Of all the things that have been irritating me about the election is the insistence of virtually *EVERYONE *to call Mitt Romney “Governor” - he’s *NOT *a governor. He’s a former governor. According to this, it is not proper to call him governor.
Same deal for former presidents. We have one president, and it’s not Carter or Clinton or either Bush.
Or is the reference I cited wrong?
In an era where language is evolved through mainstream usage and popular dilution, wouldn’t de facto protocol be whatever people want to use?
Those reference books have no authority beyond popular agreement as to their authority. The minute enough people start to do something differently, it’s the reference books that need to change, not the other way around.
Things might be different if you’re talking about cross-cultural honorifics in exchanges with cultures with more stable protocols, but the US media speaking to a popular US audience is distinctly not that. They refer to individual style guides (in-house or otherwise) and different outfits do things differently: Wikipedia: Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing
And in everyday speech, well, for what it’s worth “Mitt Romney” returns about 80 times more Google hits than “Governor Romney”.
Let’s just say it isn’t undisputed. (Nor is it any kind of official governmental source, despite the fancy-schmancy “Protocol School of Washington” name: it’s a guy who runs etiquette classes selling an etiquette book.) In fact, farther down in that very link, a correspondent points out that tha author’s rule about not using the title “Governor” to refer to a former governor contradicts Miss Manners’s take on it:
Here’s where Miss Manners laid out that rule.
Formal etiquette, of course, is not the same thing as political reporting: I would be inclined to cut some slack to the use of “Governor Romney” even if it’s not traditional, because it avoids the seeming imbalance in style between “President Obama” and “Mr. Romney”. (The hardcore-proper thing to do, of course, would be to use “Mr.” for both men, on the grounds that it is never disrespectful to any American man to call him “Mr.” But I don’t expect to see that happening.)
I just checked a couple of articles in the New York Times. They appeared to use “President Obama” and “Mitt Romney” on the first reference in a given article, and then “Mr Obama” and “Mr Romney” subsequently.
By the way, I found another article that referred to the current governor of New York State as “Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo” on the first reference and then Mr Cuomo thereafter. So I think if Mitt Romney were a sitting governor, they might have referred to him as Governor Romney.
Yeah, I think the Gray Lady is unusual in her scrupulousness about using “Mr.” or equivalent instead of just a surname.
There are six people in the White House protocol office who have to deal with official rules. Nobody else in America cares, should care, or will ever care. The unofficial defacto “rules” for protocol are used by everybody every day in every situation and that’s the way it should be. The guy in the OP’s link wants your money. Don’t give it to him. In fact, treat him like he’s in the pit - the same as you should with anybody else who uses the word protocol.
Not that I have an opinion on the subject or anything.
It’s a common honorary etiquette to refer to people by their past titles like this. It’s fairly idiosyncratic which titles get used this way and which don’t. – Nobody ever calls a past president President, but it’s common for governors. Especially for governors who are running for higher office. Especially if they’re Republicans.
Really. No political jab intended. Okay, maybe that’s a political jab anyway.
Presidential campaigns love to use every rhetorical trick they can to build up and glorify their candidate. And it’s these campaigns where this seems most common – campaign workers always refer to their guy as Governor. It goes at least as far back as Ronald Reagan.
Throughout Reagan’s presidential campaign, his people invariably referred to him as Governor Reagan, even though he not been governor for several years (6 IIRC). I don’t know if he was the first one to do that. But it’s caught on ever since – at least among Republicans.
Strangely, I didn’t notice it among Democrats. Nobody referred to candidate Jimmy Carter as Governor Carter, although he was a former governor. And I don’t recall anybody calling candidate Bill Clinton as Governor Clinton, although he was a former governor too.
I don’t at all agree with this. I frequently see former presidents referred to as President Clinton, President Reagan, President Nixon, etc.
*Frequently *verging on always.
And Carter was always referred to as Governor Carter and Clinton was always referred to as Governor Clinton. Senegoid, your memory is faulty verging on bizarre.
Geeez …
As if world hunger, pollution, and recession is not enough keep our attention.
Retired judges also get referred to as Judge Surname. Ambassadors get addressed as “Your Excellency” even after they retire. And I have seen former judges and former mayors addressed as “Your Honor” years after they had left office.
Some people advocate for the “one officeholder at a time” rule.
Other people advocate for the “call them by the highest office they have ever held” rule.
Out of curiosity, why does the Secretary of State have a significantly higher precedencethan the other cabinet level officials?
Six people at the White House to handle protocol? Ain’t guvmint work grand.
The original cabinet consisted of four positions, Secretary of State, Treasury Secretary, Secretary of War, and Attorney General. The Secretary of State was by far the highest valued. It was seen as the stepping stone to the Presidency. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams all were Secretaries of States first. That four out of the first four possibilities. (Van Buren and Buchanan also were.) And that was the position that dealt with the world and world leaders, so it needed to rank high in a world where protocol was everything.
Even for the typical ignorant and reflexive anti-government nonsense, that’s a comment that is resplendent in its sheer ignorance. Protocol is part of the daily work of dealing with the world in Washington. There is a Chief of Protocol of the United States, who is actually part of the State Department, as one would expect.
That’s separate from the White House Social Secretary, who:
I’m sure you don’t care if anybody pays attention to state dinners, state visits, or the thousand formal meetings that is basic to the work of government but some people do and they want it done right, and without insulting every other country in the world, which you probably also say you don’t care about but probably would loudly and angrily comment on if somebody got it wrong and it made the headlines.
I knew this. But I still thought the Secretary of State was more a first among equals, rather than a separate level of office.
First among equals is still first. Even so, protocol is its own world. Look at the list in the link you posted. How does that correspond to any other notion of levels? That list is proof in and of itself why ordinary people don’t know about protocol and don’t care. It’s incomprehensible.