# US president - Excellency? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 8, 2002, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-president-excellency/102539 "2002-04-08T19:01:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SCSimmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e495f1/32.png) [@SCSimmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCSimmons)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2002, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-president-excellency/102539/21 "2002-04-18T20:04:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pravnik \* > **You’re right about it having been rejected, more than once. FindLaw annotations (quoting a book by a guy named Thatch) say that in the Constitutional Convention the designation of the executive in Art II, Sec 1 as the “President of the United States” was reported in the Committee on Detail and accepted by the Convention without discussion. The same clause had provided the President’s title was to be “His Excellency”, but was ommitted by the Committee on Style and Arrangement, again with no comment in the Convention. Whatever the reason, it didn’t find its way in the document.** Hey-I ran across some actual relevant information to this, allowing me to post something besides a smart-ass remark for a change … The title ‘His Excellency’ comes from the Pinckney Plan, which was evidently the first set of proposals submitted to the Continental Congress which suggested having a ‘President of the United States’ … > [@](#): > > On [May 29, 1787] Charles Pinckney of South Carolina presented his “Plan of a Federal Constitution”. The Pinckney Plan did not figure into the debates during the Convention, but it was one of the documents later used by John Rutledge’s committee of detail in drafting a complete constitution … Its Article VIII called for the establishment of the office of President in the following words: > > “The executive power of the United States shall be vested in a President of the United States of America, which shall be his style; and his title shall be His Excellency …” (From _The Graphic Story of the American Presidents_, David C. Whitney, 1967; as reprinted in \*Funk & Wagnalls New Comprehensive International Dictionary of the English Language, Encyclopedic Edition \*, 1978 Edition, p. 1853. The ‘Virginia Plan’, presented earlier that same day to the Continental Congress, proposed an executive office for the United States, but contained neither style nor title for said office.) It seems that the detail committee pulled some verbiage straight from the Pinckney Plan. I find it rather amusing that the style & arrangement committee would take it upon themselves to yank it back out. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2002, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-president-excellency/102539/22 "2002-04-18T21:19:03Z")
\<\< To hell with expectations. All people are equal (or at least should be treated as such). If you meet the queen, address her as Mrs. Windsor, Elizabeth, Madam, or whatever term of address you normally use for a stranger. The sooner we drop the pretence of political supremacy, the sooner we’ll have a world I’m not ashamed to live in. \>\> How about when you go to visit a doctor for the first time? Do you call her “Dr Smith” or do you “drop the pretence of political supremacy”? How about when you take a college class and meet the professor for the first time? Do you call him “Professor McGillicudy” or do you “drop the pretence of political supremacy”? How about when you’re addressing your aunt? Do you call her “Aunt Martha” or do you “drop the pretence of political supremacy”? Suppose you meet someone named “Richard”, do you automatically call him “Dick” regardless of whether he would prefer to be “Rich” or “Richard”? or do you “drop the pretence of political supremacy” and just call him “Yo!” Titles are titles, they have nothing to do with “political supremacy.” The Mayor of the City is formally addressed as “Mr Mayor”, in polite society, although I can call him Dan in private. It has to do with good manners, not with any political philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2002, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-president-excellency/102539/23 "2002-06-16T17:25:59Z")
Just came across a couple of references to the “excellency” question, worth reviving a dormant thread. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pravnik \* > **Washington, if I remember correctly, liked being called “your exellency”, and got made fun of for it, too.** In Farrand’s _The Framing of the Constitution of the United States_, he mentions the following: > [@](#): > > Incidentally, it is indicative of the ideas of the time that, after the new government was installed, the title which Washington himself was said to have preferred as the most fitting one for his position was “His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties.” The issue of how the President was to be addressed apparently occupied a fair bit of time of the first session of Congress. Both Houses debated the issue. The Representatives reached a pretty quick conclusion. They resolved that he should be addressed as “George Washington, President of the United States.” Madison, a member of the Representatives, spoke to the motion and stated that he favoured simplicity: “The more simple, the more republican we are in our mannrers, the more national dignity we shall acquire.” However, he also stated that it didn’t strike him as a matter of great import. Things were otherwise in the Senate, where the issue was the subject of heated debate for over a month. Vice-President Adams was heavily involved in the debate, perhaps more than was appropriate, given that he simply presided over the Senate and was also in line to become the President. Adams’ interest came from two points, one very practical and one ideological. From the practical perspective, he noted that he was the President of the Senate - how then should the President of the United States be addressed, should he come to address the Senate? There couldn’t be two presidents, and Adams, a rather fussy fellow, wanted to clarify this point in advance. Writing some years after the event, Adams stated: > [@](#): > > Whether I should say, “Mr. Washington,” “Mr. President,” “Sir,” “may it please your Excellency,” or what else? I observed that it had been common while he commanded the army to call him “His Excellency,” but I was free to own it would appear to me better to give him no title but “Sir” or “Mr. President,” than to put him on a level with a governor of Bermuda. Adams’ other motivation was that he, like Madison, wanted a form of address that would help to raise the reputation of the nascent United States. Unlike Madison, he thought that a grander form of title would be more impressive, especially when dealing with the European countries. At any rate, Senators Lee and Izard brought the issue up in debate, and apparently suggested “Excellency” as the title for the President, a suggestion that Adams favoured. The Senate then appointed a committee to look into it, which reported back with the moniker that Farrand mentions. However, other Senators of a more democratic bent opposed any special mode of address, notably Senator Maclay of Pennsylvania, an Anti-Federalist. Maclay was feisty and determined, and also suspicious of the motives of all the Federalists who surrounded him, so the debate over the mode of address for the President seems to have devolved into a proxy debate over their respective political positions. Maclay argued that giving any mode of address to the President, other than “President” would contravene the “patents of nobility” clause of the Constitution. He also mocked Adams, suggesting that the title for the Vice-President should be “His Rotundity.” Eventually, the Senate adopted the same resolution as the House. Unfortunately for Adams, Maclay was the only one who kept a detailed journal at the time, so his record became the major source for the historians looking into the issue. [Source: McCullough, _John Adams_, at pp. 400-408] ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2002, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-president-excellency/102539/24 "2002-06-16T17:59:49Z")
“His High Mightiness” was exactly what I was trying to remember, Northern Piper. I think Gore Vidal mentioned it in “Burr”. Heh…my first ever post got bumped! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2002, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-president-excellency/102539/25 "2002-06-16T22:56:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by psychonaut \* > \*\* > > To hell with expectations. All people are equal (or at least should be treated as such). If you meet the queen, address her as Mrs. Windsor, Elizabeth, Madam, or whatever term of address you normally use for a stranger. The sooner we drop the pretence of political supremacy, the sooner we’ll have a world I’m not ashamed to live in. \*\* psychonaut: This is the General Questions forum. The idea here is to provide factual, verifiable information in answer to questions that may be so answered. “Mrs. Windsor” is a construction that makes no sense, since it supposes that the Queen’s surname is Windsor. Strictly speaking, of course, the British royals do not have a surname. See Cecil’s discussion [here](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_136.html) for details in the Master’s usual expository brilliance. Your ideas about dropping all honorifics are better suited to Great Debates (or, if they lack any foundation except that it’s your preference, IMHO would be a fine forum). The OP specifically asks about a proper form of address, and thus presupposes the existance and use of protocol. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2002, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-president-excellency/102539/26 "2002-06-16T23:54:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by C K Dexter Haven \* > **Suppose you meet someone named “Richard”, do you automatically call him “Dick” regardless of whether he would prefer to be “Rich” or “Richard”? or do you “drop the pretence of political supremacy” and just call him "Yo!"** Hey, a GQ question I can actually answer! You can call me Richard or Muffin. If you call me Dick I’ll piss on you. If you call me Yo I won’t know what the heck you are talking about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-president-excellency/102539.md?page=1)