29 September 2016
Dear Sirs and Madams
How to address a bishop
By Chin Chin
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is a cutting-edge UK law firm and the edge which it is currently cutting lies in the field of manners. Until recently the firm, when writing to a group of people such as, for example, the members of a company, would begin its letters “Dear Sirs”. That was, of course, in line with long-standing general practice but the firm, or perhaps its marketing department, became worried that it might irritate the ladies and so, being a group of well-mannered chaps and chapesses, the partners decided to do something about it. It is understood that in the UK they will begin general letters “Dear Sir and Madam”. In the US they will use “Dear Ladies and Gentlemen”.
The awkwardness of these modes of address illustrates the difficulty caused by the fading of the old convention that the masculine includes the feminine. That is not to say that it isn’t right to move on; actually it is neither right nor wrong but firms who offer their services to female clients had better do whatever modern manners demand. It just isn’t all that easy to find something which sounds right.
It isn’t too difficult when there is only one woman. Writing to a board comprising two men and one woman, to start “Dear Sirs and Madam” is euphonious as well as accurate. Many firms have used that over the years. Logically, then, you would think that if there were two women it should be “Dear Sirs and Madams” but, quite apart from the implication that the recipients are running a brothel, that doesn’t sound right at all. Why not? Perhaps it is because the plural of Madam should be the French form Mesdames. Let’s try it. “Dear Sirs and Mesdames”. That is certainly better than the “Sirs and Madams” version but maybe a little continental for a country going through negotiations for Brexit. I forget which European politician it was who reacted to the vote by saying how good it would be to get rid of both us and our horrible language (presumably he had overlooked the fact that the Irish speak English too) but maybe it isn’t the moment to make things sound more French. Anyway it would hardy do in Australia. Try saying it with your mouth full of flies.
Using “Dear Sir and Madam” when there are lots of them doesn’t work too well either. To replace the rule that the masculine includes the feminine by importing another to the effect that the singular includes the plural is not really an improvement and, taken literally, is certainly no more accurate. “Ladies and Gentlemen” sounds better, if a little theatrical, but try putting the definite article in front and you get a distinctly creepy feeling.
Perhaps that is because of literary associations. Imagine two young women lost in a wood. A possible rescuer appears and addresses them. If he (yes, it is a he, this is literature, after all) begins “ladies” he could be a perfectly respectable knight. “Dear ladies”, however, is a warning sign. Possibly he is a seducer, possibly a necromancer. At the least he is a wicked uncle and it is that sycophantic “Dear” before “Ladies” which gives him away. It is worse, of course, if the lost young people are boys. Then. “Gentlemen”, would be fine but “Dear gentleman” would be an indication that the speaker was a relative of Gollum and that the dungeons await. Maybe it is different in the States but, if I were Freshfields, I’d keep the “Ladies and Gentlemen” and drop the “Dear”. Otherwise their clients will wonder who they are getting into bed with.
It seems rather odd to waste so much energy on finding a correct form of address when the old conventions ran for so many years without a problem. Actually, a quick look at “Debrett’s Correct Form” will show you that the correct mode of address has always been a subject of fascination and study. How should you address a bishop? (“My Lord” if you are his servant, “Bishop” if you meet him socially). How do you address the youngest son of a peer? (By the word “Lord” followed by his Christian name as in “Lord Peter”. His wife will rather oddly become “Lady Peter”). Then there is the vexed question, so dear to our transatlantic cousins, of who is entitled to add the word “Esquire”.
Fortunately this obsolete term has now retreated from English envelopes following the decision by government and business to extend it to everyone, rather than as previously to descendants of knights, men in her Majesty’s commission such as JPs and members of the bar. Once everyone could use it, it ceased to become a courtesy and it became merely a waste of ink.
Why does anyone bother with all these conventions? They are not works of art. They add not a penny to GDP. Logically we should all ignore them but until everybody does so one would rather not get them wrong. If you meet a Bishop at a dinner party, you would rather address him as his equal than as if you were his servant.
Mistakes of course can easily happen. A friend of mine is the chairman of the bench in an English country town. As such he might expect to be addressed as “Sir” or “your worship” but, noble fellow though he is, he is certainly not entitled to the appellation “your Majesty” which one defendant bestowed on him. In his place it would have been tempting to let them continue to use it for a bit, just to see what it felt like but reputations in provincial England are delicate things so he felt he should point out the error before it went too far.
The other source of error is computers. Faced by the name Lord Smith, the average computer will put Mr Lord Smith on the envelope. The Inland Revenue once did this to an Earl. When the error was pointed out the Inspector of Taxes sent an apology which he ended with the lines:
“and I shall belt the knavish churl
who did not know his belted earl”
So there you are. Surprising things can emerge from the most unpromising material. It is just a question of finding a taxman who can write humorous verse.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
