At some level I share Iain’s (oops, "Mr. Boyd’s") sentiments; but even over 70, I’ve become used to " What do you need, honey?" from waitresses a decade or two younger, at least in the places I can afford to eat

That, and "Hi, I’m Barry/Muffy, what can I get for you guys?" from the younger ones, has to do; hopefully they will get the order right!

The only traditionally proper greeting I’m likely to get these days is "Buenos dias Sen~or, que quiere Usted?" from folks who haven’t been here long enough to forget their manners.

At some level I share Iain’s (oops, "Mr. Boyd’s") sentiments; but even over 70, I’ve become used to "What do you need, honey?" from waitresses a decade or two younger, at least in the places I can afford to eat

That, and "Hi, I’m Barry/Muffy, what can I get for you guys?" from the younger ones, has to do; hopefully they will get the order right!

The only traditionally proper greeting I’m likely to get these days is "Buenos dias Sen~or, que quiere Usted?" from folks who haven’t been here long enough to forget their manners.

JJB;104967 wrote:

On where we draw the line, I think of my mom’s dad. I grew up with him introducing himself always as "Colonel ______". That’s how he answered the phone and everything. I only think he simply couldn’t stomach the idea after retiring of being of being plain old Joe Bag O’Donuts. It sounds pretentious, but he was a dominating figure with a colorful personality and people liked him. And people addressed him or referred to him as "Colonel" without irony (at least to my ears).

There was and is no reason for irony.  A retired colonel (or any other retired officer) still holds his commission from the President and is still entitled to use the title of rank, not merely as a courtesy but as a matter of right.  This is not the case for someone who resigned his/her commission, but retirement is merely a shift from active to inactive status.  In fact, the government has the right to order a retired officer (up to a certain age) to active duty for any number of reasons, ranging from an emergency need for officers to a requirement to face a court martial for something he did before retiring.  Retired officers are also subject to the same restrictions as serving officers on accepting gifts, payments, honors, etc., from foreign governments—they continue to hold "an office of trust and profit under the United States.

Some retired officers choose to use the title, others do not, but all are entitled to do so.

Of anecdotal interest, perhaps: I remember that when I first joined the Society of Colonial Wars nine or so years ago, they were in the habit of according every member with no alternate honorific (physicians, retired officers, Ph.D holders, etc.) the style of esquire in their mailings, but I believe they’ve cut that out.

Joseph McMillan;104989 wrote:

There was and is no reason for irony.  A retired colonel (or any other retired officer) still holds his commission from the President and is still entitled to use the title of rank, not merely as a courtesy but as a matter of right.  This is not the case for someone who resigned his/her commission, but retirement is merely a shift from active to inactive status.  In fact, the government has the right to order a retired officer (up to a certain age) to active duty for any number of reasons, ranging from an emergency need for officers to a requirement to face a court martial for something he did before retiring.  Retired officers are also subject to the same restrictions as serving officers on accepting gifts, payments, honors, etc., from foreign governments—they continue to hold "an office of trust and profit under the United States.

Some retired officers choose to use the title, others do not, but all are entitled to do so.

Rereading this thread, something flashed that I hadn’t thought of for years:  as a young kid, I was taught to answer the telephone at home, "Major McMillan’s residence [or, if living on base, ‘quarters’], Joe speaking," and did so consistently, merely substituting the new rank when he was promoted, up till the time I left home.  This may account for my total comfort with using rank titles—that and having spent 30+ years working in the Department of Defense.

(It was also "yes, sir," "no, ma’am," but that had nothing to do with the military thing; my cousins who grew up in civilian families did and do the same.)

Apologies if already mentioned (we’re over eight pages in this thread) but on TV and at special occasions we still refer to and address former officeholders as Mr. President, Senator, Speaker, Governor, Judge, Justice, etc., as a polite honorific; though I don’t recall hearing anyone refer to him or her self as other than "former ..."

And for those of us with USAA insurance, their staff always address us on the phone as Captain ... or whatever.  Makes my heart go pitti-pat ... :(

The custom is (or was, anyway) that U.S. senators and governors of states are/were styled by that title for life.  Also, I believe, judges.  But not Presidents—the principle, apparently, being that they more than the others required frequent reminders that they are once again merely Mr. Smith (or General Washington, General Eisenhower).

Agree strongly in principle, but some of the TV babbling heads who occasionally interview them apparently never got the memo