.uk/whos-who/
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
That site also provides this sensible statement quote:
The Vicar — Fr Andrew Cain
Father Andrew (he will also answer to Andrew or Vicar – whichever you are most comfortable with) has been our Vicar since 1998!
Though I don't quite see the point of the exclamation mark.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
When one of our curates was ordained, we threw a party. As she walked in through the door, the vicar called out, 'And now let's give a tremendous welcome to 'Father Julie'!'
In Creamtealand, we are probably less formal than most - so Archdeacons and Bishops are usually addressed by their first names, unless someone is writing a letter, when it is 'Ven.' and 'Rt. Rev.'
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lola
Ship's kink
# 627
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No one has ventured to reflect on my question as to why first name address is more prevalent in the UK than the US. I've wondered if it came about as a way of social levelling and a rather feeble if possibly not fully conscious attempt at eradicating marks of the class system (even though first name address could never achieve this at all).
I seriously doubt it. Or if it is the case its been going on for centuries. You'd have to apply the same to the replacing of "thou" and "thee" by "you". And that started in the 15th century and became common by the end of the 17th. (though it still isn't complete - there are probably about five million English speakers in the north of England who make a T/V distinction at least at home)
If I had to make up a Just So Story to explain it I'd say its that formality has become a mark of social distance in English, so removing these hierarchical distinctions becomes an indicator of social solidarity.
But then I don't believe that social class is more important in England than in the other English-speaking countries, just that its more visible. We talk about it more. You guys all have it too, but you don't notice it so much.
I think the thing is, social class was historically institutionalised in British society in a different way to that which developed in the American colonies and in post-revolutionary America. The institutionalisation of the aristocracy, and the monarch as the font of honour - with the whole attendant system of honours - did indeed create a highly visible class system, augmented by a landed gentry and later a wealthy capitalist class (both of the latter as in America) that often aspired as much as possible to the ways and outward status displays of their aristocratic "betters".
I've thought about your question but I'd suggest the existence of a formal honours system is a bit of a red herring in a discussion of work place forms of address etiquette because by and posh people with hereditary titles don't work! Or if they do they join the armed forces and are called by their rank just like everyone else (e.g. Prince William, I believe, was Officer Cadet Wales at Sandhurst).
There are different approaches to the use of "earned" titles - both my current CEO and his predeccessor have knighthoods but were/are known internally at work not only by their first name but by the diminuitive of their first name - for example (not the current people although does apply to previous equivalents) Ted not Edward, Mike not Michael etc. Alternatively, Sir Alan Sugar as we are currently reminded by the latest series of the Apprentice expects to be addressed as Sir Alan by his employees.
I suppose that the reason is that the context is your professional competence - your military rank, medical degree, your knight or dame hood for services to whatever are relevant factors to flag up.
Posts: 951 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
I've thought about your question but I'd suggest the existence of a formal honours system is a bit of a red herring in a discussion of work place forms of address etiquette because by and posh people with hereditary titles don't work! Or if they do they join the armed forces and are called by their rank just like everyone else (e.g. Prince William, I believe, was Officer Cadet Wales at Sandhurst).
There are different approaches to the use of "earned" titles - both my current CEO and his predeccessor have knighthoods but were/are known internally at work not only by their first name but by the diminuitive of their first name - for example (not the current people although does apply to previous equivalents) Ted not Edward, Mike not Michael etc. Alternatively, Sir Alan Sugar as we are currently reminded by the latest series of the Apprentice expects to be addressed as Sir Alan by his employees.
Except that William and Harry's surname is not Wales, but Windsor - the above is a habit of the aristocracy (and some bishops) to use their title in place of their family name, which works against your argument. And 'Suralan' is called 'Lord Sugar' by everyone in the current series of 'The Apprentice', including his henchmen/women and the unseen secretary/PA who calls the victims to their fates... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lola
Ship's kink
# 627
|
Posted
Yes - I forgot he's been upped since I last watched it.
Posts: 951 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
Except that William and Harry's surname is not Wales, but Windsor -
Actually they don't need a surname (except when they do):
". . . members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor."
Royal Family website - Family name
[Edited for URL length.]
[ 20. June 2011, 19:34: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
Except that William and Harry's surname is not Wales, but Windsor -
Actually they don't need a surname (except when they do):
". . . members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor."
Royal Family Website - Family Name
I think I was a bit unfair to the Royal Family there. It also says:
"Members of the Royal Family can be known both by the name of the Royal house, and by a surname, which are not always the same. And often they do not use a surname at all"
- which I take to mean they haven't got a surname in quite the same way as everyone else. They only have one when they need one, but it is no more their 'real name' than the title of the Royal House (which is indeed 'Windsor') or if they are princely [nothing].
[Also edited for URL length.]
[ 20. June 2011, 19:35: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No one has ventured to reflect on my question as to why first name address is more prevalent in the UK than the US. I've wondered if it came about as a way of social levelling and a rather feeble if possibly not fully conscious attempt at eradicating marks of the class system
I think it's the effect of post-war television comedy, which began to parrody the obsessive Mr-ing and Madam-ing of a previous generation to a point that addressing anyone in this way came to be seen as farcical (much as no one would seriously refer to his wife as Mrs Lastname to her face or in conversation).
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
In Creamtealand, we are probably less formal than most - so Archdeacons and Bishops are usually addressed by their first names, unless someone is writing a letter, when it is 'Ven.' and 'Rt. Rev.'
When I lived in Cream Tealand I always referred to the Dean (the very one you reference upthread) as "Mr Dean".
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by JohnWesleysHorse:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
." Don't think I've ever heard of an English priest being called "mother."
I have, in leeds - http://allsoulsleeds.org.uk/
Every reference to her on the website calls her 'Revd Alice'. But I can believe she is used to 'Mother' as well.
Hopefully she responds with equal respect to those who use the latter form of address.
I always thought it rather rude that some relatively newly minted 'Fathers' of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion addressed rather distinguished and much older members of their congregation as 'Mavis' or 'George'. Perhaps they needed a sermon on mutual respect?
Wanting to be 'Father' or 'Mother' in contemporary Australia seems rather unrealistic when even the Prime Minister is addressed as 'Julia'.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
In the same vein, all Archdeacons should henceforth be referred to as 'Archie'.
No -- Archie is the Archbishop (as opposed to plus David).
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I wonder if Amos is speaking from a largely undergrad experience. I can recall using Prof X and Dr Y when an undergraduate. Although I suspect several assumed I used first names for them*. I am very good at not using names when I am unsure how someone should be addressed. This is over twenty years ago.
Like you I tend to avoid names when I'm not sure what to use. This is what I tended to do as an undergraduate, although students would use first names to refer to lecturers in their absence. In the case of the Professor he got both his forenames, although staff used his second.
As a postgraduate (at a different university), it was first names for the senior members, with one exception, one of the professors (a personal chair I think) was always referred to by his surname. I remember being asked by an undergraduate what to call my supervisor and my instinctive response was his first name, but then I realised it was a question about the stress in his surname.
Personally, I'm Carys, but if the situation calls for formality, my title is Dr not Miss and certainly not Ms. Though I can't quite work out how to tell my aunt this!
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Isn't it true that before the Oxford Movement - and in fact right up till maybe the 1950s or so - most Anglican priests (in England, anyway) were called simply "Mister"?
That's what I'm to understand. (If true, was it also true in the U.S., does anybody know?)
I grew up in the UK, and I can assure you that in my home parish the Vicar was firmly "Mr Hepworth" until he became "Canon Hepworth" in the mid 1990s. My default, even after twelve years in the USA is still to address clergy as Mr./Dr. unless I know they prefer Fr.. I rarely run into female clergy.
PD
[ 24. June 2011, 06:03: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Anyway, the point was that people use "sir" and "ma'am" in ordinary conversation. Some kids - mostly from the South, in my experience - are taught to use those forms of address every time they speak to any adult. In every sentence.
Isn't [British] English unusual in not having a polite way of addressing adults or strangers? In French (and most other languages?) it is perfectly natural - indeed expected - to begin a conversation with Bonjour Monsieur etc.
The problem in BrEng is class. "Sir' is expected only from inferiors to superiors. And you can't say "Hello Mister" [or "Reverend"].
It seems to me US southerners have improved the language (though I suspect it may come from linguistic interference from another language - probably French?).
I get very suspicious of people calling me sir - they either want something or it's the sarcastic police (amazing how you can make "Sir" sound) or the Inland Revenue.
Mind you I'm not all that keen on people writing to me as Dear Mark (presuming association, including denominational people) when we've never met or been introduced.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
