Why does V call Roy "Sir Greenhilt"?

[Fitzclowningham]

Obviously Vaarsuvius respects hir party leader, but Roy has no lineage and no title. V is more than intelligent to know how to address people. Why does s/he use the honorific? Is Rich trying to tell us something about their relationship?

[MSTang]

Roy's the leader of the party.

[Paseo H]

Obviously Vaarsuvius respects hir party leader, but Roy has no lineage and no title. V is more than intelligent to know how to address people. Why does s/he use the honorific? Is Rich trying to tell us something about their relationship?

Hmm...interesting idea you got there. Go on.

[Ghost Nappa]

Obviously Vaarsuvius respects hir party leader, but Roy has no lineage and no title. V is more than intelligent to know how to address people. Why does s/he use the honorific? Is Rich trying to tell us something about their relationship?

Because it's polite and we know Vaarsuvius respects Roy for his intelligence.

[Porthos]

Obviously Vaarsuvius respects hir party leader, but Roy has no lineage and no title. V is more than intelligent to know how to address people. Why does s/he use the honorific? Is Rich trying to tell us something about their relationship?

He means it as a sign of respect. He's been using it ever since they first met in Origins.

Light Spoilers:

When Roy demonstrated that he had a some serious chops in the intellect department, V immediately called him "Sir Greenhilt" in response. And pretty much has ever since.

[denthor]

V does it out of respect for the position. I also think that V is very formal and likes to use big long sentence structure (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html). Lets face if you are a mage with d4 hit dice you would tend to call the guy with the big sword sir. comic 282 just look and read V's comments at the end.

[Sir_Leorik]

Obviously Vaarsuvius respects hir party leader, but Roy has no lineage and no title. V is more than intelligent to know how to address people. Why does s/he use the honorific? Is Rich trying to tell us something about their relationship?

V uses it as a sign of respect for Roy.

4E!Vaarsuvius referred to 4E!Roy (who is a Warlord, not a Fighter) as "Lord Greenhilt", even though we have no reason to suspect 4E!Roy is of noble lineage.

[Fitzclowningham]

V uses it as a sign of respect for Roy.

4E!Vaarsuvius referred to 4E!Roy (who is a Warlord, not a Fighter) as "Lord Greenhilt", even though we have no reason to suspect 4E!Roy is of noble lineage.

Good points, all. Thanks!

[Benthesquid]

Roy also completed Fighter's College. I've just sort of assumed that whatever degree he got from there entitles him to the use of "Sir," as an honorific. Sure, this doesn't correspond to any real-world use of the term that I know of, but neither does Sir Greenhilt as a generic term of respect.

On the other hand, we know that Roy has the Intelligence to sink a few skill points into Use Rope...

[Ted The Bug]

I think Roy once responded with "Don't call me sir" - Peanuts reference.

But it's probably just V being formal.

[Passer-by]

Roy also completed Fighter's College. I've just sort of assumed that whatever degree he got from there entitles him to the use of "Sir," as an honorific. Sure, this doesn't correspond to any real-world use of the term that I know of, but neither does Sir Greenhilt as a generic term of respect.

On the other hand, we know that Roy has the Intelligence to sink a few skill points into Use Rope...

I like your first point, but the second one? The second one wins this thread.

[Everyl]

On the other hand, we know that Roy has the Intelligence to sink a few skill points into Use Rope...

This theory puts Roy's surprise at learning that V is married in a whole new light.

[Akritas]

In modern day vernacular English it is used in formal contexts. E.g. if I am talking to a customer "Can I help you, sir?" It doesn't mean I think they are nobility, it's just a polite form of address.



V does it out of respect for the position. I also think that V is very formal and likes to use big long sentence structure (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html). Lets face if you are a mage with d4 hit dice you would tend to call the guy with the big sword sir. comic 282 just look and read V's comments at the end.


I doubt V is seriously worried about physical violence. Roy wouldn't become violent if he wasn't addressed as "sir" and in any case the person who can tell the laws of physics to shut up and sit down probably beats the guy with the pointy metal stick.

[Domino Quartz]

In modern day vernacular English it is used in formal contexts. E.g. if I am talking to a customer "Can I help you, sir?" It doesn't mean I think they are nobility, it's just a polite form of address.


That only applies when you simply address someone as "Sir." When you address someone as "Sir <last name>," it implies that they have some sort of high position, like a knighthood or something.

[Porthos]

I doubt V is seriously worried about physical violence. Roy wouldn't become violent if he wasn't addressed as "sir" and in any case the person who can tell the laws of physics to shut up and sit down probably beats the guy with the pointy metal stick.

Stuff for Origins
This was actually V's first thought more or less when he was being interviewed by Roy in Origins. He accused Roy of trying to overcompensate for smacking things with a stick for a living.

Roy quickly disabused him of that presumption, however, by showing V that he wasn't a typical dumb jock. And it was at that moment V started calling Roy "Sir Greenhilt" as a gesture of the respect he had for Roy.

[Sniffnoy]

That only applies when you simply address someone as "Sir." When you address someone as "Sir <last name>," it implies that they have some sort of high position, like a knighthood or something.

Hm -- I believe when actually addressing a knight, the proper form of address is "Sir <firstname>". This could just mean that "Sir" works differently here.

[Trillium]

Actually I have never heard the formula "Sir <last name>". It is always either "Sir", "Sir <first name>", or "Sir <first name> <last name>".
So if Roy was a knight, he would be Sir Roy or Sir Roy Greenhilt. Or Lord Greenhilt.

[Domino Quartz]

Actually I have never heard the formula "Sir <last name>". It is always either "Sir", "Sir <first name>", or "Sir <first name> <last name>".
So if Roy was a knight, he would be Sir Roy or Sir Roy Greenhilt. Or Lord Greenhilt.

I guess I was wrong then. It must just be a more formal/respectful version of "Mr. Greenhilt."

[dtilque]

There's a certain amount of incorrect information in several posts above. This has to do with how people with various titles are addressed and what their exact position is.

Sir is used to address knights and baronets. Neither is a member of the nobility and are not addressed as "lord". Baronets inherit their titles, knights do not.

Lord is used to address members of the peerage (nobility) except Dukes. Dukes are addressed as Your Grace. The other noble titles are, from lowest to highest, Baron, Viscount, Count, and Marquess.

The above information applies only to the UK and its constituent countries. Other countries do things differently.

[Chantelune]

V calls Haley "miss Starshine" and Durkon "master Thundershield". I don't recall if she ever actually spoke elan's first name and it seems she usually avoid speaking Belkar's name as well. In any case, knowing this, that makes her calling Roy "sir Greenhilt" much less unusual and surprising. He's the party leader and she respect both that and his intellect, which is way better than the average fighter.

[Grey Watcher]

Maybe V just tanked his Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) check and doesn't realize the usage is incorrect?

[Heksefatter]

V likes formal address, at least towards people whom s/he respects. Miss Starshine. Master Thundershield. Sir Greenhilt. Belkar and Elan do not get honorifics.

Ultimately, we have little to go on regarding the substances of these titles. The reasons suggested for Roy make sense. Durkon's honorific is probably something due to his clerical standing. Haley's title is obvious, though.

[Sir_Leorik]

V has little patience for honorifics to begin with. The fact that she addresses Roy, Durkon and Haley as "Sir Greenhilt", "Master Thundershield" and "Miss Starshine", respectively, indicates how much V respects them. Durkon is a fellow spellcaster, albeit a Divine caster, and one who is also Tier 1. Haley was the first friend that V made in Human Lands, and they have a close bond. Roy demonstrated how Intelligent he is at their first meeting, by passing a Knowledge (Arcana) check.

Contrast that to how V refers to Belkar, Miko, Mr. Jones and Phil Rodriguez and Daimyo Kubota: "That loathesome Halfling", "That Paladin", "Those Idiot Lawyers" and "What is a Kubota?" (shortly after disintegrating the Daimyo).

V didn't even name Blackwing, Haley did, since V considered him to be just another class feature. Only after V was humiliated by Xykon, and Blackwing helped save the day, V has become more humble and open to her comrades. (Except Belkar.)

[Rogar Demonblud]

There's a certain amount of incorrect information in several posts above. This has to do with how people with various titles are addressed and what their exact position is.

Sir is used to address knights and baronets. Neither is a member of the nobility and are not addressed as "lord". Baronets inherit their titles, knights do not.

Lord is used to address members of the peerage (nobility) except Dukes. Dukes are addressed as Your Grace. The other noble titles are, from lowest to highest, Baron, Viscount, Count, and Marquess.

The above information applies only to the UK and its constituent countries. Other countries do things differently.

IMS, the UK doesn't have Counts. They do have Earls a-plenty, though, as well as plenty of Lords who don't have a specific title but are nobility. Lord Olivier being the first to pop into mind, since I re-watched Henry V this weekend.

[geeky_monkey]

IMS, the UK doesn't have Counts. They do have Earls a-plenty, though, as well as plenty of Lords who don't have a specific title but are nobility. Lord Olivier being the first to pop into mind, since I re-watched Henry V this weekend.

Laurence Olivier was a Baron. The Baron of Brighton to be precise. I know this cos I live in Brighton and it's mentioned on one of the local buses (they are all named after local celebs).

[dtilque]

IMS, the UK doesn't have Counts. They do have Earls a-plenty, though, as well as plenty of Lords who don't have a specific title but are nobility. Lord Olivier being the first to pop into mind, since I re-watched Henry V this weekend.

Oops, you're right. They are Earls, but they're considered to be the equivalent of Counts in other countries. Also, women who inherit Earldoms as well as the wives of Earls are called Countesses.

But you are mistaken about there being lords without titles. This happens Bujold's Vorkosiverse, but not in the UK.

[Sir_Leorik]

But you are mistaken about there being lords without titles. This happens Bujold's Vorkosiverse, but not in the UK.

Of course, because that would just be insanity. :smallsigh: These silly things make me thankful both my homelands rebelled against the United Kingdom.

[sengmeng]

Of course, because that would just be insanity. :smallsigh: These silly things make me thankful both my homelands rebelled against the United Kingdom.

Yet you still reserve the right to use the honorific in your username... :smalltongue:

[Shred-Bot]

An alternate theory: Roy and V are really polymorphed versions of Charlie Brown's friends Peppermint Patty and Marcy! Think about it, Patty was always the sporty one and Marcy had glasses, which automatically made her the bookish nerd-type. IT ALL FITS!

[Bulldog Psion]

An alternate theory: Roy and V are really polymorphed versions of Charlie Brown's friends Peppermint Patty and Marcy! Think about it, Patty was always the sporty one and Marcy had glasses, which automatically made her the bookish nerd-type. IT ALL FITS!

You have won the Imperial Order of the Epileptic Tree, First Class, most likely. :smallcool:

[Dimitri666]

This strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0010.html) shows even Roy has no idea why.

:vaarsuvius: Sir Greenhilt, I believe I have a spell of power that may help.
:roy: Sounds good.
:roy: And don't call me "sir"

[Cerussite]

Obviously Vaarsuvius respects hir party leader, but Roy has no lineage and no title. V is more than intelligent to know how to address people. Why does s/he use the honorific? Is Rich trying to tell us something about their relationship?


On the other hand, we know that Roy has the Intelligence to sink a few skill points into Use Rope...

So, we already have a V/Belkar and a V/Roy thread on the front page. Someone should make a V/Haley one *wink wink*

[veti]

There's a certain amount of incorrect information in several posts above. This has to do with how people with various titles are addressed and what their exact position is.

Sir is used to address knights and baronets. Neither is a member of the nobility and are not addressed as "lord". Baronets inherit their titles, knights do not.

Lord is used to address members of the peerage (nobility) except Dukes. Dukes are addressed as Your Grace. The other noble titles are, from lowest to highest, Baron, Viscount, Count, and Marquess.

The above information applies only to the UK and its constituent countries. Other countries do things differently.

To add slightly: a knight is formally known just as "Sir <firstname>", a baronet is "Sir <firstname> <lastname>" (reflecting the inherited/not-inherited distinction between the titles). The feminine version is either "Lady <firstname>" or "Dame <firstname>".

"Your Grace" is technically used for "ordinary" dukes (there are also "royal dukes", basically the queen's relatives, who are known as "Your Royal Highness"). Also, formally used for Anglican archbishops (who are, ex officio, also considered non-hereditary lords). It's also commonly used for Roman Catholic and Orthodox bishops, but this is really a courtesy rather than "formally correct", because these ranks have no official standing in the British nobility.

"Your Lordship" (fem: "Your Ladyship") would be the default form of address to any of the other ranks of peerage (earls, marquesses, viscounts, barons).

"My Lord", with no name added, is a slightly more familiar term, and would be appropriate if you are acknowledging a particular bond to this lord in particular - e.g. as servant to employer, or subaltern to superior. Also used formally to address Anglican bishops.

"My Lord <title>" would be used to differentiate one lord from any one of several others you might be speaking of, e.g. when introducing a lord to a meeting, or when there are a whole bunch of lords present. It would also be used to speak down the chain of nobility, e.g. by a king or a duke addressing a viscount.

All of this applies only to highly formal contexts. In everyday usage, nobody uses these titles very often any more, with the possible (I honestly don't know) exception of the nobilities' personal households. Certainly, all the Anglican bishops and knights/baronets I've met (a handful) prefer to be addressed by their first name, without any honorific.

[FujinAkari]

Actually I have never heard the formula "Sir <last name>". It is always either "Sir", "Sir <first name>", or "Sir <first name> <last name>".
So if Roy was a knight, he would be Sir Roy or Sir Roy Greenhilt. Or Lord Greenhilt.

What is Sir Lancelot's first name then? Because I sure don't know it.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Eugene is a name meaning "of good stock". Roy is etymologically related to "royalty".

Roy, son of Eugene, with the ancestral sword, and he looks just like the king of nowhere.

Of course! We should all call him Sir Greenhilt! YYYYEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!

[Rogar Demonblud]

What is Sir Lancelot's first name then? Because I sure don't know it.

Lancelot. His surname is du Lac (of the lake, since he was raised by the Lady of the Lake).

[Boring McReader]

The easy answer is that calling everyone by titles fits V's overly formal character.

Could it also be another Babylon 5 callout? In the Babylon 5 universe, human culture has become more formal, and "Mister" and other titles are the standard way to address people in ordinary conversation.

[Grey Watcher]

The easy answer is that calling everyone by titles fits V's overly formal character.

Could it also be another Babylon 5 callout? In the Babylon 5 universe, human culture has become more formal, and "Mister" and other titles are the standard way to address people in ordinary conversation.

I think that's more an artifact of the fact that we're dealing with military officers and diplomats, whose work necessitates being more formal than most people would be.

[Sir_Leorik]

Yet you still reserve the right to use the honorific in your username... :smalltongue:

Quiet, they'll figure it out! :smallwink:

[FujinAkari]

Lancelot. His surname is du Lac (of the lake, since he was raised by the Lady of the Lake).

That would be an Epithet, not a last name :P

[Trillium]

That would be an Epithet, not a last name :P

As I understand, "last name" wasn't always "family name" back then.
Last names were more like earned or given.

[Everyl]

It could be a habit that V carried over from Elven. As a native English speaker living in Japan, I can personally attest that forms of address that are simply polite or even routine in Japanese can easily come across as overly formal when literally translated into English. Something similar could exist between Elven forms of address and Common ones. And while V is no doubt intelligent enough to know that titles like "Miss" and "Sir" sound unusually formal for addressing friends in Common, it would nonetheless feel disrespectful not to use them, so we continue to see them used.

[Rogar Demonblud]

That would be an Epithet, not a last name :P

A 'surname' is just a following name or distinction. Most surnames today are old job titles or location words (Taylor, Rivers). I understand it comes from French (sur le plat, like), but beyond that I know or care not.

[BannedInSchool]

Now if Roy can get land, knighted, and advance in rank he could be "General Sir Lord Greenhilt". :smallsmile:

[Chronos]

A 'surname' is just a following name or distinction. Most surnames today are old job titles or location words (Taylor, Rivers). I understand it comes from French (sur le plat, like), but beyond that I know or care not.
Many surnames are originally patronymics, as well. "Johnson", "Jansen", "Jansky", "Jones", "Evans", and "Ivanovich", for instance, all mean roughly "Son of John".

And just what would be the proper mode of address for someone with a Master's of Battle Administration degree?

[Boring McReader]

I think that's more an artifact of the fact that we're dealing with military officers and diplomats, whose work necessitates being more formal than most people would be.

If you're replying to my Babylon 5 comment, I recall reading a comment from the series creator that the heavy use of "Mister" was due to future formality rather than diplomatic concerns. But I don't know where to begin tracking the comment down. It's possible I'm misremembering.

[veti]

Now if Roy can get land, knighted, and advance in rank he could be "General Sir Lord Greenhilt". :smallsmile:

Nah, an outright peerage makes the knighthood obsolete, so he'd be just "General Lord Greenhilt of Someplace". Unless he chose to adopt "Someplace" as his surname in place of "Greenhilt", which is an option when you get the title, in which case he's just 'General Lord Someplace'.

[RossN]

While it has bothered me at times I always assumed it was a sign both of V's respect for Roy and his lack of familiarity with human culture.

As a lot of people already noted a knight is usually addressed as 'Sir <First Name>'. V incorrectly uses 'Sir <Family Name>' possibly because that might be a direct translation of the Elven equivalent.

So V is being wrong but respectful.

[SaintRidley]

Roy is etymologically related to "royalty".


That's because it's how the French used to spell roi, which means king.

[Boring McReader]

Nah, an outright peerage makes the knighthood obsolete, so he'd be just "General Lord Greenhilt of Someplace". Unless he chose to adopt "Someplace" as his surname in place of "Greenhilt", which is an option when you get the title, in which case he's just 'General Lord Someplace'.

Wouldn't that be in conflict with his position as King of Nowhere?

[Ashtagon]

That only applies when you simply address someone as "Sir." When you address someone as "Sir <last name>," it implies that they have some sort of high position, like a knighthood or something.

Actually, "sir $lastname" was never a correct mode of address in any traditional English system. Knights were traditionally addressed as "sir $forename" --- never by their family name.

[vegetalss4]

Wouldn't that be in conflict with his position as King of Nowhere?

Nope. Royalty often have/had other titles besides being kings.
For instance the Danish King was until 1864 also the Duke of Slesvig and the Duke of Holsten.
The latter was even part of The German Confederation, meaning that when acting in his role as the Duke of Holsten he was vassals to the German Emporor, through of course when acting as the King he would be completely sovereign and independant.

[Domino Quartz]

Actually, "sir $lastname" was never a correct mode of address in any traditional English system. Knights were traditionally addressed as "sir $forename" --- never by their family name.

Thanks, but that's already been pointed out at least twice since I posted.

[Shadowknight12]

Perhaps V is referencing a party hierarchy that only he sees (perhaps borrowed from his Elven culture)?

Roy is Sir Greenhilt because he's the King (party leader). Haley is Miss Starshine because she is Roy's heiress to the throne (second in command). Durkon is Master Thundershield because he is Roy's vizier. V would be, naturally, the court's magician (and probably in equal standing to Durkon).

Hey, if we're going to speculate, might as well throw in some more ideas to the pot.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Actually, "sir $lastname" was never a correct mode of address in any traditional English system. Knights were traditionally addressed as "sir $forename" --- never by their family name.

Not completely correct. You do refer to certain persons as 'Knight of X', where X is also their last name. Similar to Earl of Y, but it is an archaic way of referencing their status.

Besides, we're geeks. We have to argue the small points and corner cases.

[Zea mays]

Perhaps V is referencing a party hierarchy that only he sees (perhaps borrowed from his Elven culture)?

Roy is Sir Greenhilt because he's the King (party leader). Haley is Miss Starshine because she is Roy's heiress to the throne (second in command). Durkon is Master Thundershield because he is Roy's vizier. V would be, naturally, the court's magician (and probably in equal standing to Durkon).

Hey, if we're going to speculate, might as well throw in some more ideas to the pot.

Two questions:
How did you not include the court jester? :elan:
What role does Belkar fill?

And hopefully we will not find out later that the elves live in a democracy (has their system of government been described anywhere?)

[snowblizz]

And just what would be the proper mode of address for someone with a Master's of Battle Administration degree?

Master Greenhilt. Of course an MBA (which it spoofs of) is more a honorific title than an actual degree (the business schools can claim what they want, the MBAs didn't not spend years in school learning stuff like some of us). I would assume it would be more correct to call him M(aster of).Sc(ience in).B(attle)A(dministration) Greenhilt.
Those dang peasants have been laying claim to the academic titles though. Anyone in fantasy worlds gets to be Master this or Master that.
Me, I'm a bonafied magister, which is endless fun for someone who plays Chaos in Warhammer 40k. I'm a Chaos Magister, don't tell the Inquisition though.:smalltongue:

[Shadowknight12]

Two questions:
How did you not include the court jester? :elan:
What role does Belkar fill?

And hopefully we will not find out later that the elves live in a democracy (has their system of government been described anywhere?)

Ah, yes, the court jester!

Belkar is probably the unsavoury assassin everybody knows but does their best not to mention.

[snowblizz]

Belkar is probably the unsavoury assassin everybody knows but does their best not to mention.

Chief cook/executioner? Two jobs, one paycheck. Good thing he enjoys the job they don't pay him for.

[Shadowknight12]

Chief cook/executioner? Two jobs, one paycheck. Good thing he enjoys the job they don't pay him for.

That rings some bells. Bells called "Hannibal Lecter". Though in terms of personality and manners, Belkar and him are polar opposites. They share only their love of gourmet kitchen and murder.

[veti]

Wouldn't that be in conflict with his position as King of Nowhere?

Not necessarily. William I of England was, simultaneously, Duke of Normandy. In Britain today, the Prince of Wales is also the Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and a whole bunch of other (non-geographical) titles, as well as heir to the throne of the UK.

If Someplace is in Nowhere, then the King of Nowhere can simultaneously be Lord of Someplace, meaning that he holds Someplace directly, rather than accepting fealty from an intermediary lord. There's plenty of precedent for this, although other nobles sometimes take a dim view of the king hogging things like that.

If Someplace is in Anywhere Else, then the King of Nowhere might still choose to accept a title from the King of Anywhere Else, which would be separate from his position in Nowhere's hierarchy. That would be an unusual move, basically amounting to Anywhere Else gifting Someplace to Nowhere - but these things do happen sometimes.

Edit: or, as described by vegetalss4, the king might accept a title that owes fealty to another ruler. But the Schleswig-Holstein situation was - more than unusual, it was (probably) unique in European history, arising from the weird nature of the "Holy Roman Empire".


That's because it's how the French used to spell roi, which means king.

Interestingly (?) enough, the Arabic word for "king" is "malik".

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

[Roger_Druid]

Hi,

Or, maybe, 'cause in ol' good ADnD 2nd Ed., whenever a character with Fighter class reached 9th Level became a 'Lord' (pg. 26). Sure, calling him 'Lord Greenhilt' would be more proper, but The Giant has been known to make things differently,

Roger.

[Rogar Demonblud]

If Someplace is in Anywhere Else, then the King of Nowhere might still choose to accept a title from the King of Anywhere Else, which would be separate from his position in Nowhere's hierarchy. That would be an unusual move, basically amounting to Anywhere Else gifting Someplace to Nowhere - but these things do happen sometimes.

Often with wedding treaties.

All of this making me even more happy that my country violently rejected the idea of hereditary aristocracy/monarchy.

[snowblizz]

Often with wedding treaties.
Mostly it happens in dynastic transference. Might not be a real word though.

One cause for the 100 year war was that a French duke conquered England and then later on his descendants married other French nobility creating a dynasty holding the throne of England and about a 1/3 of France as a vassal of the French king. The need to give homage to the French king as Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou and whatever of Gascony was one of the things that sparked conflict.
The King of Spain similarly held territory in France.
Before nationstates were established it was pretty common actually. Emperor Charles V of the HRE started out as as heir to old Burgundian territory.

[Procyonpi]

Roy is actually an anointed knight of the Seven, V has just been misspelling Ser Sir.

...Or maybe it's just a super common thing to refer to a male character as.

[martianmister]

And hopefully we will not find out later that the elves live in a democracy (has their system of government been described anywhere?)

They have an one world government (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15919361&postcount=24), and they are ruled by councilors of some council (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15919523&postcount=28).

[Wardog]

If Someplace is in Nowhere, then the King of Nowhere can simultaneously be Lord of Someplace, meaning that he holds Someplace directly, rather than accepting fealty from an intermediary lord. There's plenty of precedent for this, although other nobles sometimes take a dim view of the king hogging things like that.

If Someplace is in Anywhere Else, then the King of Nowhere might still choose to accept a title from the King of Anywhere Else, which would be separate from his position in Nowhere's hierarchy. That would be an unusual move, basically amounting to Anywhere Else gifting Someplace to Nowhere - but these things do happen sometimes.

Edit: or, as described by vegetalss4, the king might accept a title that owes fealty to another ruler. But the Schleswig-Holstein situation was - more than unusual, it was (probably) unique in European history, arising from the weird nature of the "Holy Roman Empire".



Another way is if a king (or other noble) aquires (e.g. through conquest) a territory that comes with its own title, and doesn't merge it

E.g.
William, Duke of Normandy: became King of England.
Queen Victoria: became Empress of India.
King Henry VIII: also King of Ireland.
King James VI of Scotland: became King James I of England

Also, sometimes if a monarch conquered or acquired a territory, they might transfer the title and rulerships of that territory to their heir. Hence why the heir to the English throne was Prince of Wales, and the heir to the Scottish throne was Lorde of the Isles (and now the British heir gets both titles).


Also, I think example 2 above (King of Anywhere granting land and title to King of Nowhere) wasn't actually that unusual, and was the cause of a lot of very convoluted feudal relationships. (It was also quite common for a someone to accept land and titles from more than one lord). Both these naturally led to lots of politics and wars.

[Liliet]

Many surnames are originally patronymics, as well. "Johnson", "Jansen", "Jansky", "Jones", "Evans", and "Ivanovich", for instance, all mean roughly "Son of John".

And just what would be the proper mode of address for someone with a Master's of Battle Administration degree?
Dunno about the rest, but "Ivanovich" is an actual patronymic, not a surname. The surname would be "Ivanov". The distinction might sound minor for English speakers, but native speakers would laugh their asses off if you confused the two in a conversation. And the full name would be Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich, because when the patronymic is used the surname comes first (making the "first name/last name" distinction hard to memorize when learning English).

As for Sir Greenhilt, I like the explanation about not full translation. Roy-san ^^ Or, coming from Russian and not Japanese, Roy Evgenievich. Using just the surname is fairly rude, only appropriate for teachers and direct supervisors, and using just the first name is overly familiar. And when people won't tell their patronymics when introducing themselves or just don't have them by virtue of being non-Russian, I know I am uncomfortable. Poor V.

[Trillium]

Dunno about the rest, but "Ivanovich" is an actual patronymic, not a surname. The surname would be "Ivanov". The distinction might sound minor for English speakers, but the native speakers would laugh their asses off if you confused the two in a conversation. And the full name would be Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich, because when the patronymic is used the surname comes first (making the "first name/last name" distinction hard to memorize when learning English).

As for Sir Greenhilt, I like the explanation about not full translation. Roy-san ^^ Or, coming from Russian and not Japanese, Roy Evgenievich. Using just the surname is fairly rude, only appropriate for teachers and direct supervisors, and using just the first name is overly familiar. And when the people won't tell their patronymics when introducing themselves or just don't have them by virtue of being non-Russian, I know I am uncomfortable. Poor V.

ivAnovich is a patronym, ivanOvich is a valid surname, though maybe not so much russian as western slavonic.

[Liliet]

ivAnovich is a patronym, ivanOvich is a valid surname, though maybe not so much russian as western slavonic.
Hm, maybe. I though western slavonic would rather use Ian or something similar than Ivan, but it's all been mixed up...

[Chronos]

Point taken and thank you for the correction, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few Russian immigrants to the US or other countries where, due to those countries' unfamiliarity with patronymics, "Ivanovich" became an actual surname.

[Liliet]

Point taken and thank you for the correction, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few Russian immigrants to the US or other countries where, due to those countries' unfamiliarity with patronymics, "Ivanovich" became an actual surname.

Actually, now that I think about it, I wouldn't be surprised if there were former Soviet people (at the moment Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Jewish or whatever) who are called Ivanovich because it sounds vaguely right-ish. I just forgot about the western slavonic form.

US immigrants who don't know better don't count (= that would be exactly the mistake I was correcting. I noticed that English speakers mix up slavonic names, surnames and patronymics a lot, to the point that when I see in an English work an actual valid Russian name/surname, like in Girl Genius, Phoenix Requiem or Gunnerkrigg court, I feel like it's something special. Although for the webcomics doing the goddamn research is apparently a standard, unlike movies, games and so on.

[Francis Davey]

"Your Lordship" (fem: "Your Ladyship") would be the default form of address to any of the other ranks of peerage (earls, marquesses, viscounts, barons).

"My Lord", with no name added, is a slightly more familiar term, and would be appropriate if you are acknowledging a particular bond to this lord in particular - e.g. as servant to employer, or subaltern to superior. Also used formally to address Anglican bishops.


That isn't quite right. The "Lord" v "Lordship" distinction is something that trainee barristers (lawyers who specialise in appearing in court in England) have to learn, since judges of the rank of High Court judge or above are addressed as "My Lord"/"My Lady" etc at least when sitting in a court.

"My Lord"/"My Lady" are vocative forms of address. You would say "My Lord, I appear for the Claimant, my learned friend Mr Smith appears for the Defendant".

"Your Lordship"/"Your Ladyship" refer to the judge themselves, so you might say "If your lordship would turn to page 112 of the trial bundle...".

You do not say (though sometimes you do hear) "If my Lord would turn to...". That is like a shop assistant saying "if sir would..." and is wrong. Since the bar is fairly competitive, expect to be teased (at best)if you get it wrong.

All mad and arbitrary, but since you will sometimes be wearing a gown, a suit with winged collar and bands and a prickly horse-hair wig on your head, it is simply part of the territory.

[Liliet]

And there some people say that Russian or Japanese is complicated o.O I'm so happy I ended up not being a lawyer after all...

(not that I don't appreciate the info in the form of random trivia, but I'd rather not earn my living with it...)

[Chronos]

To be clear, I wasn't implying that the immigrants themselves were ignorant, but that the people processing their paperwork were. If the guy at Ellis Island asks the immigrant for his name, and he says "Ivan Ivanovich", the Ellis Island guy is going to put down "Ivan" on the form in the blank for "given name", and "Ivanovich" in the blank for "family name".

[Liliet]

To be clear, I wasn't implying that the immigrants themselves were ignorant, but that the people processing their paperwork were. If the guy at Ellis Island asks the immigrant for his name, and he says "Ivan Ivanovich", the Ellis Island guy is going to put down "Ivan" on the form in the blank for "given name", and "Ivanovich" in the blank for "family name".
Doesn't matter, point is, mistakes don't count. It's not like rouge is suddenly a valid DnD class because there are people who spell rogue that way, is it?

[Cavenskull]

Doesn't matter, point is, mistakes don't count. It's not like rouge is suddenly a valid DnD class because there are people who spell rogue that way, is it?
If the people making the books started spelling it that way, then yes, it would suddenly be a valid DnD class. In the case of mistakes made on immigration papers, it still ends up being a legal name that appears on official government documents. If it doesn't get corrected, then it's no longer a mistake and just becomes the person's new surname that will get passed on to subsequent generations.

[rewinn]

Is it not curious that they normally longwinded V uses so concise a form of address as "Sir Greenhilt"? :smallwink:

[Liliet]

Is it not curious that they normally longwinded V uses so concise a form of address as "Sir Greenhilt"? :smallwink:

I believe that compared to normal form "Roy", it is indeed extraordinarily longwinded. Besides, what other form do you suggest V could possibly use?

[Gift Jeraff]

Like some have already said, I figure it's a high elven way of referring to one's employer that doesn't really translate well into Common.

[Liliet]

Funny thing, I never actually felt there was anything unnatural about this form. Durkon called Roy by his name because they are close friends, Belkar is just rude, Haley is his second-in-command and also rude, Elan is just childish. But V would, of course, talk to him with respect.

Maybe it does translate well into Common, just doesn't translate well from Common to English...

Alright, there was that one offhand mention/joke, so it doesn't translate well into Common either. Still, there's nothing wrong with being respectful and formal towards your employer. Or any random person you meet in the street, actually. "Sir" is pretty good for that purpose, me thinks.

[snowblizz]

Still, there's nothing wrong with being respectful and formal towards your employer. Or any random person you meet in the street, actually. "Sir" is pretty good for that purpose, me thinks.

Funnily enough when I was in the US in August the "sir" kept creeping me out something fierce. "I'm not THAT old" is something I wanted to shout at anyone going "sir, ...".

But around here people have been "you" since the 60s and anything else sort of is a sign of someone trying to be pretentious or something.

[Liliet]

Funnily enough when I was in the US in August the "sir" kept creeping me out something fierce. "I'm not THAT old" is something I wanted to shout at anyone going "sir, ...".

But around here people have been "you" since the 60s and anything else sort of is a sign of someone trying to be pretentious or something.

I guess "I'm not THAT old" was the logic beyond my German teacher from several years ago introducing herself as "Katya" ("Kattie" in English?). She was just a student, sure, I don't introduce myself as anything other than "Anya" either. But I was 13 or 14 at the time, and the perspective of addressing my teacher as "Katya" creeped ME out. I ended up doing my best to avoid calling her by name at all - something I, with my awful memory of names, am very good at. But it was not necessary, had she only introduced herself by her full name... That would probably creep her out. What actually happened creeped me out instead.

There's something wrong with culture where two people in a routine social situation don't have common ground on how to introduce themselves and address each other )=

[SiuiS]

V uses it as a sign of respect for Roy.

4E!Vaarsuvius referred to 4E!Roy (who is a Warlord, not a Fighter) as "Lord Greenhilt", even though we have no reason to suspect 4E!Roy is of noble lineage.

4e what what?

[ORione]

4e what what?

In Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tails there's a short story where the Order meets their 4th Edition counterparts.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Yeah but "Lord Greenhilt" is a correct form of address by real-world standards, and "Sir Greenhilt" is not (it should be "Sir Roy"). So Vaarsuvius must be following some other standard... I like the "odd translation from Elven" explanation.

[warrl]

Now if Roy can get land, knighted, and advance in rank he could be "General Sir Lord Greenhilt". :smallsmile:

Only if the land he is enfeoffed with is named "Greenhilt". There are several ways that could happen, the obvious ones being:
* His surname is taken from the name of the place he's from (he's "Roy from Greenhilt") or an ancestor is from, which place is later made his noble estate. We're pretty sure this doesn't apply in the case at hand, but...
* The land that he is enfeoffed with does not already have a single distinctive name, and perhaps is not a single contiguous area, so the newly-formed noble estate is named after him.
* Coincidence. "Greenhilt? You are perhaps related to the Earl Greenhilt? No? You're quite certain? Well, he died last year with no heirs, and I need to put the town into someone's hands. Congratulations."

If, instead, he is made a baron and given the town of Westcreek as his estate, then he would not be Lord Greenhilt at all; instead he would be Lord Westcreek. His first name, and surname if used, would come *before* his noble honorific. The super-formal-military address would be General Sir Roy Greenhilt, Baron Westcreek.

That's how I understand the British usage anyway.

[warrl]

Not completely correct. You do refer to certain persons as 'Knight of X', where X is also their last name. Similar to Earl of Y, but it is an archaic way of referencing their status.

This is also not completely correct.

1) In modern usage it's not uncommon for a knight to be referred to as Sir $firstname $lastname. The population of knights is a lot larger than probably was formerly the case, and they routinely interact over a larger area, increasing the need for distinctive names.

2) "Knight of X" and "Earl of Y" (or "Lord Y") never (in the British usage) refer directly to the person's last name. They refer to the order of knighthood in the first case or a relevant noble estate in either case.

However it is possible that a person's last name is also one of the other names. In fact, sometimes a newly-created noble estate is named after the initial recipient of the title. (Sometimes the newly-created noble estate consists of an already-named area, and the new nobleman's surname might be the same - but probably not.) The resultant matching of surname and title can continue for generations - as long as the title is handed down through a strictly-male line.

Surname matching title is not the common case though. In fact, I found only one British duke whose surname and title match - versus two British dukes whose surnames match *some other* British duke's title.

[Asta Kask]

On the other hand, we know that Roy has the Intelligence to sink a few skill points into Use Rope...

Black leather gloves and your lipstick shines
Bright as moonlight glows
My wildest rose cuts so fine and deep
It hurts but never shows
You're bad, you're so hardcore
Pull me down here on the killing floor

[Deliverance]

And there some people say that Russian or Japanese is complicated o.O I'm so happy I ended up not being a lawyer after all...

They are!

Russian naming conventions are arguably entirely logical (Russian speakers usually argue so), but they tend to drive people who use simpler systems crazy in actual practice.

[Liliet]

They are!

Russian naming conventions are arguably entirely logical (Russian speakers usually argue so), but they tend to drive people who use simpler systems crazy in actual practice.
Ha. I remember studying them _theoretically_ at school. Mission impossible, at least for a kid. Too complicated. Intuitively, it's all perfectly simple and logical, but as soon as you try to break it up and see what goes where and why...

Even now, I don't understand how exactly "Shura" is short from "Alexandra". And I'm a native speaker!

So, yes, you've got a point there.

[zimmerwald1915]

Even now, I don't understand how exactly "Shura" is short from "Alexandra". And I'm a native speaker!
Interestingly, English has "Sandy" as a unisex short form of both "Alexander" and "Alexandra", despite it combining parts of the Greek root words in a nonsensical way and despite "Sandy" having a completely different meaning in ordinary usage. I hadn't noticed the similarity to "Sasha"/"Shura" before.

[RossN]

Funny thing, I never actually felt there was anything unnatural about this form. Durkon called Roy by his name because they are close friends, Belkar is just rude, Haley is his second-in-command and also rude, Elan is just childish. But V would, of course, talk to him with respect.

Maybe it does translate well into Common, just doesn't translate well from Common to English...

Alright, there was that one offhand mention/joke, so it doesn't translate well into Common either. Still, there's nothing wrong with being respectful and formal towards your employer. Or any random person you meet in the street, actually. "Sir" is pretty good for that purpose, me thinks.

I think the issue some of us have is that 'Sir Greenhilt' is not actually correct even in a formal respectful sense. As several other posters have noted 'Sir Roy' or 'Sir Roy Greenhilt' would be much more common in reality.

V calling Roy 'Sir Roy Greenhilt' would not be odd, but for me at least 'Sir Greenhilt' is very weird sounding.

[zimmerwald1915]

I think the issue some of us have is that 'Sir Greenhilt' is not actually correct even in a formal respectful sense. As several other posters have noted 'Sir Roy' or 'Sir Roy Greenhilt' would be much more common in reality.

V calling Roy 'Sir Roy Greenhilt' would not be odd, but for me at least 'Sir Greenhilt' is very weird sounding.
Rich isn't bound to follow the strictures of the British peerage, or any peerage, in crafting formal terms of address for his world.

[Amphiox]

I think the issue some of us have is that 'Sir Greenhilt' is not actually correct even in a formal respectful sense. As several other posters have noted 'Sir Roy' or 'Sir Roy Greenhilt' would be much more common in reality.

V calling Roy 'Sir Roy Greenhilt' would not be odd, but for me at least 'Sir Greenhilt' is very weird sounding.

Let's not forget that there is no reason that the wholly arbitrary conventions of peerage formal address that we've developed in the real world should automatically apply to the Stickverse.

'Sir Greenhilt' may well be correct formal usage within the Stickverse, or whatever tradition Roy and/or V hail from.

Indeed, The Giant may well have chosen it deliberately, knowing it is "wrong" in the real world and would sound a bit "off" to readers, as an illustration that such formal address traditions are slightly different in the Stickverse than in the real world. Just a tiny little bit of world building detail.

[Liliet]

Interestingly, English has "Sandy" as a unisex short form of both "Alexander" and "Alexandra", despite it combining parts of the Greek root words in a nonsensical way and despite "Sandy" having a completely different meaning in ordinary usage. I hadn't noticed the similarity to "Sasha"/"Shura" before.
Sandy is pretty explainable. "Alexandra" and "Alexander" include "sand" phonetically, and while "a" sounds differently, it's still the same letter (hope that makes sense). And "y" is just the way English short names end.

In Russian, "ra" is just the way short names end, while "Shu" is just out of the left field. Alexandra/Alexander just don't include it.

On the other hand, English has Richard/Deek (well, you know what), which is the mystery of ages to me.


I think the issue some of us have is that 'Sir Greenhilt' is not actually correct even in a formal respectful sense. As several other posters have noted 'Sir Roy' or 'Sir Roy Greenhilt' would be much more common in reality.

V calling Roy 'Sir Roy Greenhilt' would not be odd, but for me at least 'Sir Greenhilt' is very weird sounding.
Sir <firstname> is a clear allusion to the title, while "Sir <lastname>" sounds similar to "Mr" and its analogues in other languages where it conveys no meaning except respect. I'm not a native speaker, though, and I'm used to this probably incorrect usage...

[zimmerwald1915]

On the other hand, English has Richard/Deek (well, you know what), which is the mystery of ages to me.
"Richard" used to be pronounced with a trilled "r" and a hard "c", more like "Dikhardt."

[warrl]

I think the issue some of us have is that 'Sir Greenhilt' is not actually correct even in a formal respectful sense.

Not me.

It would be incorrect if Roy Greenhilt and/or Vaarsuvius were British subjects. (Possibly applies to some or all of the other European countries that grant knighthoods; I don't know.)

But they aren't British subjects.

We don't know what would be considered proper in the Elven lands. Vaarsuvius is our best available expert on theat culture, so we have no reason to believe that the form of address V chooses is incorrect in that culture.

It's apparently incorrect in some way for Roy's native culture, but we don't know in what way - and it's not extremely incorrect, since Roy doesn't make a big deal of it in the first place and generally decides to let it pass without comment. (Have we seen ANYONE else from that culture referred to as "Sir X"? I don't think so in the webcomic at least, although I won't certify that statement.)

[zimmerwald1915]

(Have we seen ANYONE else from that culture referred to as "Sir X"? I don't think so in the webcomic at least, although I won't certify that statement.)
Elan referred to Sir Francois by name in the online comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0311.html).

[cheesecake]

I think Roy once responded with "Don't call me sir" - Peanuts reference.

But it's probably just V being formal.

This is what I've always assumed

[Rogar Demonblud]

Not me.

It would be incorrect if Roy Greenhilt and/or Vaarsuvius were British subjects. (Possibly applies to some or all of the other European countries that grant knighthoods; I don't know.)

But they aren't British subjects.

Truest statement in the thread.

[Liliet]

"Richard" used to be pronounced with a trilled "r" and a hard "c", more like "Dikhardt."
Wow. Mystery solved. Thanks!

Anyway, the thread was about seeking the deep and mysterious sense in Roy being called that, like V knew something we didn't. wasn't it? And now we all seem to agree that V just doesn't care about the convention and chooses "vaguely respectful" instead. Right?

[Nightcanon]

Real-life example: In the UK version of The Apprentice the guy who plays the role that Donald Trump plays in the US version is a man called Alan Sugar, who started out as a market trader in London's East End and made his fortune with in low-end, high volume consumer electronics in the 1980s. Given his public persona, it is reasonable to assume that during this period he expected his employees to address him as Mr Sugar. Subsequently he was knighted for services to business, at which point the correct formal address would be Sir Alan, even to people who would not previously presume to use his first name. He would still be Sir Alan Sugar (to distingiush him from, amongst others, BBC Boss Sir Alan Yentob and Paediatrician Professor Sir Alan Craft). On becoming a Baron, his title changed again, and now he is Lord Sugar of Clapton (after the place where he grew up- as far as I'm aware these days the choice of place you get to be 'Lord of' is negotiable since no ownership of land or estate is awarded or implied). Now the correct form of address is 'Lord Sugar'.
Particularly in media/ entertainment circles, how people are actually referred to is in part up to them, in part to the esteem in which they are actually held and their public image, and in part how pompous they are percieved to be about it. So a newly knighted actor might choose to remain 'Steve' to everyone from Director to wardrobe assistant if they were the type who was 'Steve' rather than 'Mr Smith' beforehand; if they insisted that juniors referred to them as Mr Smith they might now be more fussy about being addressed as Sir Stephen. Being more pompous about it, they might however find themselves referred to in slightly mocking tones: Sir Clifford of Richards (which incorrectly applies the surname as a designator of place, as in Guy of Guisborne), for example, or Lord Sugar of Amstrad (the above-mentioned non-premium brand electronics), if not to their faces. Finally, perception of Establishment matters- Sir Michael Jagger will always be Mick Jagger in the public consciousness, while Dame Judi Dench doesn't have the same leap to make.
Following this system, Sir Greenhilt is incorrect (though I think an honest rather than mocking error), though Roy may later become Sir Roy or even Lord Greenhilt of (for example) Windy Canyon.
As others have pointed out, V may not be following UK conventions.

[Cavenskull]

Real-life example: In the UK version of The Apprentice the guy who plays the role that Donald Trump plays in the US version is a man called Alan Sugar, who started out as a market trader in London's East End and made his fortune with in low-end, high volume consumer electronics in the 1980s. Given his public persona, it is reasonable to assume that during this period he expected his employees to address him as Mr Sugar. Subsequently he was knighted for services to business, at which point the correct formal address would be Sir Alan, even to people who would not previously presume to use his first name. He would still be Sir Alan Sugar (to distingiush him from, amongst others, BBC Boss Sir Alan Yentob and Paediatrician Professor Sir Alan Craft). On becoming a Baron, his title changed again, and now he is Lord Sugar of Clapton (after the place where he grew up- as far as I'm aware these days the choice of place you get to be 'Lord of' is negotiable since no ownership of land or estate is awarded or implied). Now the correct form of address is 'Lord Sugar'.
Particularly in media/ entertainment circles, how people are actually referred to is in part up to them, in part to the esteem in which they are actually held and their public image, and in part how pompous they are percieved to be about it. So a newly knighted actor might choose to remain 'Steve' to everyone from Director to wardrobe assistant if they were the type who was 'Steve' rather than 'Mr Smith' beforehand; if they insisted that juniors referred to them as Mr Smith they might now be more fussy about being addressed as Sir Stephen. Being more pompous about it, they might however find themselves referred to in slightly mocking tones: Sir Clifford of Richards (which incorrectly applies the surname as a designator of place, as in Guy of Guisborne), for example, or Lord Sugar of Amstrad (the above-mentioned non-premium brand electronics), if not to their faces. Finally, perception of Establishment matters- Sir Michael Jagger will always be Mick Jagger in the public consciousness, while Dame Judi Dench doesn't have the same leap to make.
Following this system, Sir Greenhilt is incorrect (though I think an honest rather than mocking error), though Roy may later become Sir Roy or even Lord Greenhilt of (for example) Windy Canyon.
As others have pointed out, V may not be following UK conventions.
Following that system, Sir Roy would be incorrect as well.

[Nightcanon]

Following that system, Sir Roy would be incorrect as well.

How so? If Roy were a knight (but not also a Lord of some type) he would properly be addressed as Sir Roy. He wouldn't ever be Sir Greenhilt.

[Cavenskull]

How so? If Roy were a knight (but not also a Lord of some type) he would properly be addressed as Sir Roy. He wouldn't ever be Sir Greenhilt.
Because Roy isn't a knight. Even if he was, this debate has already been addressed by Roy and Miko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html).

[Nightcanon]

Because Roy isn't a knight. Even if he was, this debate has already been addressed by Roy and Miko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html).

Ah, I see. I think I did say if Roy were/ were to become a knight, though. I was joining in more with the 'how would Roy be correctly addressed, were he a knight' bit than the 'why does V refer to Roy as Sir (anything)' bit of the thread.

[Cavenskull]

Ah, I see. I think I did say if Roy were/ were to become a knight, though. I was joining in more with the 'how would Roy be correctly addressed, were he a knight' bit than the 'why does V refer to Roy as Sir (anything)' bit of the thread.
But even then, Roy is not British. Also, the British do not hold a monopoly on knights. There are other countries in Europe that use completely different systems for addressing knights. Just as Miko's name did not appear to conform to the customs of feudal Japan, a formal title for Roy does not have to conform to the customs of medieval Britain. Sir Greenhilt might be absolutely correct where Roy is from, or it might be absolutely correct where Vaarsuvius is from.

[Nightcanon]

Certainly, which is why I finished with "as others have pointed out, V may not be following UK conventions". As I state above, my engagement was primarily with those who were drawing analogies with the current British system (which, specifically, uses the family name for a Lord, rather than the name of an estate, so Greenhilt probably doesn't refer to where Roy is from, but to the handle of his ancestral weapon that became the adopted descriptive surname a few generations back). The second part of my post was in part answer to those who are grateful that their ancestors left a land that preserves such an archaic system: I point out that depending on personality and profession, insisting on being referred to by a courtly title is met with as much ridicule here as in more apparently progressive societies.(It's perhaps also worth pointing out that my main example is a genuine rags-to-riches story who started boiling beetroot in a shed for sale at a local market, before trading up to selling TV aerials out of a second-hand van, and is now a billionaire. His counterpart in the US also presents himself as starting with nothing, by which he means a few million dollars from dad... 150 years ago, what you were able to make of yourself in the US probably did boil down to your own personal graft and rugged individualism; nowadays what you inherit from your folks matters as much as it does in Europe. It's not all Pride & Predjudice and Downtown Abbey over here).

[martianmister]

Roy is technically V's S.O. That's probably why V call him that.

[Domino Quartz]

Roy is technically V's S.O. That's probably why V call him that.

S.O? What's that?

[Siosilvar]

S.O? What's that?

Significantly more likely to be Superior Officer than Significant Other.

[martianmister]

Actually it's Senior Officer.