“Madame Counselor”? Can we stack them up German style?
She attended a French-speaking elementary school, so she might not find “Madame” incongruous.
Personally, I prefer Miss and select it whenever it’s available. I don’t like the sound of Ms., it’s all hissy.
Whereas, around here, Mrs, Ms, and Miss are all pronounced the same more often than not, unless you’re speaking slowly and/or carefully.
If the name starts with a voiced consonant or vowel, it’s “mizz,” and, if it’s an unvoiced consonant, it becomes “miss.”
I believe both of you have somewhat misunderstood me. I have probably written hundreds of business letters using “Ms”, and for that purpose I like it, too. If I’m writing to a municipal councilor about a zoning matter or to the president of a company to tell her that the can operner they make is crap, I have absolutely no interest in their marital status. Whether they are hitched and bearing children concerns me not in the least, nor should it concern anyone else. “Ms” has its place, and is a refreshing change from the old “Dear Miss or Mrs”.
I’m just saying it seems oddly misplaced as an honorific for a distinguished person with a genuinely earned position of respect. Something more classic – and classy – is called for, and “Madam” or “Madame” fits the bill perfectly. It’s a well-established usage in many countries for many distinguished positions such as female justices and prime ministers.
The nonbinary people I know are all lobbying for Mx, and it’s pronounced “Mix”. I hope it catches on. I hope it catches on not just for nonbinary people, but for general use when you are writing to “J Smith” and want to be polite but don’t want to guess J’s gender.
Except, that isn’t the history & etymology of Ms. It has its origins in the 17th century - which makes it perfect for an old fart.
I still prefer “Madame” for this type of address.
If “Mr. President” is classic and classy enough for a man, then I see no reason to seek anything more classic or classier than “Ms. President” for a woman.
As I said, I want to do away with all special titles for government offices.
Well, that’s sort of true but misleading. It’s not like it’s been in common use since the 17th century. It did originate at that time (as a contraction for “Mistress”) but fell out of use by the 19th century. It was only revived in its modern usage in the late 60s and 70s, as I said, most notably by Gloria Steinem’s Ms magazine which launched in 1972 and brought it into its current widespread usage.
But I do agree with you that “Madam” or “Madame” is preferred for this type of formal usage.
I prefer “Ms”.
“Madam” is an unusual form of address, and attracts attention to the gender of the officeholder as much as to the office. “Ms” is a common, boring form of address, so it falls to the background, and the attention goes to “vice-president”, not to “omygawd, it’s a woman”.
Double nitpick: she’s the Queen of the United Kingdom, not [just] England, and the proper style is “Your Majesty.”
We’re finally getting a woman into the White House. I want Harris to get the title, dammit. I want Mitch McConnell to choke on his own bile every time he addresses her by that title. I want her voice saying “This is Vice President Harris” played on a loop in Trump’s jail cell.
Nitpick right back atcha: she’s actually Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and certain Commonwealth countries including my own country of Canada*, formally “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”. But “Queen of England” is a common shorthand phrase used to distinguish her from, say, the Queen of Denmark, or a queen bee, and doesn’t usually attract undue comment.
You are, however, correct that the initial form of formal address is “Your Majesty”. Had a brain misfire there. Apparently I don’t chat with her often enough to remember that. 
* Although contrary to the sneering comments of some Americans who claim that no one should be subservient to any person of hereditary royalty, she has no real power here whatsoever, though legalese frequently invokes her name as a matter of ceremonial tradition, and what little discretionary power exists by virtue of the constitutional monarchy is carried out in her name by the Governor General. This was vividly illustrated back in 2013 when one of our idiot politicians wrote to the Queen complaining about a political impasse here and received in reply a very polite letter graciously explaining that said idiot politician didn’t seem to understand how a constitutional monarchy worked.
And isn’t “Ma’am” sufficient for any subsequent address?
Yes, that’s the normal protocol AIUI.
Ah, good. That’s way I’ve always done it.