> I appreciate the protocol lesson, John, but I remain stupidly
> confused. Are you
> saying that the rules for usage of the honorific "Sir" depend
> on whether the
> person in question had been knighted or not ?
>
So here's the rule:
When addressing a knight directly, you address him as "Sir (First Name)", as
in "How are you today, Sir Stirling?"
When referring to him in the third person, you would say "Sir (First Name)
(Last Name)", as in "I heard that Sir Stirling Moss is appearing in Madison
in a few weeks."
You would never refer to him as "Sir Moss."
"Sir" is still used as a general term of deference in the UK, although it
would not be associated with anyone's first name unless they were a Knight.
Thus, it would be correct for the shop assistant (clerk) to say "May I help
you, sir?" but not "May I help you Sir Randall?", because you are not a
Knight.
On the other hand, if Sir Stirling were granted a life peerage by the Queen,
for services to British auto sports, he would then be known as Lord Moss,
not Lord Stirling, nor Lord Stirling Moss. There probably is a Lord
Stirling (or more probably, the Earl of Stirling, but let's not go there),
but that person, if he exists, would have inherited the title.
And just to make it more confusing, peers of the realm (i.e. Lords and
Viscounts and Marquesses etc.) have the write to sign documents with just
their last names. So, if Sir Stirling were elevated to the peerage, and
became Lord Moss, and wrote to the Madison Sports Car Club to cancel his
visit because of other commitments, he could, quite correctly, sign the
letter "Moss."
Simple, ain't it?
Michael J. Marr, P.E.
Naperville, IL
1960TR3A (and ex-limey with no chance of a knighthood or peerage, although I
did award myself the CDM once)
|