I think it falls under the “It’s not carved in stone anywhere what to call a former officeholder in a democracy, so rather than seem disrespectful by referring to him as ‘Mr. Romney,’ what the hell, I’ll just give him the benefit of his former title” rule.
Your Holiness while in office.
Your Ex-Holiness while out of office.
Ratzy.
Ratso is already taken.
Your Ass-Holiness would be more amusing.
Not that long ago, people in the media were pretty scrupulous about using the term “former president”. As in, “My guests tonight will be Bono from U2, Stephen Wright, and Former President Bill Clinton.” I am sure there have always been exceptions, but they became a lot more noticeable a few years ago. About a year ago I heard one newscaster refer to, in a single sentence, “Former President Clinton”, “President Bush”, and “Mister Obama”.
A further permutation: is there a hierarchy of elected titles, or does one use the last office held? If someone has been both a Senator and a Governor, which would one call them? And if the proper form for ex-presidents is to drop the title altogether, wouldn’t it be appropriate to revert to the previous title? i.e. Governor Clinton, Governor Carter, and Governor Bush?
Miss Manners may disagree, but I believe it is both simpler and more appropriate to drop the title when the individual leaves office. Sure, include “Former Secretary of State” if you think we might be confused about which Colin Powell you mean, but the only time you call someone “Governor” should be while they are filling that office.
IMO, YMMV.
What should you call the pope?
What you should call any leader of an organization that protected pedopheliacs.
“Hey you, prisoner 666”
Many years ago Stephen Jay Gould had an aside in one of his essays about how the proper title of Jimmy Carter was “President Catrter”, not “former President Carter”. Gould’s been dead since 2002, and this wasn’t one of his last columns, so even withouit looking it up I can say that the practice of using “President X” rather than “Former President X” is well over a decade old.
(The issue came up because Carter contacted Gould to make a comment on one of his earlier essays. Garter was evidently a Stephen Jay Gould fan)
Early on in Colin Powell’s stint as Secretary of State, the NYT referred to him on second reference as “General Powell,” but there were complaints that this blurred the line between military and civilian authority, and they stopped doing that, referring to him instead as “Mr. Powell” on second reference (just as they refer to the current occupant of the Oval Office as “Mr. Obama” on second reference).
Your Unholiness?
See post 56.
[moderator note]
Please stay aware of which forum you’re in. While this response would be fine in most parts of the Straight Dope, it’s inappropriate for GQ.
Thank you. No warnings issued.
[/moderator note]
Noted.
I regret the comment and apologize.
“Governor” AFAIK is a lifetime title, like Ambassador.
One pope
Two pope
Red pope
Blue pope.
Black pope
Blue pope
Old pope
New pope.
This one has a little star.
This one has a little car.
Say! What a lot
Of pope there are.
Yes. Some are red. And some are blue.
Some are old. And some are new.
Some are sad.
And some are glad.
And some are very, very bad.
Why are they
Sad and glad and bad?
I do not know.
Go ask your dad.
Some are thin.
And some are fat.
The fat one has
A yellow hat.
Say, once he’s ex-officio, does he become fallible again?
Yes. Papal infallibility only holds if the Pope is specifically exercising his office. No office, no infallibility.
Bravissimo, moriah! Simply wonderful.
To clarify, he himself was not infallible, the self-identified infallible pronouncements made explicitly ‘ex cathedra’ were infallible (and only two of them ever made). And as explained, that’s a function of the office, not the person (though the person has a lot to do with how the office gets exercised).
Push him down the stairs, see what happens.