Talk:Forms of address in the United Kingdom

message: The unmarried daughter of a duke/marquess (or earl for that matter) is The Lady [Christian name]. The son of a duke/marquess (but not the son of an earl) is Lord [Christian name], not The Lord [Christian name], and his wife is Lady [Husband's Christian name]. For example, the third son of the 7th Duke of Marlborough was Lord Randolph Churchill, not The Lord Randolph Churchill. His wife, following their marriage, was Lady Randolph Churchill, not The Lady Randolph Churchill. The daughter of the 7th Duke of Marlborough, prior to her marriage to the future 7th Duke of Roxburghe, was The Lady Anne Churchill. Similarly, with great-grandchildren of the sovereign, the daughter of HRH The Duke of Kent was born The Lady Helen Windsor. Her younger brother was born Lord Nicholas Windsor. This information comes from Wikipedia's own page on courtesy titles. Someone reversed my edit to this effect. We should try and keep things consistent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovanniCarestini (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is much debate about "The" before courtesy titles, but I've never seen a distinction cited between sons and daughters. Either they're all "The Lord" and "The Lady" or they're all "Lord" and "Lady". "Wikipedia's own page on courtesy titles" is not a reliable source. Proteus (Talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Daughters of a duke/marquess versus younger sons of a duke/marquess

message: Why is laird only listed as madam. Does anybody know the proper address of a Laird? I always thought it was John Smith, Laird (Lord) of Edinburgh!? --Camaeron (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Laird

message: Article merged: See old talk-page here --Skywolf talk/contribs 06:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Merged

message: Forms of Address in Australia
PositionWritten AddressSalutationOral Address
EverybodyBruce (or Cheryl) SmithG'dayHey mate
Aren't MPs orally referred as 'The Honourable John Smith' or is that only as 'The Honourable member fo Smithville North'? DJ Clayworth 22:31, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: MPs recieve the title of "Honourable" only during Parliamentary debates. The title is not supposed to be used outside of the Commons. Lord Emsworth 00:38, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
With reference to Church of England Clergy, some female Priests use the form 'Mother John' or 'Mother Smith' instead of 'Father.' 82.42.202.29 06:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously unsectioned comments

message: This link shows forms of address for the various ranks of peerage by the Queen:
* Duke: "Our right trusty and right entirely beloved cousin (and counsellor)"
* Marquis: "Our right trusty and entirely beloved cousin (and counsellor)"
* Earl: "Our right trusty and entirely beloved cousin (and counsellor)"
* Viscount: "Our right trusty and well-beloved cousin (and counsellor)"
* Baron/Lord of Parliament: "Right trusty and well-beloved cousin (and counsellor)"
—Ashley Y 06:26, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Need to amend the table somewhat. Under the terms of the 1917 Letters Patent the eldest son of the Prince of Wales' son is also entitled to HRH style and dignity. All other sons/daughters in the direct male line as grandchildren of the  sons of the sovereign are only "Lord/Lady" taking precedence as sons of a Duke Alci12
:Should now be fine. Proteus (Talk) 00:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the Queen addresses people 

message: Regarding the question above: Officially a Monarch addresses another Monarch as cousin - even if they are not true cousins.  When gathered together Monarchs define precedence by who has reigned longest.  The host Monarch generally assumes precedence and would walk in front with the longest serving monarch.
There is a lot of confusion about the aristocracy in general today - to set the record straight:  Outside of the Royal family there have since the 1950s been huge changes to British etiquette regarding the peerage - In modern parlance peers tend to address each other by Christian names the same as other people, in England, when referring to each other they just tend to say Lord Smith of the Duke of Bedford etc.  When in the House of Lords they may more formally say "My noble friend |colleague"
As it says on the project page here It is now quite acceptable to begin a letter to a Duke or Duchess as "Dear Duchess" not "Dear Duchess of  Bedford".  For an Earl of Countess, one writes say to the Countess of Rosebery "Dear Lady Rosebery" never "Dear Lady".   Envelopes are addressed with the full title, and any honorifics such as Right Honourable.  An envelope addressed in Britain to Queen Elizabeth II is addressed  just  HM The Queen, although to be strictly correct even today missives to the Queen should be sent through her Private secretary or  the Lord chamberlain's office, as it was once deemed rude to approach the sovereign uninvited, even by letter.  No inference of "Lèse-Majesté"  is taken though if the Queen is written to directly.  She doesn't open the letters anyway - her personal friends use  a code on the envelope - or more probably text her (she has a mobile phone)
Strangers still tend to address in speech a Duke of Duchess as "Your Grace", the rest one addresses today as Lord Smith, Lady Smith whatever their rank.  The older forms of speech address such as Milady, M'Lord, Your Ladyship etc. are now only used by employees, and then not always - in many modern/young "noble" households the staff address their employers by their Christian names alone the same as in any modern working environment. 
The old rules regarding these matters are still there, but generally they are ignored by unspoken common consent.  Most British aristocrats today would be surprised and embarrassed to receive a letter beginning My Lord, and concluding we beg to remain your humble and obedient servant. Unless it was from their bank manager, then theywould be very worried.  Even in 1898 the London accountants J H Schroder were concluding letters to Earls merely "We are dear Sir, your's faithfully"
To sum up the aristocracy tend to still be given voluntary deference and respect, but in a far less ostentatious way than in previous centuries, and most certainly do not take offence when people get it wrong. Giano | talk 12:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sovereigns address each other as brother/Sister - both usually before and officially since the Congress of Vienna.  The only time you don't see this is if there is some other traditional form between particular sovereigns or a snub (eg Nicholas I refusing this form to Napoleon III). Sovereigns further refer to foreign princes as 'cousins' as do many monarchs with their domestic nobles.Alci12 11:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing today 

message: In the Agatha Christie novel Why Didn't They Ask Evans?, the character Freddy has to pose as Lady Frankie Derwent's servant, and realises, once in public, that he does not know whether to address her as "My Lady" or "Your Ladyship" (instead of his usual "Frankie"). She hints that the right answer is "Your Ladyship", but what does the difference means? I'm under the impression that "Your Lordship" and "Your Ladyship" is used mostly by servants and that "My Lord" and "My Lady" by commoners. Is that correct? Eje211 15:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite- things vary with time and context - but essentially. The former is the most subservient, the latter can be used by social equals or superiors. eg the Duke of Wellington after his duel, departs "Good morning, my Lord Wilchelsea; good morning, my Lord falmouth" [to an earl and viscount respectively]Alci12 11:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I always thought it depended whether the speaker was addressing or referring to the person in question. E.g. "Good morning, my lord. I have your lordship's cup of tea ready." Opera hat (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Lord / Your Lordship 

message: See Talk:Styles_in_the_United_Kingdom#Proposed_merge — MrDolomite | Talk 17:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: A note in the article (near the top) says that the honorific The Right Honorable should only be applied to Peers who are also Privy Councellors.  But I note that it is also applied to those peers who are earls, viscounts, and barons on the envelope of letters as shown in the table.  I assume that if the peer was not a Privy Counsellor, then those words would be left off of the address on the envelope.  Is this correct? -RobertBlacknut 17:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the style "The Right Honorable" applies to both peers who are earls, viscounts, and barons as well as to pricy counsellors.  I think that it applies to each of these groups independently, one does not have to be both a peer and a pricy counsellor for it to apply.  Is this correct? -RobertBlacknut 15:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is correct.  Peers who are also Privy Counsellors use the post-nominals "PC" to denote that status.  PC is not used by non-peers since The Rt Hon is enough to show that a commoner is a Privy Counsellor.  84.13.144.48 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Privy Counsellors

message: The above page needs updating.  It gives the wife of the Prince of Wales as HRH Princess of Wales.
Er .... just wondering how The Duchess of Cornwall feels about that?
92.16.118.171 (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? She is the Princess of Wales. Surtsicna (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, read Princess of Wales carefully for all the details. --Cameron* 09:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forms of address to Royalty 

message: The envelope name for "Sovereign's son's wife (unless a peeress)" is currently given as "HRH The Princess John." I don't see how this can possibly be correct, since I never head anyone refer to Diana as "Princess Charles," but since I don't know anything about this (and since it amuses me) I thought I'd ask. --Masamage ♫ 05:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid we are correct here — every single time Diana was called "Princess Diana" was in error — she never held than honour, she was The Princess of Wales (and The Princess Charles etc.) until she divorced, then was "Diana, Princess of Wales". It all comes from the idea of the lady only being a princess because she is married to a prince, like Princess Michael of Kent, who was not born a princess, but married a prince. Further complicating the matter is when a born-princess marries a prince, because she can use all of her husband's titles, plus all of her own, including being called "Princess Joan". Fun stuff, eh? DBD 11:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DBD is correct. You may be interested in reading this. Now and then I search the Diana page for mentions of Princess Diana and remove them! The British press have no regard for royal titles and styles, they confused the matter even more by constantly referring to a "Princess Diana"! Best, --Cameron* 13:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, wacky. Okay, thanks for the explanation! Glad there are people here who know what they're doing. :) --Masamage ♫ 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake? 

message: I've noticed the interesting case of the ex-Yugoslav President, Marshal Josip Broz Tito. According to sources, he was knighted by Elizabeth II in Belgrade in 1972 and became a "Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath". Does that (theoretically) give him the right to be addressed as "Marshal Sir Josip Broz Tito" in the UK?
The reason why I find his case rather intriguing is that he was a communist leader, as well as a prominent ideologist of communism, which would altogether make him a "communist knight" :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have it the wrong way round. (And American law does not "forbid it" at all. This is a common misconception.) Proteus (Talk) 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The wrong way round in the sense that whether or not the holder of a knighthood is entitled to style himself "Sir" is determined by the country issuing the honour, not his own country. In the case of the UK, recipients who are citizens of countries where the Queen is monarch (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, Canada) are entitled to styled themselves "Sir", and those who are not are not (and only receive honorary appointments in the various orders of chivalry). A country where the Queen is not monarch may be quite happy for its citizens to be styled "Sir" if given a British knighthood, but they still won't be allowed to. Proteus (Talk) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question for knowledgable Wikipedians 

message: What is the source for the contention that women who receive these orders are not "Dames" (unless they hold a higher title, e.g. Lady Soames, Lady Thatcher) as they are in the other orders?
Wouldn't "Lady Mary Smith" always be the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl? — Torontonian1 (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ladies Companions of the Garter and Thistle

message: Did anyone else find the scottish chiefs bit incredibly clunky??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_address_in_the_United_Kingdom#Scottish_chiefs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.228.191 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Smith of Smith?

message: the articles discusses forms of address to High Court Judges, but what about Court of Appeal Justices and Justices of the new Supreme Court of the UK?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 13:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  forms of address for higher level & Scottish judiciary? 

message: There has been an edit of the Scottish Titles section, which left it incorrect.  Laird and Chieftain had been removed completely and the dignity of feudal barons was ignored, despite Debrett's Forms of Address's acknowledgement of the same, which I have now referenced.
Chiefs, Chieftains and Lairds are styled similarly, so these may be grouped together.  The previous entry for feudal baron and baroness more correctly fitted the correct form for a Laird (also mirroring that of Chief and Chieftain).  Barons and Baronesses have the right to be designated as such, as per Debrett's and the Court of the Lord Lyon (recent Letters Patent and Warrants confirm the same).  Feudal barons top this list, as they take a higher precedence than a Chief, Chieftain and Laird, as is widely recognised in texts stating that Chiefs enjoyed the precedence of esquires, unless they were feudal barons.  In Debrett’s Correct Form, the late Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk, Bt, in discussing the status of Scottish chiefs said: "Some are feudal barons, in addition, with precedence before esquires."
Editor8888 (Talk) 07:08, 09 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion over Scottish Titles

message: What a user unfriendly article!  The headings of the columns appear only once, at the top, so much scrolling is needed to find if one is in the column for face to face confrontation or for behind the back reference. That bad feature is made worse by the height of the boxes giving examples. You might think that reducing "Lady Amelia Beanbody" to " Lady A B" disrespectful and is a first step towards a peasants' revolt and capital curtailment but it would render the article more compact and readable.--SilasW (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible layout 

message: Is it worth noting in the 'salutation in letter' column next to HM The King/Queen that this is largely redundant, as style dictates that one does not address a letter directly to the Monarch (unless a personal friend), but rather to the Sovereign's private secretary?
See Debrett's guidance: http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/the-royal-family/communicating-with-the-queen.aspx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.116.198.185 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salutation in letter - the Sovereign 

message: I am surprised - and dubious - to see that, for instance, if I am writing to the Earl of Aldershot, I may use the form "My Lord" - which may be outdated, but still correct, but if I am writing to his wife, I may only use the form "Madam" - which could be used to any woman with whom I was not on familiar terms. Similarly, in written form, a Duke OR a Duchess could/would once have been addressed in writing as "Your Grace" - rather than "My Lord Duke" or, in the case of his wife, simply "Madam". (Arguably, a duke/duchess is not a lord/lady, he/she is a duke/duchess.) And what of the case of a woman who is a peeress in her own right? Why should the suo jure Countess of Aldershot be merely "Madam", whilst, if she'd had a brother who had succeeded, he would be "My Lord"? Bizarrely, this difference does not appear to apply to oral address, despite the fact that written communication is normally more formal than spoken. 
This also flies in the face of the convention - mentioned elsewhere in the article - that women take the rank/status/title of their husband. If this were followed through, the wife of a British Prince would not be addressed (in writing) as "Your Royal Highness" but simply as "Madam". 
This seems totally anomalous and somewhat sexist. I know it was not always the case, and that titled women were addressed similarly to their husbands; can anyone tell me how/why it changed - and who changed it?
EnglishBriarRose (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since in some circumstances the Queen is called madam too much shouldn't be read into the status of the word used. However the article probably could do with a second source as its a bit too based on one atm Garlicplanting (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are peers' wives addressed differently to their husbands? 

message: The section on church of england clergy does not appear to have been updated to account for the recent consecration of female bishops. I'm assuming 'my lord' is not the correct oral address. The COE website https://www.churchofengland.org/contact-us/addressingtheclergy.aspx states that 'my lord' is an outmoded form anyway and that 'bishop' is the correct oral address, which would work for a man or a woman. Adagio67 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female bishops 

message: Whilst other sections suggest Mr/Mrs/Ms as examples of correct forms of address, the forms of address in the church of scotland are only listed as Mr, despite women having been ordained since 1969 Adagio67 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  church of scotland 

message: At least three of the judicial forms of address do not account for the possibility of a woman in the role.Adagio67 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judicial address 

message: I am not an expert on this topic, but it seems that the one reference to divorce (the Baron's divorced wife) should be removed, or else more references to the styles of divorced women should be mentioned, for consistency.
Alázhlis (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce 

message: ===Upper/lower case "the"===
The use of capitalized "The" in a series of ranks and honours, as used in the tables in the article, is incorrect according to reliable traditional sources (cited in the note).  The matter is controversial: see Talk:John Buchan for an extreme example.  Possibly the usage is changing.  The references I have given in the note are both in favour of lc "the".  In the interest of NPOV, I hope someone will add counterexamples.D A Patriarche, BSc 01:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: The use of capitalized "The" in a series of ranks and honours, as used in the tables in the article, is incorrect according to reliable traditional sources (cited in the note).  The matter is controversial: see Talk:John Buchan for an extreme example.  Possibly the usage is changing.  The references I have given in the note are both in favour of lc "the".  In the interest of NPOV, I hope someone will add counterexamples.D A Patriarche, BSc 01:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Upper/lower case "the"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Forms of address in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130725234418/http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/scottish--and-irish-titles/scottish-feudal-baronies.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/scottish--and-irish-titles/scottish-feudal-baronies.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Forms of address in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623040208/http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/professions/legal/the-supreme-court.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/professions/legal/the-supreme-court.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130106060008/http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/professions/legal/lord-chief-justice.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/professions/legal/lord-chief-justice.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101202535/http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/professions/legal/justice-of-the-peace.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/professions/legal/justice-of-the-peace.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What about forms of address for military/naval/RAF officers and retired officers? Aren't there rules about who can be addressed with specific ranks, and in what circumstances?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.163.236.249 (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military  

message: Can the daughter of Duke or late Duke married to the eldest son/heir of a Marquess (who would be courtesy Count of X) choose to be address as Lady [First name] instead of Lady X (as courtesy countess of X)? 
Also could she choose to be addressed as The Lady [First name] [husband's last name] instead of Countess of X? 
Manavati (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to address?