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’ …
(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.
<< 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.
Just came across a couple of references to the “excellency” question, worth reviving a dormant thread.
In Farrand’s The Framing of the Constitution of the United States, he mentions the following:
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:
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.
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 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.
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.
