Pass the Ferrero Rocher

At the very bottom, there’s “Viscount and Viscountess.” I’m wondering how one could simultaneously be both.

I like “Hon”. When I order a coffee here at the local Dunkin’ Donuts, the nice lady always says: “Here you go, hon.”

Curiously they seem to have left off Admiral and all of its permutations. Clearly realtions between the Roayl Opera and the Senior Service are some what strained.

Commodore, I think.

But it looks like Commodore goes to “Cdre”, not “Comdr”. And they don’t tend to provide abbreviations alongside full expansions in most other cases, do they?

#9 Duchess of Cornwall (ie Camilla) or HRH the Duke of (or HRH the Duchess of for that matter) Kent. The Duke of Kent is also a Prince, but not the kind of Prince that outranks a Duke.

Interestingly, this is actually correct usage.

Yes, Myles, it certainly is.

The Duke of Kent is also a Prince, but not the kind of Prince that outranks a Duke.

This is somewhat imprecise. A British prince is a dignity, not a rank within the peerage, which legally speaking is the only one that counts. Thus the agnatic heir of the Hanovers, the Duke of Brunswick, is a Prince of Great Britain and Ireland, even though he’s not actually British. But he has no official position within the peerage (because his British peerages, chiefly the Cumberland dukedom, were forfeited during WWI for services to Germany, and he has not yet reclaimed them). As far as the British system concerned, a substantive foreign prince could no more than be equivalent to a duke. (It’s an entirely academic discussion, anyway, because no one in their right mind would thik that there’s actually any difference in status between someone titled a duke and one titled a marquess based purely on the title.)

Myles: It depends on the earldom, doesn’t it? Compare the Earl of Arundel to Earl Spencer—the former is a geographical location, while the latter is derived from a name.

Yes, but not in the way you think. The Arundel earldom is one of the oldest, so it predates the creation of titles by letters patent. Instead, like most medieval titles, it was probably created either by tenure or by writ. (Don’t quote me on this; the baronies-by-tenure are really iffy.)

Viscondessa, but not Gräfin?

And here, I thought Myles was just making a reference to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkU6E1v4bhw

What’s a princessin? A prinzessin is a German princess, but a princessin?

I also like the box for ‘internet salutation’, which is presumably there to ensure (eg) that Elizabeth Windsor gets addressed as ‘Your Royal Highness’ in mass emails.

Nine@19: my guess is that they were working off an old mailing list.

No “Padishah Emperor?”

They have “Reverend Father” but no “Reverend Mother?” No “Honored Matres?”

My God. . . it’s like the Butlerian Jihad never happened!

Which title goes with the internet salutation ‘Yo, dude…’?

So where is “President for life” or “last King of Scotland”?

I am offended.

The Royal Opera House is not the only English website to offer such a range of titles. The former student occupant of our place in England dubbed himself ‘Sir…’ to one organisation, and ‘Earl…’ to another, which made redirecting his mail a little more amusing than it might otherwise have been.

I remember being sorely tempted by ‘Patriarch’ in one such list, just to see if they were keeping track.

Following on from comment 3, I notice there is no ‘Running Dogs of the Bourgeoisie’ on the list either. Which is a shame, because if there had been…..(etc. etc.)

Wth a quick glance to the bottom of the screen shot I saw

Judge
King

and half expected it to continue with

Numbers
Deuteronomy

Also, amused by image of the Pope thinking “Bloody hell, this trip to Knifecrime Island’s going to cost a fortune. How will I get that past the Congregation for the Expenses of the Faith? Thank God for infallibility…”

AF: M., Mme, Mlle, and c’est tout.
LH: Mr., Mrs., plus Academic Status: Dr, Prof, Prof-Dr.
IB: their website doesn’t work with non-Microsoft browsers

No “High Evolutionary.”

No “Imperious Rex.”

No “H.N.I.C.”

No “Dance Commander.”

It’s like they don’t even want people to come to their opera.

Myles says “the baronies-by-tenure are really iffy…”
Having just last night dipped into Randolph Churchill’s book on the Royal Household I can say firmly that titles by tenure (such as “Earl of Arundel”, which used to mean that whoever owned the castle owned the Earldom) have now been definitively ruled out by a number of senior legal precedents on the grounds that if a title by tenure was disputed that would have to be heard in the ordinary courts where questions of tenure belonged, whereas questions as to who is the proper holder of a seat in parliament can only be adjudicated by the parliament. Mind you, I don’t know that Arundel’s on the market – the Duke of Norfolk (Earl of Arundel, Earl of Surrey, Earl of Norfolk, Baron Beaumont, Baron Maltravers, Baron Clun, Baron Oswaldestre, Baron Howard of Glossop, Earl Marshal and hereditary Marshal of England) isn’t that hard up right now.

Mind you, I don’t know that Arundel’s on the market – the Duke of Norfolk (Earl of Arundel, Earl of Surrey, Earl of Norfolk, Baron Beaumont, Baron Maltravers, Baron Clun, Baron Oswaldestre, Baron Howard of Glossop, Earl Marshal and hereditary Marshal of England) isn’t that hard up right now.

I suspect Norfolk is one of those land-rich, cash-poor nobles. God knows how much money he has tied up in paintings and that sort of thing, which you basically can’t sell unless in serious financial distress, but nonetheless are not producing income. That’s not to mention that agricultural land is generally not ideal for long-term portfolio values unless converted to recreational or vacation property.

I’m not personally sympathetic to the landed aristocracy, because over the generations they have shown an alarming tendency to become dimmer and dimmer, not to mention subscribe to some really silly ideas. And while from a libertarian perspective they should be allowed to be as dim and silly as they wish (and can afford to), the titled nobility do drag the bourgeoisie (especially what in French was known as the grande bourgeoisie), who don’t incline toward that kind of nonsense, down with them. The quicker the death of the titled aristocracy as a class the happier I am.

“At the very bottom, there’s “Viscount and Viscountess.” I’m wondering how one could simultaneously be both.”

Hermaphrodite?

I’m really quite democratic in these matters, and make no fuss at all as long as people are careful to address me as “Your Enormity”, always kiss the ring as part of their greeting, and never fail to strike fist to forehead should they mention my name in my absence.

because over the generations they have shown an alarming tendency to become dimmer and dimmer, not to mention subscribe to some really silly ideas

They took generations to do this. You, however…

No Nawab, which is odd, or Maharajah. Not even Raja.

The most glaring omission must be HM. “King” is inserted below “Judge”, as if a mere mortal. I wondered about Emperors, but maybe the Japanese don’t enjoy opera. I think tht’s the only one left.

At the very bottom, there’s “Viscount and Viscountess.” I’m wondering how one could simultaneously be both.

Clearly Viscounts only ever go to the opera when the missus drags them along. (I only know one viscount, and, being single, he’s never been to the opera at all.)

The Opera house missed the big one: King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and Elect of God.

He’s been dead since 1997, if Wikipedia is correct, and the title has not descended to the Crown Prince.

And what is a W Baron? (Last one on the list before Wing Commander).

33, incidentally, wasn’t me. I don’t have a problem with it particularly, I just didn’t write it.

“Mr and the Hon Mrs” is rather striking.

Daughter of a lesser peer marries a commoner. I know one such couple and do rather snigger about it when they’re being formal…..

“I suspect Norfolk is one of those land-rich, cash-poor nobles.”

I’d suspected the opposite but on looking it up I’m wrong. 40,000 odd acres of Sussex to their name. The reason I thoought they’d not got much land was that they’ve been Papists all along and more than one of them were executed for being such or rebellious in general. And in such cases usually the land reverts to the Crown.

Worstall wrong: such a surprise, eh?

I don’t have a problem with it particularly, I just didn’t write it.

Weird shit.

Rabbi is included but not imam or mullah.

How much is that worth, approximately? What about income-wise?

As much as you want to charge. Prime London wealthy commuter country.

At the root of it, I think, is our instinct that to be defined by what we do for a living, rather than who we are as individuals, is slightly ridiculous.

Manual industry in Britain, 1850 to 1970? (I’m genuinely not sure, hence the question mark.)

Sorry, didn’t really give enough context. You said:
I always thought it was very good of English-speaking countries to treat corporate and vocational titles with ambivalent contempt. At the root of it, I think, is our instinct that to be defined by what we do for a living, rather than who we are as individuals, is slightly ridiculous. The German obsession with titles always struck me as creepy and unsettling.

This gave me the impression you were making statements about English speaking countries’ attitudes and saying that they came from some kind of self-identification in terms of “individualism” rather than “profession”. If that is what you meant, then I wondered how this theory fits or doesn’t fit the attitudes of manual industry workers in 1850s-1970s Britain.

Only caught the end of that period but in Britain at least it was perfectly possible to be perceived as “a good lad, but I wouldn’t let him near my wiring” or “a stupid ignorant fucker, but a damn good brickie”.

Yeah, this is reflected in your personal relationships as well. I was reading this article about a business-owner in Norway whose social circle largely consists of people in his company, which is pretty weird to someone in an English-speaking country.

The Germans (and the Japanese), in contrast, do heavily self-actualize in their professional work. Which can be pretty oppressive in some ways, because I think it’s at least philosophically confused to conflate “that which generates an income” with “that which I consider my life’s moral and personal desideratum.”

Myles, I still think your theory has a whiff of Whig history about it. The individualism (existentialism?) you describe seems a more recent invention, and perhaps one more prevalent on your side of the pond, than can be ascribed to “English-speaking nations”. (It’s not as if Continental Europe can be lumped together for this discussion.)

Myles, I still think your theory has a whiff of Whig history about it.

Well, philosophically I’m a Whig.

Well, of course it’s important to have a life outside your work, but doesn’t it seem possible that it is a measure of personal and professional respect that (most) German and Japanese employers have for their employees that makes them take less savage delight in inflicting another massive downsizing?

Fair enough. It’s true of course that German and Japanese companies are much more measured when it comes to mass layoffs, but I would argue that the flipside is the kind of emotional and psychological commitment demanded from employees that frequently crosses the boundary of civilized and healthy social relations. I have no reference on the German case, but I think it’s been very clear for some time that employer-employee relations in corporate Japan can be quite perverse, from the universal expectation to work tremendous amounts of overtime (without accordant overtime pay), the habitual disregard for one’s privacy, the inescapable expectation for one to self-actualize in the company one works for and to submerge one’s individual preferences therein. the conflation of one’s chief personal identity with one’s professional identity: in an informal sense, these are things that are very much antithetical to the precepts of a liberal society.

Basically, I would argue that all the noted benefits cannot be deemed a worthwhile trade-off against living in an (informally) illiberal society. I think the problem isn’t just the substantive differences; it’s that living in a illiberal society is mind-bending.

It’s not like people prefer Federer because they see him as Not Defining Himself By His Job, nor that they are uneasy with Murray because he Does Define Himself By His Job.

Well, basically people find Murray’s win-at-all-costs attitude unnerving and uncanny. Federer at least seems more restrained and in possession of a sense of proportion. The basic logical derivation I would guess to be this: that Murray is so obsessed with winning that it is a core part of his identity, to be world tennis champion. That missing his championship, the Murray identity is incomplete and partial. And that really is a form of very extreme vocational self-actualization. Federer, on the other hand, at least seems to possess a much surer sense of self in a manner that is entirely separate from winning or losing in tennis.

I have no special insight on Britain, but I don’t think what I argued above requires any special insight.

Hmm. One doesn’t get anywhere near the level (and the achievements) of Federer without possessing a large dose of the potentially unhealthy traits which you ascribe to Murray.

Yes, but the importance of the distinction is symbolic and memetic, not substantive. When people differentiate between Murray and Federer, they are distinguishing not between the two actual person, but between the popular impressions of them, which are much more exaggerated.

Isn’t the main reason people prefer Federer that he has the kind of sublime talent that makes the outrageous look commonplace?

But Nadal is even more sublimely talented, and people don’t admire Nadal in the same way they admire Federer. They admire Federer because he’s essentially a Hellenic figure of athleticism, and embodies not just the physical but also the mental qualities that are often associated. Or to put your argument another way, the sublimity of his talent is, at least in the minds of spectator, a mental rather than a physical quality.

Nadal is the splendid blond beast, but Federer is a Michelangelo.

(shouldn’t feed the troll, I know) here in the UK, Nadal is respected and loved. He’s rather humble, a little shy, very well-mannered. (Look up his interviews with Sue Barker after he beat Agassi — in Agassi’s attempted Wimbledon comeback, and after he last beat Murray at Wimbledon. E.g..)

Matt, it was alleged by Myles. It is, ipso facto, entirely false.

What I have always wondered about Andy Murray is how his career has been affected by the Angus Podgorny stereotype.

Oh, and speaking of Myles and stereotypes, I want to hear from him about his compatriots who torched Vancouver last night.

Can you pick more than one from the drop down menu? If not, that is a serious oversight.

Can you pick more than one from the drop down menu?

There is an option for “Lord High Everything Else”.

He’s just checking to see if anyone is paying attention.

In support of that proposition: I don’t think I’ve seen a tennis match since I were a kid and Jimmy Connors was playing yet my reaction was also “Say what now?!”

@ejh: if you were Myles, you would not be worried. I think that’s what depresses me…

Knowledge may well be morally neutral. Pretending to have knowledge when you don’t is not, IMHO.

Thanks EJH. FWIW (and it ain’t much) I’m with you – Mason’s a damned good journalist but I’ll take the judgement of an informed expat speaking the language (having been one myself), and yours in particular, over that any day.