Talk:The Honourable

message: Shouldn't this be at The Honourable, to be consistent with The Right Honourable and The Most Honourable? Proteus (Talk) 15:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to check. --JuntungWu 10:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: According to the current article, the following awkard locutions are used:
* The Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled
*The honourable the Leader of the Opposition
Can that really be right? The second "the" in each of these phrases sounds flat-out ungrammatical to me. --Trovatore 23:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's right. And it's certainly no more ungrammatical than "The Right Honourable The Prime Minister" or "The Most Honourable The Marquess of Anglesey" (i.e. not at all). Proteus (Talk) 23:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's absolutely correct parliamentary usage, although becoming less and less used.  When a question without notice is asked of a minister, Speakers of the Australian House of Representatives these days call the Minister by saying "The Minister for ....", or "I call the Minister for ...".  But some former Speakers always called a minister by saying "The honourable the Minister" or "The honourable the Minister for ...".  It might seem ungrammatical at first, but it avoids the problem of attributing honour to individuals.  JackofOz 23:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so the idea is to attribute the honor to the office? I guess that makes some sort of sense (even if it's still ungrammatical, not just seems so, by the normal rules of the English language; adjectives can't modify noun phrases starting with articles). I don't see how it squares with usages like "The Right Honourable Paul Martin", though. And really, I don't see why an undeniably grammatical formulation like "the honourable leader of the opposition" would more attribute the honor to the person rather than the office. --Trovatore 23:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would tend to imply that there were other Leaders of the Opposition who weren't honourable, and that you were singling out that one that was (as one might say "the honest Minister" to distinguish him from all his less honest colleagues). As regards Mr Martin, this implication doesn't really exist for people's name — if I say "this is the honest Minister" you'd probably think I was making a snipe at the Government, but if I said "this is the very clever Stephen Fry" you presumably wouldn't think I was distinguishing him from all the other, less intelligent, Stephen Frys out there, but merely commenting favourably on the size of his brain. Proteus (Talk) 00:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that makes sense. It's still weird though. --Trovatore 00:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the honourable the

message: The "Federal Usage" is published by US Department of State; a link has been provided in text.  It does not included members of local legislative bodies, e.g. members of city council. 
Some other sources do include members of local legislative bodies, but this noted in the article.
Please do not include city/county legislators under the Federal Usage.
J. J. in PA 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Usage - - "Federal Usage" 

message: GEORGE BUSH IS REFERRED TO AS EXCELLENCY? WTF? sourcE?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.140.26 (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "excellency" 

message: Someone did a major re-write of the American section which removed citations and included inaccurate information (including a reference to an outgoing president in 1945) .  Franklin Roosevelt died in 1945, so there was no outgoing president.
I have restored the text and footnotes and will redo the format and links.
J. J. in PA (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite 

message: The NZ entry refers to 'standard Commonwealth usage', but it's not explained anywhere (as far as I can see) what standard Commonwealth usage is. Does anybody know? This would of course be a useful addition to this page. Schwede66 08:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: standard Commonwealth usage

message: Well, seems the article doesn't cover the whole use of Hon. in the UK? A pivotal example is Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Her mother is referred to as The Honourable Rosalind Shand. But why? In the United Kingdom, all sons and daughters of viscounts and barons (including baronies created as life peerages) and the younger sons of earls are styled with this prefix. None of them appears to apply to Mrs. Shand and her daughter. -andy 77.7.121.53 (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Camillia's mother is the daughter of Roland Cubitt, 3rd Baron Ashcombe. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camilla's mother is a "Hon"! Why? 

message: The section on International Diplomacy claims "The only exception to this is American Ambassadors, who by State Department protocol use the style The Honorable instead of Excellency." I'm going to remove, although if someone can provide a citation, to be determined. Claim seems contradictory in nature: what State Dept wants to style US Ambassadors while they are in the US is not really a function of international diplomacy, but domestic protocol; 'Excellency' is a term used for Ambassadors while outside their own country.Gregalton (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  International diplomacy / American exception 

message: They do get to play judges in so called "Traffic Courts" but they really aren't judges. Yet, they sometimes use the title "Honorable". Are there any official documents allowing them to use this title or they just use it by themselves? Yurivict (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US/Why traffic commissioners are sometimes referred as honorable? 

message: Can we generate consensus for the addition of the honorific prefix of "The Honorable" on the articles of the United States Presidents? 1. Should we add them in the first place? 2. Should we keep them on ALL US presidents, or just the living ones? 3. Should it be boldened?  CatcherStorm talk  06:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  "the Honorable"  is NEVER used for dead people so all the dead presidents involve a misuse. Source: "     The courtesy title the Honorable is used when addressing or listing the name of a living person. When the name of a deceased person is listed it's just (Full Name) + Office Held that is pertinent to the story being told for which the photo is included.....it would never be The Honorable John F. Kennedy. Robert Hickey Rjensen (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, I propose we keep it to the living presidents then. CatcherStorm talk  10:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's misleading. students will start using it in their papers and get graded down. It's only used in addressing. Rjensen (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: the term is appropriate when you are writing the president on paper (not email), or when you are introducing him to a live audience.  Those are rare events for our readers. Much more likely is a student will write an exam or termpaper and talk about the foreign policy of the Honorable President XXX. The student will be making a mistake. Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorific prefixes for the US Presidents 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:His Holiness which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Does the US State Department (or other organization) issue guidance for honorifics in Chinese usage?  Does the article concern itself solely to communications in English? I can imagine other situations in which styles which might be appropriate. 
Specifically, styles are largely omitted in large sections of the US. But it's still prudent even for Americans when engaged in a dicey situation (for example in wartime, or when lines of authority are challenged). In other words, when visiting in China, what might one do?
I'm watching this page. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 11:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  China