Author Topic: The House of Windsor and The Press  (Read 25141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13039
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2006, 02:01:31 PM »
It seems a pattern could be that they are all serving or have served (former President Bush was CIA Director, Ambassador to the UN and China, Vice President, President--pick your title and the man did it!) Barbara Bush might not get the 'Hon' because hers wasn't an elected/appointed office and only due while she was actually First Lady (ala Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney).

Military ranks probably don't get anything before them just because they have their own. Similar situation for the Chief Justice. Their ranks are 'special' enough on their own, I suppose.

"The Honorable Timothy J. McBride, Senior Vice President of Government Relations, Freddie Mac  ?" Freddie Mac is the US Government financial aid service--for either education or home loans, I can't remember, so is a governmental office.

"The Honorable Donald L. Evans, Chief Executive Office, Financial Services Forum (  A major doner?)"
Don Evans if a former Cabinet Secretary (Commerce) and, I believe, a former Congressman.

And Stephen Hadley is more commonly known as National Security Director (rather than more official, but overly elaborate title given)--very important position, more so than just being a 'flunkie'. He's up there with major officials in terms of access and importance. Previously holders are Colin Powell (Reagan) and Condoleezza Rice (Bush).

Some of the unknown ones, like Lauder, could've been former elected/appointed officials, much like Don Evans, though they currently serve in a non-governmental position.
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

CHRISinUSA

  • Guest
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2006, 03:17:06 PM »
Ahh, I'm sure you're right - having held an office that is accorded the style must entitle one to that style for life.

Offline Grace

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 3126
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #47 on: November 09, 2006, 05:38:48 PM »
In politically-correct Britain the reformation of titles is going right to the bottom of the ranks.   Last week I read that 'Mrs' and 'Miss' are to be dropped, in favour of 'Ms', as in 'Ms Cherie Boorth' - wife of the British prime minister.   Although she has not yet insisted she be referred to as 'Ms Blair'.

The politically-correct brigade says this is to make it indistinguishable whether a woman is married are not.   

Don't you think these people have very little to think about?

tsaria

Most definitely, Tsaria.  Who are these people, anyway?  I wonder why a woman's marital status is now something to be hidden?  Marriage used to be something people were proud of!  ::)
« Last Edit: November 09, 2006, 05:41:25 PM by Grace »

Janet_W.

  • Guest
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2006, 08:24:17 PM »
Well, count me as one of those people! And in particular when it comes to information regarding a woman's marital status.

If a woman wishes to reveal her marital status, then by all means she should use the "Mrs." title. But for other women--such as myself--who believe our marital status is not especially the business of just any Joe or Josephine Blow, and who question why men don't have have a title that informs us if THEY are unmarried . . . well, we are likely to choose "Ms." 

(Though personally speaking, I much prefer to be addressed by my first name only, rather than last name preceeded by some title. And being addressed as "Miz Janet," as certain unctuous people in the personal care industry lately have been doing, only makes me laugh . . . I'm NOT Scarlett O'Hara, and I DON'T live on a plantation called Tara, thank you very much!!)

Marriage CAN be something to be proud of; being single also can be a source of pride. To be proud of one's marital or nonmarital status depends on WHY you have that status, and WHAT you do with it; some married people use marraige as a crutch, and some unmarried people use their single status as an excuse.

Besides, why should only the female gender be addressed with a thought to marital status? Perhaps "Miss" is a throwback to the times when men were the hunters and women the hunted; a title denoting lack of marital status could then serve as a written or verbalized bullseye!

Offline ChristineM

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2882
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #49 on: November 10, 2006, 04:37:14 AM »
Janet W, with all that is going on in this world, pardon me if I think conferences on such matters are inconsequential.   For example, in the UK we have been informed, in the last 24 hours, that there are at least 30 active cells plotting to destroy as many of us as they possible can while, concometently, damaging our economy - ironically, an economy on which they depend and prosper.   The differentiation between Miss and Mrs is irrelevant in the face of matters such as this.

It is yet another example of traditions not just being eroded, but being systematically demolished.   Janet is perfectly entitled to be named whatever way she chooses.   Equally, so am I.   Who has the right to take this choice away from me and from millions of others like me?

Regarding the use of 'Mr'.   Until not so long ago, a young, unmarried, man was addressed as 'Master' - eg:  Master John Smith.

Next thing, the political-correct 'police' will want -  the Queen also to be referred to as 'Ms'.

tsaria       



CHRISinUSA

  • Guest
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #50 on: November 10, 2006, 07:57:20 AM »
I don't personally object to a woman's desire to keep her marital status hidden from casual observers through the use of Ms. rather than Miss or Mrs.  But even the use of this more modern style appears to be in decline in favor of no formal form of address at all. 

I mean, the origins of formal protocol was to inject common standards of behavior into politics, diplomacy and business settings - rather than the swords and duels that came before.  So is its decline in daily usage a signal that a return to swords is not far away?

Well, to bring this back to the realm of royalty, I'm thankful at least in the royal courts of Euopre, that adherance to proper forms of address remain firmly in use.  (I laughed while watching The Queen recently and it showed Her Majesty grimmace when it was suggested that the newly elected Prime Minister may wish her to address him as "Tony".)

I've read that Queen Juliana preferred to be addressed as "Mevrouw" (apparently Dutch for "Madam"), and that her successor reverted to the more formal style "Majesty".  I approve!   ;)

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #51 on: November 10, 2006, 10:16:56 AM »
Well, maybe today, in the complex modern age, there often seems to be more relevance in practical matters than in things like protocol and titles. I think they were designed to structure the world long ago, when the world didn't have the structure of today. Everyone had to know their place, and live in that. In the modern world, such distinctions are fluid and forever changing, for bad or worse. Everything has gotten more casual in the last few decades in my view.  People today often don't think these things have much relevance or maybe they are just too busy. Manners are important and the correct way of doing things, but modern culture is so casual, etc. For my personal opinion, I don't care how people address me, I am very much of the modern age, and yet the traditions and manners of another age are part of me too.

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #52 on: November 10, 2006, 01:48:06 PM »
I don't personally object to a woman's desire to keep her marital status hidden from casual observers through the use of Ms. rather than Miss or Mrs.  But even the use of this more modern style appears to be in decline in favor of no formal form of address at all. 


Some women do this anyway, especially teachers - lots of my female teachers are married but are still referred to as 'Ms X'.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #53 on: November 10, 2006, 01:57:26 PM »
 Of course, it depends on how private of a person you are, for sure. Some people may not want this known to others, and some people are very open. I think it is good the option exists for more private people, and with right. I am just a Miss, and don't mind being called so, but I think in more personal sitiuations, most people simply refer to people by first name in modern society, but not in more professional sitiuations.

Janet_W.

  • Guest
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2006, 03:43:19 PM »
Absolutely, Tsaria! I agree--life always has been frightening and now is particularly frightening, especially with the world being so much smaller due to advances in transportation, communication and other technologies, allowing us to kill each other so much more easily and efficiently. I live very close to a nuclear power plant and, believe me, I realize that all of us residing in this region are a prime target for terrorists. If someday another "9/11" occurs and I stop posting, that may very likely be the reason why.

That being said, revolutions of any kind--government and religion in particular, but also those regarding art, sexual attitudes, dress, etc.--are often the stuff that continue to fuel the violence we've been citing. I said "fuel" because I think we all know that people rarely are motivated to go to war if they enjoy a good living standard. It is the extremes of weath and poverty that encourage literal and figurative rabble rousing, and with good reason . . . except, as we know via what happened in 1917, such "revolutions" often set a populace back rather than sending them forward.

Of course people also feel threatened by possible changes to their culture, which includes some of those aspects I've mentioned above--religion, sexuality, etc.  I suppose most of us understand that right now people on ALL sides are fanning such flames. Certain eastern cultures feel that western culture is an abomination, and many western countries feel that eastern cultures want to obliterate their own freedoms, and y'know what . . . they all have a foothold in reality.  Add to that a huge measure of testosterone--for, after all, what is a war without millions of young men, ready to obliterate the enemy--and we have a powderkeg instead of a planet.

Being addressed as one wishes is relatively small stuff in the fabric of any culture. Still, as a writer I want to also add that words and the way we use them say quite a lot about our attitudes and how we perceive ourselves and others. Since we've just experienced a national election here in the United States, I'm casting my vote for the following: The right to be addressed--and live--as I wish, and to remember that in order to expect that right I must also, likewise, respect the same right for others.

But what happens if someone in another country feels that I am part of The Great Satan and that I must knuckle under or die, while simultaneously someone in this country realizes that our economy depends on the exportation of resources from that nation which, in the process, continues to exploit that nation? And, in feeling this way, each nation villifies the other's cultures? Soon thousands upon thousands of people are willing to join in the battle for supremacy, uping the ante for a kill-or-be-killed world.

Bottom line: Let's all enjoy this website and the world while we can.

Offline ChristineM

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2882
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2006, 08:13:55 PM »
Janet - we're singing from the same hymn sheet.   The freedoms we know (knew) came at a terrible price.  We value them so little and appreciate even less those who fought and won them on our behalf.   What we have is our 'reward'.

Today is 11th November - Armistice Day.   This evening, as she has done for over fifty years, HM The Queen and her family will join in the annual Remembrance Ceremony at the Royal Albert Hall.   Tomorrow, at the Cenotaph, she will lay a wreath in honour of all who have perished in order that we may be free - and that includes the nineteen year old who died in Basra the day before last in that ghastly 'theatre' which masquerades as a 'war against terror', but really is the fulfilment of two mens' egos.

So, 'Why the Windsors?'   We have a little lady, Elizabeth Windsor, who represents goodness and honesty and faithfulness and courage and loyalty who despite an agonising sciatica - and being 80 years old -  on a cold, probably wet, November day, will be in Whitehall, as she has done, every year, for 54 years, fearlessly standing proudly, at attention, honouring all the tens of thousands who perished in two world wars and all wars since - she is the measure of the Windsors.

tsaria



 

Janet_W.

  • Guest
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #56 on: November 10, 2006, 09:49:09 PM »
Tsaria, once again I agree . . . very much the same hymm sheet!
« Last Edit: November 10, 2006, 10:03:29 PM by Janet_W. »

Offline Grace

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 3126
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #57 on: November 10, 2006, 10:22:42 PM »
I am still wondering why a woman would need to hide her marital status?  ???  Could someone give me an actual example of why this might be necessary, please? 




Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13039
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #58 on: November 10, 2006, 11:13:01 PM »
Part of it could be for security--I know many single women who have male friends/brothers/fathers put the message on their answering machine and list an initial instead of a first name in the phone book so that a potential predator doesn't know they're single.
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

Offline Eddie_uk

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2925
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #59 on: November 11, 2006, 08:44:10 AM »
I am still wondering why a woman would need to hide her marital status?  ???  Could someone give me an actual example of why this might be necessary, please? 


I agree Grace, I just can't comprehend it ??? ???.  Why get married? Surely marriage is something to rejoice in. Finding a partner to love and share the rest of ones life with. (I realise that is not always the case). And then to start a family, a union!! It's a beautiful thing!!

Sounds horribily feminist if you ask me (my opinion).

The only example I could think of for a woman not disclosing her marriage status is if she had her eyes on another man!!! :)
Grief is the price we pay for love.

FREE PALESTINE.