I’m going to a function at Government House this evening, and I thought it might be interesting to show the details of the protocol that have been issued to us (especially no 4 below):
And, just to be clear, her husband is “Sir Nicholas”, not because he is the spouse of the Governor, but because he was knighted himself for his services to local government. This happened in 1976, long before his wife became Governor. If he wasn’t knighted he would be just plain Nicholas Shehadie, addressed as “Mr Shehadie” or “Nick”, depending on how well you know him. The appointment of his wife as governor would not alter his title or mode of address in any way.
Because her husband is a knight, the Governor may use the title “Lady Shehadie”. But, in practice, she never does. Even if she did use that title, as a Governor she would still be addressed as “Your Excellency” or “Ma’am”.
Nor even of the nobility strictly speaking, at least in the British Isles.
Except that doesn’t work for knights/dames, peers and royalty, if you’re following protocol.
Meh, plenty of Americans use titles, especially titles that denote (not just imply) differences in social standing. If I addressed my flight commander as “Hey you with the shiny shit all over his hat!”, I’d be in a world of hurt. Hell, I’m expected to salute foreign officers of nations that we’re not fighting with (which, at the moment, would be almost all of them, point of interest).
Anyhow, I believe that Americans being willfully ignorant assholes is a screwy concept that generally shouldn’t be encouraged.
The Queen is not the head of state in the US, so no actual knighthoods, only honorary.
And if they’re holder of a government position, don’t address them (in any way) as Sir Governor or whatever. There is a street near us, “Sir Viceroy”. Which is the dumbest street name ever. You would never have Sir Viceroy (unless the poor fellow’s parents named him Vicerow Throatwarbler-Mangrove or something). You might have Sir John, Viceroy of Somethingstan.
I could have sworn that I have heard the usage “General Sir Arthur Goodbody” in some English war movie.
For military, ecclesiastical and academic titles and the like it pretty much works if you consider “Sir Arthur” together as being the addressees first name.
Incidentally, the current Lord Chief Justice (head of the judiciary in England and Wales) revels in the full name and title of The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge. His birth name was Igor Judge, and he was made a Baron. A fine example of nominative determinism.
The businessman Mr. Alan Sugar was knighted about ten years ago: when he became the boss on the TV show The Apprentice he became ingrained in the public consciousness as “Sir Alan”, so it confused everyone for a while when Gordon Brown then made him a Lord, in a fairly desperate political stunt, changing him to “Lord Sugar”.
Not using titles show’s respect to the “all men are created equal” statement in the US Declaration of Independence.
Military rules are different. It would not be improper to for a civilian to refer to a military officer in the appropriate Mr., Mrs., etc.
Without royalty there would be no one to grant titles.
This may be your personal view, but a blanket refusal to acknowledge such titles is most definitely not the practice endorsed by any reputable source of American protocol or etiquette.
For example, “Protocol: The Complete Handbook of Diplomatic, Official and Social Usage,” which is one of the authoritative texts frequently used in determining how people should refer to each other in official contexts, devotes several pages to how to address knights, royalty, members of the Peerage, and so on; going into such details of how dukes should be addressed as Your Grace, viscounts as Lord (firstname), and so on.
You’re perfectly free to adopt whatever manners of address you please, but there is no such broadly accepted custom as to what you are asserting.
The French still maintain an honours system, with rankings based on what looks to me like a chivalric (is this a word?) system.
Chivalric is a word, but in English I think the accurate term is “feudal system.”
D’oh, that’s what I was reaching for :smack: Thanks!
Certainly your own politicians and diplomats think differently. Your president uses peoples’ titles.
If you’re thinking of the Légion d’Honneur, there’s nothing feudal about it. The people who hold the title are indeed called “Knights of the Legion of Honour” (and “Commanders” for the higher ups), but they have exactly zero added social influence, they aren’t given demesnes to lord over (more’s the pity - I’d kinda like to see Céline Dion rule Sarcelles with an iron fist :p) or anything like that. I think the highest rank does come with a stipend from the State, to the tune of ~60 euros per annum. Enough to have a beer on France’s tab, not enough to have people to do it for you :).
Basically, it’s just a tin medal awarded to say “splendid job, old boy, now let the young’uns do it, yes ?”
However, I think we do still recognize honest to god titles of nobility on paper - that is to say, nobles have the (exclusive ?) right to call themselves viscount this and baron that, and the State recognizes it if you can document it. Of course, whether that last of privileges brings them more honour than ridicule is debatable 
I don’t think we can take that as read, as Baron Greenback points out. But my point remains - knights and dames are not royalty and the title is best considered as an honour given for achievment, public service and so on.
To be honest, that’s the same with British honours too, minus the stipend. (The different ranks in the French system are the same as in the British knighthoods, I’m guessing we got it from you lot way back) The extra social influence is debatable at best. It’s probably easier to book a table at certain restaurants?