In message <5.2.0.9.1.20031023082716.0305c970(a)smtp.panix.com>om>, Vicki
Rosenzweig <vr(a)redbird.org> writes
At 01:08 PM 10/22/03 -0700, Delirium wrote:
In retrospect I agree partially, and would move
towards using neither
Blessed or Saint. In fact, I would prefer not using titles at all.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant for an example of
this in practice (note that it does not start off "General Ulysses S.
Grant..." -- even though in this case "General Grant" was in fact a
common way to refer to him before, during, and after his Presidency.
There are a few exceptions, of course. "Saint Peter" should be
referred to as such, because that's the most common way to refer to
him (though I wouldn't object to "Peter the Apostle" either). Popes
should probably be referred to as "Pope John Paul II", because "John
Paul II" is not actually a personal name, but one adopted with the
office. But I don't think this should extend to all people who have titles.
This is basically the--sensible, I think--approach recommended by
Fowler, decades
ago: start by calling people by the name they're best known by, and
optionally add
others. So Mother Theresa gets listed as that ("Saint Theresa" needs to
be a disambiguation
anyway), and the article should note her birth name as well as the fact
that she was
canonized by the Roman Catholic church in 2003
Just nitpicking to be pedantic, but she hasn't been canonized, only
beatified so far... (I nearly said "beautified", but that would be more
difficult! :) )
--
Arwel Parry