# John Cardinal Smith -vs- Cardinal John Smith **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 24, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-cardinal-smith-vs-cardinal-john-smith/300920 "2005-04-24T22:56:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-cardinal-smith-vs-cardinal-john-smith/300920/1 "2005-04-24T22:56:41Z")
I noticed that CNN and Fox News use the former, and MSNBC uses the latter. Is there a correct way to insert “Cardinal” into the name of a Roman Catholic official? Or is either one proper? ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-cardinal-smith-vs-cardinal-john-smith/300920/2 "2005-04-24T23:11:09Z")
There have been a lot of threads on this topic. You can dig them all up to listen to everybody say that it’s just a matter of style and there is no right answer. Except for the people who firmly believe that their style is correct. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-cardinal-smith-vs-cardinal-john-smith/300920/3 "2005-04-24T23:11:11Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I noticed that CNN and Fox News use the former, and MSNBC uses the latter. Is there a correct way to insert “Cardinal” into the name of a Roman Catholic official? Or is either one proper? John Cardinal Doe is the formal traditional usage. Cardinal John Doe is the more informal modern usage. Using cardinal between one’s given name and one’s surname was a parellel to titles of nobility (Edward, Duke of Windsor) since cardinal are regarded as princes of the church. Alot of media outlets consider the traditional usage archaic, but I’ve seen old news reports from the 70s (on MSNBC!) that used Karol Cardinal Wojtyła. ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-cardinal-smith-vs-cardinal-john-smith/300920/4 "2005-04-25T16:21:16Z")
> [@BobT](#): > > There have been a lot of threads on this topic. You can dig them all up to listen to everybody say that it’s just a matter of style and there is no right answer. > > Except for the people who firmly believe that their style is correct. Actually, I thought I’d posted this in the thread I started or maybe I found it through there. To recap: I don’t buy “analogy with noble titles” since William, Lord Kelvin was born William Thompson and also there’s a comma added. I don’t buy “originated before last names” because so did archbishop, which goes at the front of the name. I don’t but “analogy with Latin” for similar reasons. I do, however, at least tentatively buy [this](http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1996/Wiseman.asp#F4): > [@](#): > > Q: Why are cardinals’ names written with cardinal in the middle of the name? > > A: According to Jerrold M. Packard, author of Peter’s Kingdom Inside the Papal City, cardinals insert “Cardinal” in the middle of their name because Pope Urban VIII (1644) felt the honor of being appointed cardinal was so great that the title should become part of the person’s name itself rather than merely a prefix. > > Packard says that this form is becoming unfashionable but is still used on official papal documents. It was the same Urban VIII who gave cardinals the unique style Eminence. Packard states that “Cardinal” is a title and “Eminence” a style. Webster’s dictionary calls “Eminence” a title. There’s the historical reason.