Last night on an episode of Father Brown (set in the early 1950s) one of the padre’s pals introduced herself by saying, “Hello, I’m Lady Felicia Montague.” Would a titled lady use her title when introducing herself? I think not. I think she would just give her name. And a titled man (up to and including Duke) would say, “Robert Crawley,” and let it go at that.
Then the people standing around would elbow each other and say, “Don’t you know who that is?” And others would have to clarify whether she is *Lady Felicia *or Lady Montague.
I didn’t have much luck googling this exact question. However, I did find out that Queen Elizabeth introduces herself by just saying “Elizabeth,” but that doesn’t mean you get to *call *her Elizabeth.
This particular version of Father Brown has many grating anachronisms and inaccuracies*, of which the OP’s is just one example.
Strictly speaking, “Lady Felicia” would only be referred to as such if her title comes from her being the daughter of a peer; if it comes as the wife of someone with a title, she’s technically Lady Montague (or whatever), and might be referred to as Felicia, Lady Montague if there needed to be a distinction made between different Lady Montagues. Both are considered “courtesy titles”. “Lady X” is also used as a shorthand for women with higher titles in their own right, either inherited (as can occasionally happen, e.g., the Countess of Mar or Countess Mountbatten), or awarded as a specific honour for themselves (e.g., Margaret Thatcher or other life peers).
But as for introducing herself, OP is quite right - assuming, that is, that the lady in question had any manners or sense of noblesse oblige (or at least, not committing the cardinal English sin of “showing off”). To insist on introducing her full title into the conversation when introducing herself would raise eyebrows all round, definitely a sign of someone new to the system. I’d normally assume that if someone else introduces them with the title, they would normally immediately say "Oh, please, call me Felicia " (or whatever).
*(e.g., a village church wouldn’t be Catholic - the Father Browns of this world would be in the nearest town).
According to the Lord Peter Wimsey books by Dorothy L Sayers, written in the 1930s, the correct form of address for Lord Peter’s wife (who is from the gentry but is not from a titled family herself) is “Lady Peter”.
It really depends on who. In official circles and formal occasions, all the titles come out.
But person-to-person, informally, it all depends. I’ve met a few Members of the House of Lords, and they range from ‘call me Richard, I don’t like all that title stuff’ to other more formal interactions.
Actually, I’ve found it much more likely that it will be staff of the House of Lords as well as people meeting with the Lord to insist upon the title. In the case of ‘Richard’ above, the staffer in question turned round and said ‘Oh, no, my Lord; the title is not for you, it’s for me.’
Thanks for the replies. Note that I’m not asking when titles are to be used in general. I’m asking whether a titled person would use his/her title on the one specific occasion of introducing him/herself to a stranger. I think PatrickLondon nailed it: But as for introducing herself, OP is quite right - assuming, that is, that the lady in question had any manners or sense of noblesse oblige (or at least, not committing the cardinal English sin of “showing off”). To insist on introducing her full title into the conversation when introducing herself would raise eyebrows all round…
The local Earl, who’s in the Lords these days due to an awarded baronetcy rather than the hereditary route, is universally called “Jamie”. He’s a nice man.
Back to Lord Peter Wimsey again, here’s how he introduces himself in one of the books, The None Tailors. He’s talking to a clergyman who has offered him shelter on a winter night when his car is stuck in a ditch:
“My name is Wimsey–here is my card” (which reads “Lord Peter Wimsey”)
I remember reading some comments that Downton Abbey was anachronistic in the same way–in the episode where Lady Mary is angry at a policeman who keeps calling her “Miss”. She tells him she is not called “Miss,” “I am Lady Mary Crawley.” and he replies “I don’t care if you’re the queen of the upper Nile”.
You may be right, but the church used in the show; St Mary Roman Catholic church, is actually the (Church of England) church of Saints Peter and Paul in the Gloucestershire village of Blockley
Is it not also considered rude to call a Judge, Doctor, or Reverend with “Mister” when his status is well-known and, by default, there is an assumption that the loftier title would be preferred? Lady Mary’s status was certainly well known: the policeman was being deliberately rude.
Depends on the context: some are formal, some are not.
We don’t (or used not to) call clergy “Reverend” as a title to their face, American style. It does happen more now, but I always understood it to be considered a bit infra dig to use just “Reverend” on its own. It may be less troublesome to use the job title, rather than professional label, on its own (Vicar, Rector, Dean, Bishop), especially in a churchy context. For a lowly Anglican parish priest or Nonconformist minister, it’s perfectly OK and probably safer to use just Mr or John or Mary, according to how well we know them; but for Roman Catholic, and some Anglican priests, “Father” is usual. If being referred to in the third person in a relevant context (usually in writing) then “Revd. John/Mary” (or whatever Church title) might well be used.
Likewise, the appropriate legal title when in court or dealing with legal business or some other formal occasion for a judge, but not generally.
“Doctor” can be a bit fraught, depending on whether it’s a PhD in or out of an academic context, or whether you’re visiting a medical doctor professionally (though nowadays, your NHS GP or A&E doctor is likely to encourage a chummy first-names atmosphere, while older-fashioned senior hospital consultants might prefer to hang on to the godlike status they used to have).
But if you meet them at a neighbour’s drinks party or barbecue, then formality and titles wouldn’t be expected, and would even be taken amiss (none of these professions takes that kindly to being expected to give professional advice at parties, after all).
I used to work in a university where senior academics might well be given a title, and it was usual not to bother with it outside formal written material. But I did hear of another institution where a senior professor was made a life peer; technically, he became Baron X of Y, and the proper form for referring to him in the third person would be “The Lord X”, if you were really nitpicking. Apparently he made a point of correcting everyone who got it wrong, and one committee chairman got so annoyed, they took to referring to everyone else on the committee the same way - “The Mr. Y”, “The Mrs. Z” and so on. I don’t know if the Lord took the point.
For an informal occasion a titled person would almost certainly just state their name if introducing themself with no mention of a title.
To give the full title would be “bad form” and showing off.
The sort of thing done by someone just awarded a title rather than hereditary.
On a formal occasion they would expect to be introduced by a third party with their full title.
The first response should be formal as your lordship or your grace.
After that it depends on the circumstance. The Queen accept Ma’am.
The standard form of address for an Anglican clergyman, the Rev. John Saintly, is “Mr. Saintly” (or just “John”, if you known him well enough). “Reverend” works a bit like “honourable”; it goes on the envelope, but never in the salutation.
For a Catholic priest, and some high Anglicans, it’s “Rev. John Saintly” on the envelope, but “Father Saintly” in the salutation, and when speaking to him.