A SOCIAL ERROR

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 36, 11 August 1934, Page 7

A SOCIAL ERROR

USE OF "COMMANDER"

Attention is called in port orders at Portsmouth by the Commnnder-in-Chief, Admiral Sir John D. Kelly, to the misuse of tho title "Commander," reports the "Daily Telegraph." He says:—

"I have noticed a frequent if not general misuse of the title 'Commander' in addressing or referring to a Lieutenant-Commander, This appears to be particularly the case socially.

"It must be obvious to anyone that attribution to an officer of a rank to which he is not entitled is neither a compliment to the officer himself nor to the rank which he actually holds. It also lessens the distinction which properly should attach only to those who have attained the higher rank."

He points out that the correct method of address verbally or in writing is either "Lieutenant-Commander" or, if brevity is required, "Mr."

Admiral Kelly's order is a bold challenge to a well-established custom, comments the naval correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph." ■ Ever since, the rank of Lieutenant-Commander was created in 1914 officers of that grade have almost invariably betin given tho courtesy title of "Commander," except when on duty:

It is an unwritten law of the Navy that while officers of the rank of Lieutenant shall bo _ addressed as "Mr.," a Lieutenant-Commander—which actually means a Lieutenant of over eight years' seniority—is entitled to be addressed as "Commander" on all non-Service social occasions. To argue that ho is 1 not would imply with equal logic that a Lieutenant-Colonel has no right to the title of "Colonel" which he, however, always receives outside official Army circles.

The underlying purpose of Admiral Kelly's order, is difficult to discover, but there is reason to fear that except within the charmed circle of the Portsmouth Command it will be honoured more in the breach than in the observance.'