The OED prefers 'adviser', but says that 'advisor' is often used, particularly in the US, 'in the titles of persons whose function it is to give advice.'

Even David Archer talks like an American nowadays:

PIP: Toby's the one you ought to be apologising to.
DAVID: I already did.

Not the sort of expression which an actor whose day job is as the 12th Earl of Portland ought to be required to speak.

Has the rot now reached Ambridge? Heaven forbid.

And here's something else. Some comic (British-born, by the sound of her), on yesterday's The Now Show, referred to the author of the recent report on social integration as 'Dame Casey.' I though it was only foreigners who got this wrong and referred to 'Sir Heath', 'Sir Major' etc.

Don't they teach this sort of thing in schools nowadays?

Actually 'Sir Major' is rather good and I may use it in future for the 'grey man'. Or is that 'gray man'.....

And while we're talking about titles, I notice the BBC have taken to referring to the Archbishop of Canterbury as 'Mr Welby'. This sounds very odd to me. Admittedly it is correct (or so I was brought up to believe) to refer to (or address) a clergyman as 'Mr Smith' (rather than the vulgar modernism 'Reverend Smith'). But surely an archbishop should either be 'Archbishop Welby' or 'Dr Welby'. It seems disrespectful to call the person who has the highest precedence in the land (apart from members of the Royal Family) plain 'Mister'.

Was 'forest fire'. Now it's 'wildfire.'

I think perhaps someone has mistaken Most reverend written in short form as Mr on the teleprompter. One perhaps could question whether a non believer should ignore such titles as the have no relevance to an atheist.

.

One might hope that an atheist would be as keen as anyone else to ensure that our language properly recognises traditional rank and order in Church and State.

I might hope that an atheist would be as keen as anyone else to ensure that our language properly recognises traditional rank and order in Church and State



If one considers the church organisation be that CofE or Catholic as a corporate money making entity. Which I believe owns considerable estateswithin the UK as well as significant investments, in both shares and money, why should one respect any titles it bestows on its employees?
The state is supposedly under the control of its people whether you support a particular party or political stance but one has a vote to choose. One would suppose the chairman of the local bowls club should enjoy similar recognition?

However, I feel this could descend into a faith or not discussion which is something neither side will win. I do agree that text speak and general laziness has denigrated the English language which is shameful especially when one listens to the grammar used on the BBC NEWS and other news programme's.

Kind regards
Director of global trends and futures - progressive strategies

This post was last modified: 20-02-2017 07:57 AM by wynell.

Mr Wynell,

I notice you are simultaneously commenting on "shameful" grammar used on British television and making a grammatical error of your own.

In this instance, the word you should have used is "programmes," not "programme's." I hope you'll consider your own usage of the English language more carefully in future before criticising our venerable broadcasters in this fashion.

Robert Moore

This post was last modified: 20-02-2017 12:26 PM by Bobmoore.

Wynell, are you really 'Director of global trends and futures - progressive strategies'? Surely you deserve some sort of title for that. 'His Sublime Loftiness, Emperor of the World'?

'Most Reverend' is a ceremonial title according to wiki.
If he is not wearing his hat and robes then addressing him as Mr. seems fair enough. I can't say I lose much sleep over this.

I apologise for my grammatical errors, I have changed the zee in apologise as spell checker despite being set to UK English our American cousins seem to have control of our spellings.
I find it heartening that such enthusiasm for the written word exists, I personally regret that we resort to typing on a machine, as I have a passion for handwriting and believe if we were to put pen (real ink) to paper both the joy of reading and the thoughtfulness of the content would be much improved.

Hear hear.

Something else on titles. The 'Guardian' (to which, following the sad demise of the 'Independent', I have recently returned) seems to have abandoned their use altogether and to use just surnames, irrespective of status or gender. In the lower middle class culture in which I was brought up, to refer to a male person by just his surname (unless he was a schoolboy, a footballer or a convict) was thought extremely rude. To refer to a lady her surname only was unthinkable. I remember the shock I felt when I first heard a colleague refer to the Prime Minister as 'Thatcher'.

It can also make news stories very difficult to follow. For example in the report of a trial I find myself constantly having to look back to check whether 'Bloggs' is Mr Justice Bloggs, Sir Toby Bloggs QC, the prosecuting counsel, Miss Myfanwy Bloggs, the victim or Jasper Bloggs, of no fixed abode, the accused.

Maybe it's similar to when doctors become consultants, they revert to Mr.?

I thought it was just surgeons who became Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms when they got their MRCS (which would be before they became consultants)?

If we could return to the days of Mr/Ms on initial introduction I would be only too pleased. I find being on first name terms with the world utterly demeaning.

Rather like the 2 in my username.

In my old-fashioned way I registered with Amazon under the name MR ROBIN ORTON. Amazon's communications to me now start 'Dear MR'.

The only part of my life where titles are still used is my child's school. It feels weird - like going back in time about 40-50 years.

The exception is if introducing myself in a business email to someone important, but things inevitably go to 'first names' immediately.