Conventions for Titles
For quite some time I have been looking for a guide to conventions on the site for titles - those of Royalty, the military, academics, and so many others who have titles, whatever they might be. The Americans have I, II and III, or Jr and Sr. Which are rather foreign to the English or anyone else, who do not believe them necessary. I also see them calling men "Sir" when they have not been knighted, or "Lady," when they are not the wives of Knights, nor the daughters of Earls, Viscounts, Marquesses, Barons, or even widows of Peers. Do we consider military ranks titles? Are academic titles used? And then we have other matters, such as Associate Professorships, which may be lost. How about Honorary degrees? Some are stripped. What do we do then? And that is just for ENGLISH matters.
We need to have them, I think. Just like we need to get people to understand that wives are NOT Mrs Their Husbands, and N.N. is not something a search engine would understand. I know not everyone is a genealogist. But everyone SHOULD be able to go somewhere and see that on this site OUR CONVENTION is: x. It isn't to say it is correct. And we might change it one day. But at least we're all moving in the same direction. We need to have a convention for describing someone unknown - instead of "?" Because the system calls an error, although there really is no other way; when the only OTHER alternative is calling people "Mrs So-and-so" or "Unknown" or "N.N." - and all of these are foreign to a search engine.
So, can SOMEONE (or I will start if no one will, with input of course) begin with a list. At the top we have, perhaps King or Emperor, or even Deity (all respect, but there are a few on our tree). Indeed, we marry quite a bit of myth with history, and there are absolutely NO records to support it (which is a matter of great concern to me - people add things willy-nilly without a care in the world, or because they saw it on Ancestry.com somewhere ...) He/she/They/Person/Entity shall be titled in such a way, and no other way, by our convention. We CAN define how we use the titles.
Answers
-
This topic has come up before and there are a wide range of opinions. In my ancestors, there are men who obtained PhDs and there are men who were physicians. I have given them all the title "Dr." as that is what they were called during their lifetime by everyone other than family and close friends. Some have told me that is "bragging" and that they did not give their ancestors titles who were physicians or PhDs. I'm not sure one is correct and the other incorrect. By the way, Associate Professorships have obtained a PhD and are called Dr. so I would include that title if it applied to anyone. I suspect it would only apply to those who died young, because that is essentially the initial status you have after obtaining the degree (in the US, anyway).
If you are thinking about living people, I say put whatever you want. No one can see them except you.
In my opinion, the title for recently deceased people should be included if it was used. If a recent British person was knighted, yes, I would certainly say add "Sir" or "Dame". It is an honor. Defining how to use titles will be difficult as there are many cultures, many historic rules and it just may not be possible.
1 -
The current convention on FS for titles is that there is no convention.
I think most users put something in the title field if they feel that it better identifies the person. I have no argument with this practice; I've followed it myself.
(The Famous Relative didn't use the noble epithet that he was technically entitled to; I think he considered it his great-grandfather's accolade, not his. However, every biographer, journalist, and other person who has ever written about him seems to feel it Necessary and Essential to include that title, so I've included it in his name in Vitals. [If there were a generally-agreed-upon title or suffix to indicate receipt of a Nobel prize, I'd use that instead, because Prof would likely have used it himself. The prize was his own accomplishment, not a distant family member's.])
The only change I'd like to see in FS's guidelines is some sort of clearer indication that the title and suffix fields are entirely and completely optional. (Heck, technically, the main name fields are also optional. You only need something in one of the two to be able to save the name.) I'm pretty sure that most of the people who put in "Mr." as a title are doing so because they're accustomed to old-fashioned forms that require a choice in the title field, or because they feel the need to fill in every box.
2 -
This shows some guidance on using the Title and Suffix Fields.
Put each part of the name in the correct field
- Title—Use Title for words like “Count” or “Mister.” You can leave the title field blank.
- First Names—Enter the first and middle names. Put nicknames in the “Other Information” section.
- Last Names—Enter the family name or surname. If a woman changed her surname after marriage, enter her maiden name. If the person has no last name, leave the Last Name field blank.
- Suffix—Enter words like “Jr.” or “Sr.,” or a Roman numeral. For example, John Smith III. You can leave the field blank.
1 -
Just to add some detail to the Nicknames comment above, from the "Other Information" section, click "+ Add Alternate Name" then click the drop down arrow and choose "Nickname", then enter the name and click "Save"
0 -
I spend way too much time keeping different people with the same name separated (because apparently nobody looks beyond that), so I welcome basically any applicable title that will help differentiate them. Though, with the people erroneously called Sir and Lady when they didn't actually have the title, it should probably be removed.
0 -
True, I have never found any direct connection to nobility / royalty, but in my eleven years in using Family Tree I have never had occasion to use either a prefix or suffix! Yes, it can be difficult to distinguish between grandfather, father and son all named "William Brown", but then so is identifying a few first cousins who might also have been given the same name as their grandfather.
I have to admit I do get a little annoyed by the habit of my "American cousins" in using "I" "II" and "III" as suffixes for our 17th century English ancestors - although not half as much as when they dream-up middle names for them, when these were very rarely given to children back then, nor used in adulthood.
1 -
While I do appreciate all of your thoughtful comments, they do not propose a solution - and that is what we need. Something which applies to all persons, across the continents. Which might sound like a very tall order. But it isn't, really. We all agree on certain titles. And others, like titles of nobility among the English, are rigid, and therefore easily applied. Well, not really. They are complicated too, I find.
Identifying common problems is a start, but we need to go further.
0 -
@Brett607, is there a reason we all need to treat titles the same? I am good with everyone adding titles according to their own preference, especially for their own close family members. For royalty of other countries, I'm not quite sure it matters either unless you are a history buff. Even then, why get technical in what is a genealogy web site, not a history web site? PhD candidates and other experts have forums elsewhere where they can debate such rules.
0
