You’re meeting a former general and former secretary of one of the uniformed services in a business setting. Is the proper form of address General Smith, Secretary Smith, or Mr. Smith?
You’re essentially asking how to address Colin Powell. Interviewers seem to opt for “General”.
Either General Smith, Mr Smith, or Sir would for. While in office as Secretary of _____ it would me Mr Secretary.
general. if purely a cabinet man, it’s secretary or ‘honorable’ while incumbent. after his term, it’s ‘mr.’
Note also that once someone holds a position that allows them to be addressed “The Honorable,” it is generally accepted that they will continue to be addressed in that way.
So a letter to a former mayor would go:
The Honorable Joe Smith
123 Fake St.
Dear Mr. Smith:
Similarly, I would probably address Powell as thus:
The Honorable Colin Powell
234 Alias Ave.
Dear General Powell:
There’s a rather thorough blog on matters of protocol like this: www.formsofaddress.info
But I couldn’t find this specific question addressed.
i find the british system simpler. all appointees and some elects simply become lords.
lord mayor
lord rector
lord warden
lord chancellor
I think there’s no officially corect answer to the OP so long as the guy is not currently holding office. I’d probably call them by the title for which they received the most attention while in the job. Otherwise, “General” seems to work.
–Cliffy
my old man once said the general rule for people of national prominence was, “excellencies” for elected ones and “honorable” for those appointed. i would agree but there’re too many exceptions. appointed ambassadors were excellencies because they represented the state in that guest country. congressmen and mp’s were either honorable or distinguished gentlemen though elected.
but in the case of collin powell, ‘general’ is his lifetime title.
That’s not right on the whole “excellencies” thing. It basically breaks down to a foreign vs US convention for certain offices.
The President, the Secretary of State, and US ambassadors would always be addressed as the Honorable by Americans, but as His/Her Excellency by other nations.
The matter of elected vs appointed is irrelevant, sorta. In US usage, anyone elected to higher office (like mayor on up) is entitled to the Honorable, as are appointed officials in high positions, mostly Federal officials who are confirmed by the Senate.
Judges and magistrates at all levels of courts are also entitled to “The Honorable Firstname Lastname,” although it’s a matter of custom and not of statute.
As to retirees, I always liked Harry Truman’s approach. He said, after leaving the White House, that he looked forward to being addressed as plain ol’ “Mr. Truman” again. I understand courtesy titles, but we’ve gotten a little silly about it in the U.S., I think. If I could wave my magic wand, only those actually holding a government job at the time would be addressed by that title.
Firstname Lastname has served me well.