I suspect that this may sound a bit anal, as if I'm becoming a little obsesssed, but the whole subject of titles is a minefield. I'm hardly going to mention the aristocratic ones, which are anachronistic and a tad embarrassing. Although I have studied them at some length, so know that a Duke is higher than an Earl, who is higher than a Viscount who is higher than a Marquis, (or it might be the other way round), who is higher than a Baron, who is higher that a baronet, who is higher than a knight who is higher than a mister.
You will note that I use only the male version: in general women derive their title from their husband. I can't for the life of me figure out why it's Princess Michael of Kent but Princess Diana of Wales - who, of course, became Diana, Princess of Wales on divorce.
What is most interesting are the titles of ordinary people.
(Read On)
As children, we are occasionally known as Master and Miss. At some point chaps naturally graduate to Mister, but women have three options - to remain Miss until the day they die, regardless of whether they marry or not; to do, as I did, become a Ms sometime in my late twenties - although only partly, as my Christmas Card envelopes show; or, to take a marriage-based title - usually Mrs. This is usually - although not always - kept on divorce (a custom I find deeply dishonest). In some other languages/countries, Mrs is nowadays seen as the female version of Mr.
Even more fascinating are the arcane rules surrounding acquired titles. I know a number of people who have earned a Ph. D, and are known professionally as Doctor, but don't use the title in private life because people will assume that they have an MD and seek medical advice. Both I, and my sister's family, attend husband-and-wife doctors' practices, where the doctors are known as Dr and Mrs. I don't know why. When I was a child we attended a practice that included a husband-and-wife team, Dr Moira and Dr Lyn E. (That was confusing, because people thought he was a she).
When I announced my desire to be known as Rear-Admiral, my ex-MoD colleague, said I couldn't use that because the right to use it is given by Royal Charter. Of course, I said "Royal is illegtimate", but that's for another day. I understand that someone who reaches a sufficiently senior rank in the military can use that title in civilian life, even when retired. This does not apply to lower orders, nor does it apply, as far as I know, to police, fire service, civil service etc. And if you insisted on being addressed as Deputy Accounts Manager, or Assistant to Webmaster, or even Chief Executive, I think you would be laughed at.
I was brought up a Catholic. At primary school, there were frequent visits from the formidable - and ancient - Canon Briscoe. By secondary school, the priests were Father Oliver, Father Jim and Father Bernard. (at least one of those played 'folk' hymns on a guitar). I think were I to meet such people these days they would be Mister, or Andy. (However, Sister Pat will always be Sister Pat). One of the teachers at school complained that she hated being Miss Surname at school, when she was Anne in the rest of her life.
At University staff were always addressed as Professor, Doctor or Mr, which irked those colleagues who had used first names for their sixth form college tutors. However, I addressed my film studies tutor as "Mr" and he laughed, hardly surprising seeing that he was two years my senior and I regularly refused to buy Marxism Today from him in the Portland building (the nearest we had to a 'Union'). The rota for preparing seminars in my home department was pinned on the notice board: Brown, Miss Blog, Smith, Miss Smith.
When I started work at the NAO, I soon realised it was universally first names. A bit worried, I asked somebody how one should address the Comptroller and Auditor-General. "Oh, John" I was told. I felt uncomfortable with that. Thankfully, he soon got his 'K' and, oddly, I felt quite comfortable addressing him as Sir John. However, a file that was being passed either up or down the line would be done so by writing "Mr XYZ" and the date on the front. When he had reviewed it he would write "Ms Blog" and pass it to me. All staff in the audited departments were known by given names, from the Permanent Secretary to the messenger. Except for one organisation. I asked the Finance Manager to whom I should speak to about an audit query. He said "Mrs KJH". I soon realised that in the section they always used titles.
In my current workplace given names are universal (except for the slightly ironic way that Mohammed and I exchange pleasantries - "How are you this morning, Ms Blog?" "Very well, thank you Mr Surname. And you, sir?" If we are discussing work, passing messages, chatting, it's first names.
My mother is slowly adjusting to the use of first names. She has recently started referring to her neighbours as Janet, Monica, Fiona and Cath, although Mr F, Mr S, Mr B and Mr M. (These households moved in in 1973, 1981, (approx)1984 and (approx)1998, and are, thus, to me, all 'new-comers'.) There was a woman I was friendly with when I was involved in the local Labour Party, who my mother subsequently became quite friendly with - she's my mother's local councillor, and they've had profesisonal contact in the past, as well as the general pleasantries of people who see each other from time to time. Until she stood for Parliament, my mother always referred to her as Mrs B, then she became Mrs Er Jane B. Since the dawn of the new millennium, she has been referred to as Jane B.
The minefield that surrounds the use of the "Councillor" I shall leave to another day!
