gselvester;46514 wrote:
It is an important question which, sooner or later, will have to be answered, Clinton or not. The answer is YES!
My preferred answer is NO, with the possibly delusional hope that the eventual election of a woman president will consign the idiotic faux title First Lady to the dustbin of history.
And let’s not forget Second Lady
Joseph McMillan;46516 wrote:
My preferred answer is NO, with the possibly delusional hope that the eventual election of a woman president will consign the idiotic faux title First Lady to the dustbin of history.
I agree with Joseph that a First Gentleman is an absurd title just as is the unofficial title of First Lady.
DRShorey;46503 wrote:
Mr. Clinton is an Honorary Member of the the American Heraldry Society. I would ask that we try to honor our recently adopted guidlines….
Last year I wrote a polite letter to Mr. Clinton asking if he would send images of his Irish Letters Patent for use on the AHS site, and provided links to the AHS and Joe’s article.
I received three separate refusals from his staff; I doubt he even saw my letter.
I wish all Honorary Members would support the AHS in the areas in which they have expertise or sepcialized knowledge.
—Guy
I’m confused now. How did Mo’s question mean anything other than what it said? Were you cracking a joke at the former president’s expense Mo? I am so lost on this now my head is spinning…and I apologize for my misunderstanding.
For the record, I would have no problem calling him the First Gentleman. I also have no problem with old fashioned titles, including first lady, in general. I mean, as the president’s wife she would be the first lady of the nation at that time, so what’s the big deal? I mean if we are going to use her, and her appearances, at official and non-official functions to hype this American deed or that American project, or as a representation of the president at the funeral of an internationally known Sister of Charity nun, like Mrs. Clinton had to, why not call her the first lady? If she has to do all that stuff for the country…surely we can give her an itty-bitty little old fashioned title…¿que no?
Of course I like “Lady Tigers” as the name for the women’s teams of schools for example. But, then I am a Colorado cowboy and we like things to stay pretty much as they are and not make to much fuss about things like that and we certainly don’t like trying to constantly reinvent the wheel, but that is the way of traditional, or backward depending on your point of view, people from the sticks I guess.
As to the thread proper, King of Arms would be nice, but so is Chief Herald regardless of the holders gender IMHO.
My post was in reference to a post by Mr. Baker. This post has been deleted by him.
Dave Shorey
Donnchadh;46523 wrote:
I’m confused now. How did Mo’s question mean anything other than what it said? Were you cracking a joke at the former president’s expense Mo? I am so lost on this now my head is spinning…and I apologize for my misunderstanding.
Does anyone have a link to a biography of the outgoing and incoming heralds?
Thanks.
Dave Shorey
Thank you Dave. I did not know about that other post hence my confusion.
Donnchadh;46523 wrote:
I also have no problem with old fashioned titles, including first lady, in general. I mean, as the president’s wife she would be the first lady of the nation at that time, so what’s the big deal?
"First Lady" is not an old-fashioned title. It originated as a lower-case description of the social position of the President’s wife or other official hostess (occasionally a niece, daughter-in-law, etc., for bachelor and widower Presidents). It passed into tabloid journalese and gradually transformed into a "title."
The President’s spouse does not hold an elective or appointive office and should not be given a "title" as if she did. The truly old-fashioned way to refer to the President’s wife is "Mrs. Bush." White House invitations are issued as "The President and Mrs. Bush request the pleasure of the company of XXX."
Of course, we could follow the British precedent. As I remember, Margaret Thatcher’s husband was universally referred to as "Denis."
So if Hilary is elected, she would become Madam President, and Bill would become "Denis."
(No offense to Denny or anyone else actually named Den(n)is.):)
Guy Power;46468 wrote:
Or that a female naval first-year cadet is a Midshipman: it’s a job title, not a gender description.
—Guy
Actually, in the US all naval cadets are midshipmen, but you’re right that it is not taken as indicating sex.
Joseph McMillan;46516 wrote:
My preferred answer is NO, with the possibly delusional hope that the eventual election of a woman president will consign the idiotic faux title First Lady to the dustbin of history.
No chance.
Regardless of its origins it is part of the American lexicon and its here to stay. Therefore, there should be a comparable counterpart for men someday.
Joseph McMillan;46532 wrote:
Of course, we could follow the British precedent. As I remember, Margaret Thatcher’s husband was universally referred to as "Denis."
So if Hilary is elected, she would become Madam President, and Bill would become "Denis."
Actually, because of the equally stupid American obsession of treating ex-Presidents as though they are "president-for-life" instead of what actually happens (they return to being a private citizen and being "Mr. John Q. Smith") if Hillary gets elected we’ll call her Mme. President and Bill will also still be called "Mr. President" just like so many people do now despite his being out of office for six years. The idea of calling ex-presidents "Mr. President" is moronic. The country only ever has one president at a time.
As for the British they may have called Thatcher’s husband Denis but the PM is only the head of government. They don’t call the Head of State’s husband just plain "Philip". Instead, they came up with an appropriate title for him.
It isn’t a question of whether or not we should use the term First Lady. It is a fact: we do. Since we already do then when we get our first woman president it will simply make sense to have a comparable term for her spouse.
gselvester;46539 wrote:
Actually, because of the equally stupid American obsession of treating ex-Presidents as though they are "president-for-life" instead of what actually happens (they return to being a private citizen and being "Mr. John Q. Smith") if Hillary gets elected we’ll call her Mme. President and Bill will also still be called "Mr. President" just like so many people do now despite his being out of office for six years. The idea of calling ex-presidents "Mr. President" is moronic. The country only ever has one president at a time.
I agree with this sentiment, and if we look to history, we see that there is no good reason for this. A term as President need not mean the end of one’s career. For example, both John Quincy Adams and William Howard Taft continued to serve their country long after their terms as President ended. Should Taft have been addressed as Mr. Chief Justice President Taft? ‘Twould be absurd.
Perhaps ex-presidents, being former commanders-in-chief, should be listed as former military people are often shown:
Col. John Smith, Ret.
Adm. James Q. Public, Ret.
Then it would look something like this:
Pres. Bill Clinton, Ret.
Pres. George H. Bush, Ret.
Just a thought.