British Newspaper Obituaries and announcements
|
|
Thread rating:  |
James Silverton - 19 Oct 2007 21:27 GMT I recently read an obituary in a British magazine of a man who was one my professors. It began "Durward Cruickshank, formerly Emeritus Professor...." The word "formerly" while precise seems rather insensitive to me but I notice its use more and more as I age. Interestingly, similar American notices and obituaries do not use "formerly" regarding a position held by someone at their decease, as far as I can tell.
James Silverton Potomac, Maryland
E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Peter Duncanson - 19 Oct 2007 23:27 GMT >I recently read an obituary in a British magazine of a man who >was one my professors. It began "Durward Cruickshank, formerly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >not use "formerly" regarding a position held by someone at their >decease, as far as I can tell. I've never noticed the use of "formerly Emeritus Professor" in British obituaries. It was Cruickshank's status at the time of his death. "Formerly" suggests that he had lost the status before he died.
Looking at other obituaries in British newspapers there does not seem to be any instance of "formerly ...".
The Times has no mention of his prof-ship emeritus: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article2224510.ece
The Independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2811621.ece
Durward Cruickshank, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (Umist)
The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2007/10/ 05/db0503.xml
Cruickshank remained at UMIST for the rest of his academic career as Professor of Theoretical Chemistry (1967-84), deputy principal (1971-72) and from his retirement in 1983 as emeritus professor.
> James Silverton >Potomac, Maryland > >E-mail, with obvious alterations: >not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
James Silverton - 20 Oct 2007 00:44 GMT Peter wrote on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:27:49 +0100:
??>> I recently read an obituary in a British magazine of a man ??>> who was one my professors. It began "Durward Cruickshank, ??>> formerly Emeritus Professor...." The word "formerly" while ??>> precise seems rather insensitive to me but I notice its ??>> use more and more as I age. Interestingly, similar ??>> American notices and obituaries do not use "formerly" ??>> regarding a position held by someone at their decease, as ??>> far as I can tell. ??>> PD> I've never noticed the use of "formerly Emeritus Professor" PD> in British obituaries. It was Cruickshank's status at the PD> time of his death. "Formerly" suggests that he had lost the PD> status before he died.
PD> Looking at other obituaries in British newspapers there PD> does not seem to be any instance of "formerly ...".
PD> The Times has no mention of his prof-ship emeritus: PD> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article2224510.ece
PD> The Independent: PD> http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2811621.ece
)
PD> The Telegraph: PD> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2007/10/ 05/db0503.xml
Interesting! I was actually quoting from memory from the RSC News of October 2007, which is where as a chemist also, I usually notice these things. The actual citation read, in the Deaths section:
"Professor Durward William John Cruickshank CCChem FRSC FRS Formerly emeritus professor, UMIST. Died 13 July 2007, aged 83."
There were a number of others listed as for example, "Formerly professor, University of California." If this is not the case elsewhere, I will have to take it up with the editorial staff of the magazine since I am also a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry and I consider the usage insensitive. I don't think you can lose an Emeritus title or that of Professor on age-related retiral except for misconduct. Perhaps James Watson may have just attained that distinction.
James Silverton Potomac, Maryland
E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Maria - 20 Oct 2007 02:32 GMT > Peter wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Watson > may have just attained that distinction. My opinion: The use of "formerly emeritus" is not only insensitive, it's altogether wrong. However, "formally [or former] professor at [name of University]" seems okay to me. That is, you can retire from being a professor, but you can't retire from being "emeritus."
Incidentally, I would tend to say "Professor Emeritus" and not "emeritus professor."
 Signature Maria
Arcadian Rises - 20 Oct 2007 02:54 GMT > > Peter wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > My opinion: The use of "formerly emeritus" is not only > insensitive, it's altogether wrong. However, "formally obviously, a typo, since you wrote the word correctly one row above.
[or
> former] professor at [name of University]" seems okay to me. > That is, you can retire from being a professor, but you > can't retire from being "emeritus." It makes sense, although logic is purely coincidental.
I know there are certain titles (e.g. "ambassador") that stick with the person even after retirement, not to mention death, which does not obliterate the title. I don't believe there are any rule about which title is kept after retirement. I know people address Bill Clinton as "Mr. President" but this is done out of deference and it is not (politically?) correct.
Eric Schwartz - 25 Oct 2007 18:56 GMT > I know there are certain titles (e.g. "ambassador") that stick with > the person even after retirement, not to mention death, which does not > obliterate the title. I don't believe there are any rule about which > title is kept after retirement. I know people address Bill Clinton as > "Mr. President" but this is done out of deference and it is not > (politically?) correct. It annoys the piss out of me, to be quite honest. He's *not* the President anymore, and calling him "Mr President" is attaching honors to him he no longer possesses. Not to mention that it will be seriously weird if his wife is elected next year. It annoys me when people use that title with Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush as well, so this isn't a bash on Clinton personally.
-=Eric
Mike Lyle - 30 Oct 2007 14:54 GMT > > I know there are certain titles (e.g. "ambassador") that stick with > > the person even after retirement, not to mention death, which does not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > people use that title with Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush as well, > so this isn't a bash on Clinton personally. A pretty harmless honour, though: beats the hell out of giving them peerages, like former UK Prime Ministers.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Eric Schwartz - 30 Oct 2007 17:47 GMT >> It annoys the piss out of me, to be quite honest. He's *not* the >> President anymore, and calling him "Mr President" is attaching honors [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A pretty harmless honour, though: beats the hell out of giving them > peerages, like former UK Prime Ministers. What harm does it cause to give a former PM a peerage? Especially if it's a "life peerage" or whatever you call it where your children don't inherit your title.
-=Eric, honestly curious.
Mike Lyle - 31 Oct 2007 00:16 GMT > >> It annoys the piss out of me, to be quite honest. He's *not* the > >> President anymore, and calling him "Mr President" is attaching honors [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -=Eric, honestly curious. Well, calling a former president "Mr President" doesn't give him a permanent seat in the legislature.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Eric Schwartz - 31 Oct 2007 02:36 GMT > Well, calling a former president "Mr President" doesn't give him a > permanent seat in the legislature. I'd forgotten about that. I was under the (incredibly) vague impression that the House of Lords had been more or less neutered some time back, and existed largely to bloviate about stuff the House of Commons was going to do anyhow. I'm sure I don't need to express the level of sheer ignorance (not willful; I just haven't had the time to learn) I have about the current British system of government. Corrections gratefully welcomed.
-=Eric
Garrett Wollman - 31 Oct 2007 04:55 GMT >I'd forgotten about that. I was under the (incredibly) vague >impression that the House of Lords had been more or less neutered some >time back, and existed largely to bloviate about stuff the House of >Commons was going to do anyhow. Someone who actually knows something is welcome to correct, but most of them are probably asleep at the moment....
A short while back, most of the hereditary peers were kicked out of the House of Lords. They were allowed to elect a fraction of their number to continue to sit, and I think at the time Mr. Bleah also advised the Queen to give some of the more distinguished (or perhaps more reliably Labour) ones additional life titles to allow them to continue. I assume the C of E bishops were all removed at the same time. But the Lords was effectively emasculated several decades ago when its ability to obstruct legislation was limited, so now if the Government really want something, they need only pass it in three consecutive parliaments and it becomes law notwithstanding the objections of the upper house. I'm not sure how common this is among parliaments modeled after Westminster (at least of those that still have upper houses).[1]
-GAWollman
[1] It appears from the Wikipedia article that the Canadian Senate, at least, has full legislative power outside of budgetary matters -- the same, in theory, as the U.S. Senate -- but rarely exercises it, even when (as now) the governing party in the Commons is vastly outnumbered in the Senate. This reminds me of a semi-ObAUE... when I was growing up, we lived in Northern Vermont, and so I got most of my news from Canadian television. This was the late 1980s, and it took me a great deal of time to catch on to the fact that all those Western Canadian politicos were not asking for senate reform along the Libyan model.
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Peter Duncanson - 31 Oct 2007 12:53 GMT >A short while back, most of the hereditary peers were kicked out of >the House of Lords. They were allowed to elect a fraction of their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >consecutive parliaments and it becomes law notwithstanding the >objections of the upper house. Some CofE bishops are still there: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/lords_types.cfm
Different types of Lords The Lords currently has around 750 Members, and there are four different types: life Peers, Law Lords, bishops and elected hereditary Peers. Unlike MPs, the public do not elect the Lords. The majority are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister or of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Life Peers Appointed for their lifetime only, these Lords' titles are not passed on to their children. The Queen formally appoints life Peers on the advice and recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Law Lords (or Lords of Appeal in Ordinary) The Law Lords are salaried, full-time judges who carry out the judicial work of the House of Lords. The Queen appoints Law Lords on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, who receives advice from the Lord Chancellor. (This method of appointment will change when the relevant provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 come into force and selection is made by a selection commission whose choice is forwarded to the Lord Chancellor.) Candidates usually come from serving judges of the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, the Court of Session in Scotland, and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
Archbishops and bishops A limited number of 26 Church of England archbishops and bishops sit in the House, passing their membership on to the next most senior bishop when they retire. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York traditionally get life peerages on retirement.
Elected hereditary Peers The right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords was ended in 1999 by the House of Lords Act but 92 Members were elected internally to remain until the next stage of the Lords reform process.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Don Aitken - 31 Oct 2007 23:52 GMT >>I'd forgotten about that. I was under the (incredibly) vague >>impression that the House of Lords had been more or less neutered some [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >more reliably Labour) ones additional life titles to allow them to >continue. Additional life titles were offered to all hereditary peers of first creation (ie those who had been made peers themselves, rather than inheriting the title) except for peers of the blood royal, who therefore no longer sit in the HoL. Since less than half a dozen hereditary titles had been created since 1964, this affected only a small number of mostly very elderly people, all except one of whom have since died (the exception being Lord Snowdon, who was born in 1930, and was by far the youngest).
It addition, the holders of two hereditary office retained their seats - the Eerl Marshal (Duke of Norfolk) and the Lord Great Chamberlain (Marquess of Cholmondeley).
>I assume the C of E bishops were all removed at the same >time. Nope. As Peter notes, 26 bishops and archbishops continue to sit. This number has remained unchanged for several centuries. It is some of the bishops, rather than all of them, because the total number of diocesan bishops has increased substantially during that period.
>But the Lords was effectively emasculated several decades ago >when its ability to obstruct legislation was limited, so now if the >Government really want something, they need only pass it in three >consecutive parliaments and it becomes law notwithstanding the >objections of the upper house. These are the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911. The delay was reduced from three sessions (not three *parliaments*, which might be anything up to fifteen years) to two, and from two years to one, by the Parliament Act 1949. This still leaves the Lords with substantial power, especially since the Parliament Act does not apply to Statutory Instruments, which still require approval by both Houses. Nor does it apply to Bills which *start* in the Lords, as is common for legislation of constitutional importance.
 Signature Don Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Hatunen - 31 Oct 2007 04:50 GMT >> > I know there are certain titles (e.g. "ambassador") that stick with >> > the person even after retirement, not to mention death, which does [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >A pretty harmless honour, though: beats the hell out of giving them >peerages, like former UK Prime Ministers. The American habit of allowing people the honorific of former titles is pretty widespread, not just for president. Anyon who has been a judge may be called judge for the rest of his/her life, and those who have held military rank of colonel/(naval captain) will probably have that title the rest of their lives as well. Eisenhower was probably called "General" as often as he was called "Mr President" after he left the White House.
David Sarnoff, founder and head honcho of NBC insisted on being called "General" long after he briefly served in WW2 with that commission.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Peter Duncanson - 20 Oct 2007 13:47 GMT >Incidentally, I would tend to say "Professor Emeritus" and >not "emeritus professor." This varies between institutions. Queen's University, Belfast, where I worked for many years seems to use both "Emeritus Professor" and "Professor Emeritus", and, in at least one instance, the female equivalent "Professor Emerita".
To be more exact, I have found these titles in the obituary lists in five annual Vice-Chancellor's reports from 1971-73 to 1978-79 and in the 2005-06 report.
It would take more delving to discover whether all the emeriti were appointed by QUB. In most cases they clearly were.
At QUB the appointment to an emeritus professorship is not automatic. "Emeritus" is not simply a synonym for "retired" as some journalists appear to believe.
http://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/AcademicStudentAffairs/AcademicAffairs/Honorar yTitles/ProfessorEmeritus/ or http://tinyurl.com/2lozgw
1. Eligibility 1.1 The title 'Professor Emeritus of Queen's University of Belfast' may be conferred on former professors who have made a distinguished contribution to the life of the University in one or more of the following areas: research and scholarship, teaching, administration and community service. Honorary Professors who are members of University staff will be eligible to be considered for the title when they retire. .... 4. Rights, Entitlements and Duties 4.1 There are no duties attached to the post of Emeritus Professor.
Perhaps appointees are able to choose between the titles "Professor Emeritus" and "Emeritus Professor".
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Arcadian Rises - 20 Oct 2007 02:39 GMT On Oct 19, 7:44?pm, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@verizon.not> wrote:
> Peter wrote on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:27:49 +0100: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > you can lose an Emeritus title or that of Professor on > age-related retiral except for misconduct. I agree.
By the same token, a widow would not name in the obit her dear departed "my ex-husband", even though the "ex" label is technically correct.
Jonathan Morton - 20 Oct 2007 10:35 GMT >> There were a number of others listed as for example, "Formerly >> professor, University of California." If this is not the case [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I agree. As do I.
> By the same token, a widow would not name in the obit her dear > departed "my ex-husband", even though the "ex" label is technically > correct. Agreed on the first part. On the second point, I disagree. I am sure many widows would consider themselves still married to their deceased husbands - albeit without some of the perks [1] - and would never refer to a husband as "ex" in those circumstances.
[1] My late father always insisted on spelling that as "perqs" on the ground that it was an abbrieviation of "perquisite".
Regards
Jonathan
Janet Baraclough - 20 Oct 2007 15:37 GMT The message <C5qdnZggBod3VoTanZ2dnUVZ8rCdnZ2d@bt.com> from "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> contains these words:
> >> There were a number of others listed as for example, "Formerly > >> professor, University of California." If this is not the case [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > I agree.
> As do I.
> > By the same token, a widow would not name in the obit her dear > > departed "my ex-husband", even though the "ex" label is technically > > correct.
> Agreed on the first part. On the second point, I disagree. I am sure many > widows would consider themselves still married to their deceased husbands - Unless they had divorced; in which case he would be described in obit as her former husband and nobody would consider her to be a widow.
.The obit of a woman who has been married twice, divorced and widowed, might refer to her as the widow of Tom and formerly married to Harry. I expect there's a rule of precedence for listing ex's :-)
Janet.
Arcadian Rises - 20 Oct 2007 16:50 GMT > The message <C5qdnZggBod3VoTanZ2dnUVZ8rCdn...@bt.com> > from "Jonathan Morton" <jonat...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Agreed on the first part. On the second point, I disagree. I am sure many > > widows would consider themselves still married to their deceased husbands -
> Unless they had divorced; in which case he would be described in obit > as her former husband and nobody would consider her to be a widow. Unless she was his daughter; in which case he would be described in obit as her daddy and nobody would consider her to be a widow.
In case you wonder, my assessment is as relevant as yours, since you changed the initial data, i.e. a widow.
> .The obit of a woman who has been married twice, divorced and widowed, > might refer to her as the widow of Tom and formerly married to Harry. I > expect there's a rule of precedence for listing ex's :-) It depends on how they split and their relationship thereafter.
I know of a first ex-husband mentioned in an obit, which did not mention the second one, since at the time of her untimely death they were still in the middle of a custody/visitation battle.
> Janet.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Jonathan Morton - 20 Oct 2007 19:58 GMT > .The obit of a woman who has been married twice, divorced and widowed, > might refer to her as the widow of Tom and formerly married to Harry. I > expect there's a rule of precedence for listing ex's :-) "Redeem up, foreclose down". Oh, no, that was something different.
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|