Talk:Sir

What does 'SIR' in the beginning of formal letters mean? --203.116.61.131 08:26, 12 Mar 2005

It is a mark of courtesy, like "Sir, you've dropped your hat." --Wetman 13:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chinese titles?

However, in Chinese, the title Sir (爵士) is used with the knight's surname or full name.

What's the point with the chinese title here? Although I appreciate a detailed article, this fact has no relevance whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.175.232 (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

since c. 1205/125

in the origins section it says "since c. 1205" should that 'c.' be there? I'm pretty sure it is not correct, because Im almost certain that 'c.' stands for circa and you dont need "sir has been used since circa 1205" maybe im wrong but.... Dappled Sage 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Paul McCartney a good example here?

Since we are talking about the correct form of address for a knight, is Paul McCartney really a good example? His real name is James Paul McCartney. Wouldn't the correct form of address for him be Sir James McCartney?

In extremely formal contexts, yes. But as he's usually known as Paul, it's perfectly ok in most cases to call him "Sir Paul McCartney". -- JackofOz 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

l.s.?

Under the Miscellaneous heading, in the bullet for Sire,

what does the parenthetical

"l.s." mean? -Onceler 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neuter usage?

On star trek, both men and women superior officers are often referred to as "sir." Is this an oddity, or is military usage neuter? (Also, Marcie frequently refers to Peppermint Patty as "sir.") Citizen Premier 02:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek usage is an oddity in a rather strange attempt to reflect the fact that men and women are equal in the future. Female officers in Star Trek are also referred to as "Mister"! In modern military usage, "Ma'am" would be used for a female superior. I think Marcie's use is meant to merely be amusing! -- Necrothesp 17:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page wondering about neuter usage as well, but not for Star Trek. I tend to get emails from people from other countries who address me as Sir; I'm not sure if they really think I'm a boy or if it is customary to address both men and women as Sir there. Anyone have ideas on this? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary might cause confusion

"Sir is a British honorary title"

I presume the writer is trying to say a title of honour. However in Britain an honorary title is not the same as a real title. That is, Bill Gates is an honorary KBE but he can't use the 'Sir' because he is not a UK subject. Where as say Sir John_Betjeman can. The first is an honorary title the second a title of honour. I think perhaps we need to rewrite this to avoid potential confusion. Alci12 16:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed this section because as I said in a pm "I think on balance we should remove the intro para altogether. Obviously for the majority of the English speaking planet it isn't a title of british knighthood but of respect in a business or military context and listing it as we have might lead to accusations that we are intoducting nation specific bias. I can't quite decide how to rejig it but I think perhaps it should begin "Sir derives from the Middle English sire..." Alci12 12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that you and Nec are trying to clean this up, you're now starting an encyclopeadia article with a derivation rather than a definition. Doesn't work for me. You miss the fundamental question: What is 'Sir'?

Quill 05:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knighthood

I removed "(i.e., a citizen of a non-Commonwealth realm)" from this section: "With regard to British knighthood, a person who is not a subject of the British monarch (i.e., a citizen of a non-Commonwealth realm) who receives an honorary knighthood is entitled to use this style, but national custom may not allow it." since it renders the section inaccurate. To begin with, citizens of Commonwealth realms are not subjects of the British monarch, as implied in the original sentence. They are subjects (if that term is not obsolete) of the monarchs of their respective realms (for example, Canadians are "subjects" of the Queen of Canada, not the British monarch). This may sound like mere semantics, but it is a legal reality. As a consequence, each realm has (or potentially has if not actually yet) its own honours system which stems from its own crown. Thus citizens of Commonwealth realms have no special claim on Knighthoods, honorary or not. In Canada, for example, it requires the approval of cabinet before a Canadian may accept a knighthood or other title from a foreign state. 156.34.42.137 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knight

In most of the articles I have read pertaining to titles of knighthood, the author keeps saying that it is the lowest rank of aristocracy or nobility. A knight is not an aristocrat and it is not a noble title. The lowest ranking noble is a Baron. Anyone with the title "sir" is a commoner, not a noble. This is certainly the case in the British system and as far as I am aware it is also the case in continental Europe.

Not quite: while knighthood is in se a diffrent thing then nobility, although soon most knights were noble-born and various traditions (especially military orders) required quarters of nobility before admission as a knight, in some traditions an ennobling title of knight had been awarded as a rank below the lowest tited nobility - by the way in Britain, the lowest true noble title (not a peerage) is Baronet, below Baron and its Germa,-type equivalent Freiherr Fastifex 08:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sire is french not english!

sieur is the old version of sire [pronounced "cyr"], sir is the english rendering of sire. medieval french "messire" gave "my lord". Shame On You 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir with papal knighthoods

It was always my understanding that a papal knighthood conferred no "Sir" title, and I can find no evidence that such a usage has ever been formally promulgated. However, I've come across the case of Gilbert Levine, a Jewish-American conductor, who has been awarded 2 papal knighthoods and now calls himself "Sir Gilbert Levine", and is referred to as such in various websites. Apparently (see Levine's talk page), Pope Benedict XVI himself has referred to Levine as Sir Gilbert. Is this acceptable practice, or just a confusion in the Vatican. Are there any other such cases? If this is something new to papal knighthoods, we'll need to add some info to this article and to the papal knighthood article about it. -- JackofOz 02:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri

Removed this:

It may also be related to the word shree in sanskrit via Indo European languages which means gentleman.

It's not; Sri originally meant approximately "prosperous", although that is not considered sufficient to translate it as it is currently used.--Kineticman (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text added in references section

I've removed the following text:

It is also a perfectly legal title in nations which recognise the use of the term Sir. Which is nearly all apart form the USA. If one is a member of a Military Order. Most often The Knight's Malta or Knight's Templar or the Teutonic Knights or indeed a member of a Religious Order as in a Priory. As in the UK great precedence is given to order of post nominal letters. The tradition is very clear. Any orders of merit directly fromt he reigning monarch on behalf of the state come directly after your name. As does confusingly the Knight's Thistle of which there are only 12 all handpicked by the Prince of Wales. However KT directly after ones name would indicate one is a Knight Thistle and yet if after educational qualifications comes professional bodies and religioud orders. So anyone BA MA KT would be a Knight Templar and not knighted by HM the Queen. If however you saw someone KT BA . they would either be one of the 12 which you can find online or someone most mistaken about their position of their letters. This has never happened to my knowledge ever but it is possible.

A "Sir" as a title in the UK is also the first born of many orders of higher Aristocracy. Often the first born or all sons of hereidtary Lords are and were allowed to call themselves "Sir" quite legally within the UK.

It get complicated as if you meet a "Sir" you could be speaking to the eldest son of a Lord, someone honoured by the state for services to society and Great Britain or someone with a very Gnostic view of religion who is steeped in Medieval History and Priory meetings.

Here's why:

It's in the wrong place -- after the references section
It's very poorly written (even after various people have edited it)
It's factually wrong (Knights of the Thistle are not chosen by Prince Charles; there are not twelve of them; 'Sir' is never the title of the eldest son of anybody (by virtue of that fact); and the major claim, which is that membership of orders like the Knights of Malta confers a title is untrue, at least in the UK, in so far as it deals with orders that actually exist and obviously fantasy in so far as it deals with the Knights Templar).

If anyone wants to rescue any parts of this and put them back into the article they should feel free. Mhardcastle (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Usage

The Steven Spielberg example is confusing and/or inconsistent with the Formal Styling section.

The Formal Styling section mentions that non-Commonwealth citizens are not entitled to use the title Sir, but only to use the postnominal letters KBE.

As far as I know Spielberg is not a citizen of a Commonwealth country, so why does the American Usage section stress that he could use the title Sir and that there is no law that prevents him from doing this? He simply is not entitled to (and maybe would violate UK law, but I have not checked this).

JeroenKvanH (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An English honorific?

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Lord#An English title? which seems relevant to this article as well.GSTQ (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clergy and their wives

It is common practice among Anglican and some other clergy for the recipient of a knighthood to use whatever postnominal letters are appropriate, but not to use the title "Sir". Perhaps we should make some mention of that.

I also have a question about their wives. Is the wife of "James Smith KBE", an Anglican clergyman, known as "Lady Smith", or simply "Mrs Smith"? Does the "Lady" depend on whether or not he uses "Sir", or simply on his having received a knighthood? It would be odd for such a couple to be introduced at a formal function as "The Most Reverend Archbishop James Smith and Mrs Smith", when, had he been a non-clergyman, it would have been "Sir James and Lady Smith". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]