I saw an item at a collection of Lincolniana at my university that startled me. It was a communiqué sent by an army surgeon to his soldiers advising them of Lincoln’s assasination. He refers to him as “His Excellency President Abraham Lincoln,” a form of address that I’d never seen before for US presidents.
I know that it was briefly debated whether presidents should have titles (“Elective Majesty”), but I thought the suggestion was rejected, although I know presidents of other countries are called Excellency. (FWIW, the Prime Minister of Canada is “the Right Honourable.”) Was it common to call the president Excellency, and by when did the practice die out?
Well, I saw a quote from Hosni Mubarak, giving a speech to mark the end of the Sharm-al-Sheik Middle East peace conference.
And a petition to President Bush from a pro-democracy Somali group is titled
“His Excellency X” seems to be the preferred title for presidents, worldwide. I’ve seen the Presidents of the US, Iraq, Ghana, Uganda, Uraguay, Mexico, Palau, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Gambia, the Phillipines, and a bunch more referred to with that honorific.
As a side note, asking for permission to invade Maryland in the Civil War, General Lee writes to “His Excellency, President Davis”. Some Union dispatches from the field are addressed to “His Excelleny, President Lincoln.” My guess would be that “Excellency” is a standard term of referring to elected Presidents that, in the 20th century, fell out of favor in the United States, but is still used in other places with Presidents, as all modern usages of “His Excellecy, President X of the US” come from foreign correspondance or foreign usage.
My distinct impression is that “His Excellency” is the formal form of address for a U.S. President, used only on official documents (as in accrediting an ambassador) – just as one is not expected to address Elizabeth II as “Your (or Her) Majesty” but as “Ma’am” except in special cases – e.g., if the Governor General died the day after the N.D.P. P.M. nominated you, as the M.P. for whatever the heck that riding is, as Minister of Culture, and Elizabeth was therefore required to make the formal appointment (pending appointment of a new Governor General) – the document would read something on the order of “On the advice of Her Majesty’s Government for Canada, Her Majesty Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God Queen of Canada and of Her Other Realms and Dominions, is graciously pleased to name Matthew McLachlin (correct my spelling) to serve as Her Minister for Cultural Affairs.” (You’ll have a better handle on the formal language than I.)
I.e., nobody will ever address GWB as “Your Excellency” in speech, but the rare formal document, especially between governments, will use the style.
You’re right about it having been rejected, more than once. FindLaw annotations (quoting a book by a guy named Thatch) say that in the Constitutional Convention the designation of the executive in Art II, Sec 1 as the “President of the United States” was reported in the Committee on Detail and accepted by the Convention without discussion. The same clause had provided the President’s title was to be “His Excellency”, but was ommitted by the Committee on Style and Arrangement, again with no comment in the Convention. Whatever the reason, it didn’t find its way in the document.
Kent Greenfield wrote a nifty little article about the First Congress and describes how the subject came up again. The Senate asked the House to confer on whether the President should be called by any official title other than “the President”. The House overwhelmingly said no; some quoted Article I clause stating that the U.S. could grant no titles of nobility, Madison said it just wasn’t “reconcilable with the nature of our govenmant”, and one guy named Thomas Tucker said such a “sacrifice” of our “liberty” would result in our “degenerat(ing) into servility–we shall no longer be men–we shall depreciate into apes–a baseness of imitation.” I kinda see him hammering a desk and frothing a little bit.
Anyway, it was never made official, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t and doesn’t happen. Washington, if I remember correctly, liked being called “your exellency”, and got made fun of for it, too. It was kind of a problem that no one knew how to address the President until someone hit on “Mr. President”, I think around Jeffersons time. My guess is the tradition lingered on for a while and the good Doctor was waxing poetic at the passing of his Captain.
When Matt is appointed to the federal Cabinet, his letters patent will issue in the name of Her Majesty. The GovGen, being HM’s representative, always acts in HM’s name, not having independent executive power. If the GovGen is sick, dead, overseas, or otherwise unavailable, the Chief Justice of Canada would sign the patent, as Administrator of the Government of Canada in the absence of the GovGen.
I’ve tried to find the language of the patent on the net without any success. I’ll see if I can find a hard copy for posting tomorrow.
Just to chime in here you ARE expected to address the Queen as ‘Your Majesty’ when first introduced. For the rest of the conversation you may call her Ma’am. On meeting her subsequently you would again first address her as ‘Your Majesty’ and then as Ma’am.
To hell with expectations. All people are equal (or at least should be treated as such). If you meet the queen, address her as Mrs. Windsor, Elizabeth, Madam, or whatever term of address you normally use for a stranger. The sooner we drop the pretence of political supremacy, the sooner we’ll have a world I’m not ashamed to live in.
[http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/OTHERREFERENCE/FORMSOFADDRESS/SpkWritFrmsAddr.html”](” [url)]This site lists formal titles for various officials. It generally agrees with the “Forms of Address” Appendix to my Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition which lists “Mr. President” or “The Honorable ____, President of the United States”.
To answer matt_mcl’s specific question, I’ve never heard of using “His Excellency” so I imagine what you saw were examples of individuals who went a little overboard in addressing the president. And the other examples on this thread seem to be from foreign citizens who might be assuming that our president is “His Excellency” since many other presidents are referred to as “His Excellency”.
As an aside, the formal title for the Governor of Virginia is “His Excellency, the Governor of the Commonwealth.”
“The Honorable” is a title used here in the US to denote an elected person. For example, all members of Congress, even Rep. Trafficant, are to be addressed as “The Honorable ________”. But a person such as say, the Secretary of Defense gets no such formal title.
Excellency is sometimes used for diplomatic persons (ambassadors, etc.). It may be that using it to address the president of the United States is an extension of this.
“Hi, Lizzie!” “That’s Queen Lizzie to you, buster!”
Just reminded myself of a little piece I saw Tim “99 Dead Baboons” Cavanagh perform as an opening act for somebody (Air Supply?) many, many years ago … Led off talking about his close relationship with the Prince & Princess of Wales (“I call them ‘Di’ and ‘Chuck’. That’s what good friends they are. They call me ‘Pusbrain’.”) Then sang the song he wrote to toast them. “Drink Up, Chuck and Di.”
Hee, the US using more titles than we do. I find that droll, somehow.
In Canada, MPs are not called “Honourable,” but Mr/Ms or similar. The only honourables are (IIRC) present and former cabinet ministers. Former and present Governors-General and (as mentioned) PMs are “right honourable” (très honorable). Provincial lieutenant-governors are honourable too.
However, unlike the US Supremes, we still have the title for Mr. Justice and Madam Justice for (again IIRC) our Supremes, not just Justice. (I understand they dropped the Mr. because of confusion over what to call women justices. What’s wrong with “Madam Justice”?)
