If I were to write a letter to a knight whom I did not personally know, what would the correct way to address him be?
Dear Sir Surname
Dear Sir First Name
Dear Sir First & Surname
And while we’re at it, what other forms of address are there besides “Dear”, which implies some degree of intimacy, and “to”, which implies none at all? I mean in any letter, not just to a knight.
And while we’re still at it, what are the answers to all these questions for Dames?
Oh, and is it correct to refer to them as Knights and Dames?
Plus, there are no laws about how you address such people. Debrett’s is just some book. True, the traditional etiquette is widely observed, but there’s nothing stopping anyone addressing Paul McCartney, say, as plain Mr. McCartney.
That’s not quite right. If the knighted person is an citizen of the United States, and a man, “Mr. Surname” is fine. However, if the person is a subject of the person bestowing the knighthood, one should address them by the highest title to which they are entitled, until requested otherwise.
One should never address women, knighted or not, as ‘Mister’. It’s kind of bitchy.
Why would you not address someone by their form of address? And would you expect a reply after such a decision?
It doesn’t display allegiance or subservience. It’s just like using Dr. or Lieutenant or any other title that someone had acquired.
Would you refuse to use any foreign title or firm of address which wasn’t specifically awarded by your country? What about a Norwegian military officer or a Russian politician who had a title?
Or, in short, what’s wrong with using someone’s title in formal communication? Would you not expect the same courtesy if you were a doctor or professor or captain or senator? Do you accept Mrs/Miss/Ms preferences?
Sure, it’s not required or enforced by anyone. But it seems polite to me.
I guess one argument I’ve heard is that it isn’t “earned”; whereas it is. Usually through civic, military, charitable, or artistic achievement. Maybe not by the same process and structure as in your own country, but it’s just as valid as Captain or Senator is in the US.
Meh. I guess it doesn’t matter. I just find it curious when people take a stance against if as though it does matter.
As Debrett’s says, the wife of a knight is not a Dame, but may be referenced as such in legal documents.
There is a US citizen who has an honorary knighthood in the NZ Order of Merit, and I’m sure that at least Ronald Reagan received an honorary one in some UK Order. They are not entitled to be addressed as ‘Sir Joe’ or whatever, though.
Non-British subjects can have British honours conferred upon them, but they are “honorary”, and do not carry a title. Thus Bob Geldof has an honorary knighthood, but he is still plain Mr Geldof.
And these “achievement/merit” titles are roughly analogous to honorary degrees in the US - they are nice to have, but are not earned degrees, and are not usable as credentials or titles.
Being American (or any other nationality) has nothing to do with it.
Because as an egalitarian, I try to avoid the use of titles which imply an inequality in social rank.
I should hope that whatever matter I was writing upon would be considered on its substance and not on whatever honorifics or other fawning language I used to address the recipient.