Talk:List of post-nominal letters

message: The usage of Dr (prenominal) and PhD (postnominal) varies, and both are seen. I suggest removing the general rule mentioned in the notes accordingly. Also 'suffices' is a verb; whereas 'is suffices' makes no sense. typo 'obtanied' in the preceding line was missed. Icairns 10:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read somewhere that the rule is, at Oxford, "Dr John Smith", but at Cambridge, "John Smith, Esq, PhD". For a knighted doctor "Dr Sir John Smith" is acceptable (Dr Sir Conrad Swan, for example) although I would drop "Dr" as a matter of preference (perhaps, "Sir Conrad Swan KCVO PhD", would do, though if he is, as I believe, a Cambridge PhD, perhaps "Dr Conrad Swan" was un-Cambridge anyway). What other universities do, I don't know. There may be an argument for preferring "The Reverend John Smith DD", "Sir John Smith DCL", "John Smith DLitt", etc in order to recognise that the doctor is of the senior kind. I know at least one person who persists in the belief that doctors of philosophy are not entitled to the title "Dr". He is in a very small minority.--Oxonian2006 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my experience the 'rule' is rather that the honorific 'Dr' is used for medical doctors generally, but for doctors of philosophy etc. only within their own field or by students, with the suffix PhD being used outside the field. At Cambridge the nameplates outside fellow's rooms had the honorifics 'Dr', 'Prof.' etc, as appropriate, rather than the postnominal letters. Whether this usage extended to other contexts I cannot say. Stackers 23:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All those who claim a doctorate in some form may use 'Dr' as can physicians.  In the case of Anglican clergy the usual title is 'Rev Mr' but if a priest holds a doctorate (such as DD from Lambeth) then the address is 'Rev Dr' whereas 'Rev' alone refers to other Protestant clergy.  Catholic and Orthodox clergy prefer 'Fr' (Father).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwander (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctors

message: For example, MBE to the right disambig'd page Robin Patterson 06:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess that will work if this article stays static, but I can foresee confusion if it expands beyond the present UK and Commonwealth letters given.  e.g., if American prof'l terms are added, who decides whether ME is Mechanical Engineer or Medical Examiner?  Quill 07:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link letters where appropriate? 

message: I'm Wondering if anyone Knows what LL.L Means. As Far as I can Tell It is Some Kind of Law Degree ?
Michael Drew 00:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Legum Licentiate, or roughly, licensure of laws. -James Howard (talk/web) 01:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LL.L 

message: The Canadian Provincial Orders are out of order.  see Canadian order of precedence (Decorations and Medals) I am going to change them Dowew 01:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provincial Orders  

message: : Honours are listed first in descending order of precedence, followed by degrees and memberships of learned societies in ascending order.
I almost agree with that; degrees are usually listen in ascending order (e.g. BSc PhD). So shouldn't they be listed in the table in that order? Or at least there should be a note that they are usually listed in the opposite order.
But what about "learned societies"? In the table they seem to be in the order they should be listed after a name. But I don't think this is "ascending order" as the sentence quoted above seems to suggest. The example I'm familiar with is of Chartered Physicists, who use CPhys MInstP (in agreement with the table). But I'd argue that CPhys is the higher grade – or more accurately chartered status and membership aren't on the same scale. --JRawle 18:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of post-nominal letters 

message: I have started using ref notes to link to footnotes in the Canadian section.  Does anyone have any objection to this format ?  Dowew 23:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done them, but I think they are kinda distracting so I am going to change them back Dowew 21:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref Notes 

message: Has anyone thought of doing an article on the South African postnominal letters, especially with honours such as the Decoration for Meritorious Services? South African honours, even the republican ones have postnominal letters. - (Aidan Work 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one am not familiar with those postnoms but would welcome them on this page.  I suppose we could also add the postnominal letters for the Hong Kong Honour System. Dowew 07:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South African postnominal letters

message: Has anyone thought of writing an article on the Rhodesian Honours System which was instituted after the declaration of the 'Republic of Rhodesia' in 1970? The Rhodesian Honours System also utilised postnominal letters as well, in line with British & British Commonwealth
tradition. - (Aidan Work 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhodesian postnominal letters

message: I've added it to the page from these pages 
I don't think you need to ask if the info comes from a government website... its official after all... Greentubing 10:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papua New Guinea 

message: I notice someone recently added to the UK section PM to mean Prime Minister, and someone else (correctly) removed it.  I would like to point out, however, that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has recently been billing himself on leaflets (dare I use the words propoganda) as The Right Honourable Stephen Harper PM.  I will make a reference notes of this on the Canadian section.  Feel free to reword it to be better. Dowew 23:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of parliamentarians (and others) use incorrect postnominals.   In Australia, members of the House of Representatives are often referred to as MHRs, which is fine, but the only correct postnominal is MP.  Nevertheless, many of them have letterheads that call themselves, eg. "The Hon Joe Bloggs MHR".  Whenever I see one, I just wince, cringe, weep, shrug, sigh  ... and then move on.  JackofOz 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The distinction in Australia is that the Australian Federal Parliament uses the postnominal MP for the House of Representatives, but some State Parliaments use other postnominals depending upon the title of the respective chamber of parliament. For example, in Victoria, members of the House of Representatives (lower house) use MHR, whilst members of the Legislative Assembly (upper house) use MLA. AusTerrapin (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite some confusion there, AusTerrapin.  The Victorian Legislative Assembly is the lower house of the Victorian Parliament; the upper house is the Victorian Legislative Council.  Members of these chambers have the postnominals MLA and MLC respectively. The only House of Representatives in Australia is the lower house of the Federal Parliament, which sits in Canberra.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  08:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected on the technicalities - I've clearly been living out of the state for too long :b - that'll teach me not to double check before posting. Notwithstanding, the essence of my point still remains, ie that there are a variety of different postnominals in use depending upon which house/chamber of which parliament. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime Minister PM 

message: What about FRAS (Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society)? and the lower orders of the other professional institutions? Modest Genius talk 19:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FRAS 

message: If one is awarded membership in an order, say, as a Commander, and then subsequently is "promoted" to a Knight Commander, for instance, do you get to use both post-noms, or just the highest? 209.92.136.131 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although there are a few anomalies, for example I think if you are awarded the Royal Victorian Medal and subsequently made a member of the Royal Victorian Order they are considered seperate awards, and you keep both.  I think the same used to go for the British Empire Medal before the statues  were changed to allow full status to those holding the medal.  Usually however, member in an order is not just an "award"...it is a position within a group.  To use the Royal Victorian example, those holding the medals hold a decoration, while those who are in the order hold an appointment in the group.  You cannot hold more than one position in the Order at the same time.  For example, when Elizabeth II succeeded she stopped being a Knight of the Garter, and became Sovereign of the Garter.  When Adrienne Clarkson was made Governor General of Canada she held the rank of Officer in the Order of Canada.  When she was installed GG she was made a supernumerary (not counting towards the quota) Companion of the Order, and simultaneously held the status of "Chancellor" of the Order.  When she was replaced, Michaelle Jean became Chancellor, but Clarkson remained a Companion.  In the 70's Princess Anne was made a Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order.  She held this status until very recently when The Queen appointed her the position "Grand Master" of the Order.  As such, she is still holder of a Grand Cross, but now has a higher position than others in the order.  So, basically...the answer is no.  If you are a lower rank in an order and are subsequently promoted you must surrender your previous appointment before receiving you higher appointment.  Dowew 22:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll sometimes see multiple awards in the same order appended as separate postnominals, e.g. in death notices for senior people, where it might appear as "Gerald Smith MBE OBE CBE".  This is quite wrong; the only correct reference would be "Gerald Smith CBE".  Showing all the ones they acquired along the way is the equivalent of referring to a general who came up through the ranks as "Private Sergeant Lieutenant Major Colonel General Jones".  -- Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  09:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 or more in one Order 

message: will add them later  Dowew 22:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic of Mauritius 

message: Is there a need to have every nursing title down?  I suggest one line with "Nursing titles" and examples such as RGN, SRN, RNA etc Panthro 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nursing titles overload!! 

message: The US is conspicuously absent from the nation-by-nation list of letters.  Should the intro point out that honors are unconstitutional in the US but that qualifications and sometimes academic degrees are used?  [Oh, I see this is mentioned above]
:--Dartmothian (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States? 

message: Perhaps the Royal Institute of Navigation post-nominals should be added?
128.86.155.140 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIN 

message: In the following publications:  
* JAMES W. MCBAIN and CARROLL M. O'SULLIVAN;  “Development of an air-driven ultracentrifuge”;  Journal of the American Chemical Society;  American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.;  April 1935;  57 (4): pp. 780781.
* JAMES W. MCBAIN and CARROLL M. O'SULLIVAN;  “The development of the air-driven spinning top as transparent ultracentrifuge”;  Journal of the American Chemical Society;  American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.;  December 1935;  57 (12): pp. 26312641.
The second author was listed in each original paper as "Carroll M. O'Sullivan, S.J.". Both authors were from the Stanford Dept. of Chemistry.  
It seems odd to mark an author as a Jesuit in a secular, scholarly journal.  Is this the only possible interpretation?  The only other idea I had was that it could be something in the law (related to 'juris').  
—DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that he was indeed a Jesuit. See this obituary (the second one down), for instance. Proteus (Talk) 08:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely cleared up!  —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other meaning of ''S.J.''? 

message: Is there any evidence for the first few, as the Republic of Ireland does not have an honours system in the strict sense of the word like the British Honours System? A link to Irish honours system should be linked, along with articles about Irish military decorations and medals to this article's page. - (203.211.73.209 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish postnominal letters.

message: I'm tidying up the order within the section: Fellowship or Membership of Professional Institutions
But would like to flag up my approach for discussion:
The approach I'm taking is to list in alphabetical name of the 'body', so:
'Chartered Institute of XYZ' is listed before 'Institute of ABC'
But then all the post-nominals for that organisation are listed together, in order of descending seniority, so:
Fellow of the Chartered Institute of XYZ - FCIXYZ
Member of the Chartered Institute of XYZ - MCIXYZ
Associate of the Chartered Institute of XYZ - ACIXYZ
This appears to generally follow other sections, and appears the best way, though most sections are fairly random, currently and that should be improved.
If there is a better way to do this - please discuss.
User:adrest4 (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: List order within a section

message: The size of this article is getting to the point where it is a candidate to be split. I am thinking of a multiple split into the more sizeable country sections ie. Australia, UK and USA with the main page refering to the split off pages.  Any thoughts? --Oliver Nouther (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sensible, the changes look good. I think that there is probably room to move a couple of the longer remaining lists to there own pages as well.  Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Split