> I noted in one
> of the digests that Randall referred to the great man as *Sir Moss.* Its far
> safer and more socially acceptable to address him as Sir Stirling or when
> speaking of him, to say Sir Stirling Moss.
I appreciate the protocol lesson, John, but I remain stupidly confused. Are you
saying that the rules for usage of the honorific "Sir" depend on whether the
person in question had been knighted or not ?
Or is "Sir" simply not used as a general honorific in the UK ? Here in the
backward colonies, it's appropriate to address any gentleman as Sir unless he is
a great deal younger than you, in which case it's likely to be taken as an
insult (although a relatively mild one).
> Sir is probably easier all round, a lot easier to remember and almost
> goof-proof.
As long as we remember to apply it only to surname or full name, not family name
?
Randall
|