Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Etiquette
53 Answers
Probably not the right place to post this but the only alternative would be CB. I am actually hoping for some helpful answers as a matter of curiosity. I am happy to have a some humour injected into the (hopefully) debate. Banter is great.
Don't let me lay down too many ground rules. I am the last to stifle a robust ,fiery debate. :-) should it happen.
QUESTION: Do ABers consider it bad manners and offensive at any time in their life to be addressed by their surname only?
I note on BBC and ITV news channels that political commentators will address ,to their anchorman, and call senior politicians in Government by their surnames. Blair,Cameron and Osbourne have all been addressed as such on TV without their titles of Prime Minister or Chancellor!!
I know that there are a good few men on this site who have served in the armed forces and other disciplined bodies.
Danny served his country just after the 2nd World conflict in the army for a good few years and then became a Police Sergeant. Baldric,Chill,Waterboatman,Mr aog,myself and my father plus many more men served their country.
Whilst at school I was always addressed by my teachers and masters by my surname only.When I left school and went into light engineering on the shop floor I was also addressed by the boss by my surname.I joined Hendon Police College,my father went to Peel House,and we were both addressed by our instructors and senior officers by our surnames. Men who join the armed forces are,as recruits,addressed by their surname by the "drill pigs" and RSMs etc.
My wife,as a young student nurse was addressed by Matron,
Sister or Senior staff as Nurse Whatever.
Did any men object to being addressed by their surnames and were any women on AB ever addressed only by their surnames in their employment perhaps many years ago. I believe a young schoolgirl may be addressed by her full name i.e. "Daisy Phillips please sit in the corner". What are your thoughts and experiences especially long in the past. Thanks.
Don't let me lay down too many ground rules. I am the last to stifle a robust ,fiery debate. :-) should it happen.
QUESTION: Do ABers consider it bad manners and offensive at any time in their life to be addressed by their surname only?
I note on BBC and ITV news channels that political commentators will address ,to their anchorman, and call senior politicians in Government by their surnames. Blair,Cameron and Osbourne have all been addressed as such on TV without their titles of Prime Minister or Chancellor!!
I know that there are a good few men on this site who have served in the armed forces and other disciplined bodies.
Danny served his country just after the 2nd World conflict in the army for a good few years and then became a Police Sergeant. Baldric,Chill,Waterboatman,Mr aog,myself and my father plus many more men served their country.
Whilst at school I was always addressed by my teachers and masters by my surname only.When I left school and went into light engineering on the shop floor I was also addressed by the boss by my surname.I joined Hendon Police College,my father went to Peel House,and we were both addressed by our instructors and senior officers by our surnames. Men who join the armed forces are,as recruits,addressed by their surname by the "drill pigs" and RSMs etc.
My wife,as a young student nurse was addressed by Matron,
Sister or Senior staff as Nurse Whatever.
Did any men object to being addressed by their surnames and were any women on AB ever addressed only by their surnames in their employment perhaps many years ago. I believe a young schoolgirl may be addressed by her full name i.e. "Daisy Phillips please sit in the corner". What are your thoughts and experiences especially long in the past. Thanks.
Answers
When I was at school, many moons ago, girls were always called by their first names, but from last year at primary until the end of their time at school, boys were always called by their surnames. I cannot remember anyone being at all bothered by this. I would not like to be called just by my surname, but if I was, say , in a service or profession where that was the...
21:07 Wed 10th Feb 2016
At my schools all boys were addressed by their surnames, both by masters and each other. Even prefects were addressed thus by the younger boys. First names were only used if you developed a friendship with someone. As I said earlier, there is a difference between addressing someone directly and referring to him in the third person. I can talk about Cameron, but if I were ever to speak to him it would be Mr Cameron.
Interesting - there is a common factor that runs through the responses on this thread - people for whom it is custom and practice to be addressed by their surname have no issue with it - which is understandable.
I would not presume to know, but it is possible that this thread has been instigated by exchanges on a number of threads between myself and a couple of AB'ers.
To reiterate my personal position for new readers - I have not been called by my surname since I left school at seventeen. I attended an all-boys' grammar school, where all boys were addressed by their surname, by masters and each other, unless, as jackdaw has said, personal friendships used Christian names.
Since leaving school, through college and the two places I have worked since then, I have been addressed by my Christian name, as is form and practice for both.
On a personal level, I am perfectly happy to be addressed as 'Andy' by anyone of any age, I don't hold out for the 'Mr' tag - it makes me feel distanced, and slightly uncomfortable - although I accept it is appropriate in professional exchanges.
What I do not accept is being called 'Hughes' simply as a personal provocation which is done by two AB'ers. I have expressed on four separate occasions to the same individual that I find his use of my surname to label me as insulting -because we both know he does it to offend me, and provoke me, because I have advised my dislike of the use of my name in this way.
The fact that he, and another, continue to address me as 'Hughes' is both rude and insulting, but also childish and immature, not the behaviour one would would exprect from two people who make much of their former professional experiences, indicating that they see themselves as mature individuals. In this instance, their maturity deserts them, and they become no better than playground bullies.
So - to answer the OP - //QUESTION: Do ABers consider it bad manners and offensive at any time in their life to be addressed by their surname only? //
Yes - I most certainly do.
Interestingly, at the age of sixty-one, this is the first time in forty-four years that anyone has called me 'Hughes' - and sadly, that is only done for the petty joy of immature men on this site.
Perhaps, in the light of this 'robust fiery debate', the two in question will start to act their respective ages - but I am not holding my breath.
I would not presume to know, but it is possible that this thread has been instigated by exchanges on a number of threads between myself and a couple of AB'ers.
To reiterate my personal position for new readers - I have not been called by my surname since I left school at seventeen. I attended an all-boys' grammar school, where all boys were addressed by their surname, by masters and each other, unless, as jackdaw has said, personal friendships used Christian names.
Since leaving school, through college and the two places I have worked since then, I have been addressed by my Christian name, as is form and practice for both.
On a personal level, I am perfectly happy to be addressed as 'Andy' by anyone of any age, I don't hold out for the 'Mr' tag - it makes me feel distanced, and slightly uncomfortable - although I accept it is appropriate in professional exchanges.
What I do not accept is being called 'Hughes' simply as a personal provocation which is done by two AB'ers. I have expressed on four separate occasions to the same individual that I find his use of my surname to label me as insulting -because we both know he does it to offend me, and provoke me, because I have advised my dislike of the use of my name in this way.
The fact that he, and another, continue to address me as 'Hughes' is both rude and insulting, but also childish and immature, not the behaviour one would would exprect from two people who make much of their former professional experiences, indicating that they see themselves as mature individuals. In this instance, their maturity deserts them, and they become no better than playground bullies.
So - to answer the OP - //QUESTION: Do ABers consider it bad manners and offensive at any time in their life to be addressed by their surname only? //
Yes - I most certainly do.
Interestingly, at the age of sixty-one, this is the first time in forty-four years that anyone has called me 'Hughes' - and sadly, that is only done for the petty joy of immature men on this site.
Perhaps, in the light of this 'robust fiery debate', the two in question will start to act their respective ages - but I am not holding my breath.
murraymints - //Andy..I think anyone using a surname is an attempt at demonstrating supremacy, power and control over whomsoever is being addressed...I consider it balshy and pompous unless used in the correct situation..ie military..public school etc //
I would agree entirely - perhaps the two individuals to whom I referred - and they know who they are - can read your observation, independent from mine as it is, and see their actions for what they are.
And while you are here both of you - your tactic doesn't work, so you might as well give up and grow up.
I would agree entirely - perhaps the two individuals to whom I referred - and they know who they are - can read your observation, independent from mine as it is, and see their actions for what they are.
And while you are here both of you - your tactic doesn't work, so you might as well give up and grow up.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
ChatterBank60 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles81 mins ago
Crosswords114 mins ago
