The Lemon Fool

Suppose a person had the following:

1. A military decoration for valour, say MC (Military Cross)
2. A university degree, say BA.
3. A professional qualification, say FCA (Chartered Accountant)

In what order should these be written after a person’s name? I imagine that the BA and FCA are interchangeable but where would the MC go? I do remember seeing something about this many, many years ago so I know there is (or was) a correct way of doing this.

How long have you got?

It seems to be all here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-nominal_letters . Which has a section about the UK usages, which seems a lot more complicated than anywhere else's.

I'd certainly agree that academic degrees usually go ahead of professional qualifications in the UK, but military (and religious!) accreditations might go somewhere else entirely, depending on what style you're going for. And who you're trying to impress at the time?

But if you think that's complicated, be grateful you're not in Germany, where Professor Doktor Frau Doktor might actually happen. And where it gets even more interesting if you're an aristocrat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_honorifics

My head hurts.

BJ

I cannot imagine using such honorifics anyway. Or rather I cannot imagine choosing to associate with someone who thought such things were important, let alone expect to be addressed as such.

In fact I always took the view that someone who likes to add such letters to their name is lacking in self-confidence and is over-compensating. Besides almost everyone has a degree these days, whilst aristocratic titles have been out of vogue ever since Python's murderous "Upper Class Twit of the Year" skit.

And I always liked the fact that surgeons are insulted if you call them "Doctor" as they prefer to be plain old "Mister". I can just about stomach a lawyer using "Esquire" if they have to, although I think I was nine years old the last time I self-ascribed that way.

That said it might be useful to know the correct sequence just so that I can mix it up and get it insultingly wrong.

Nemo wrote:Suppose a person had the following:

1. A military decoration for valour, say MC (Military Cross)
2. A university degree, say BA.
3. A professional qualification, say FCA (Chartered Accountant)

In what order should these be written after a person’s name? I imagine that the BA and FCA are interchangeable but where would the MC go? I do remember seeing something about this many, many years ago so I know there is (or was) a correct way of doing this.

My understanding is that it would be:

J Blogs MC, BA, FCA.

I am following the convention where professional qualifications follow degree(s). For example:

Professor A N Other, MA, D Phil, CChem, FRSC.

Chartered Chemist takes precedence over membership of his professional body. There is also a pecking order of he belongs to more than one professional body.

TJH

Isn't it conventional to list them in the order they were acquired? So a degree would normally precede a professional qualification. But surely it's not rigidly defined! Thinking of my own CV, reversing that order would have felt like belittling the professional qualification when I had both.

Lootman wrote:I cannot imagine using such honorifics anyway. Or rather I cannot imagine choosing to associate with someone who thought such things were important, let alone expect to be addressed as such.

Have you ever known anyone who expects to be addressed as such? I haven't! The only places I've ever used letters after my name are on my formal CV, a document whose very purpose for existing is to record such things (and, in my case, now about 20 years out of date).

In fact I always took the view that someone who likes to add such letters to their name is lacking in self-confidence and is over-compensating.

I used to run my own tax consultancy practice and am both an FCA and CTA (Chartered Tax Adviser). I used to use these on my letterheading, as did other professionals. Just a commercial decision - for tax advice would you rather go to:

joe Bloggs Accountant or Joe Bloggs Chartered Accountant & Chartered Tax Adviser?

No military decorations as I was never in the forces

My understanding is that it would be:

J Blogs MC, BA, FCA.

Thanks, it was always my understanding that military honours came first

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Lootman wrote:I cannot imagine using such honorifics anyway. Or rather I cannot imagine choosing to associate with someone who thought such things were important, let alone expect to be addressed as such.

Have you ever known anyone who expects to be addressed as such? I haven't! The only places I've ever used letters after my name are on my formal CV, a document whose very purpose for existing is to record such things (and, in my case, now about 20 years out of date).

Off the top of my head, no. Although speaking of CVs I do recall people appending letters after their name, seemingly to try and impress me.

Back when I was hiring I would be interested in a candidate's degree if it was relevant. But that can be listed under "Education" instead. The applicant who used "Doctor" because he happened to have a Ph.D., struck me as trying a little too hard.

My wife has four sets of letters that she can use after her name and I am fairly sure she has never used them. I only have two.

Nemo wrote:

In fact I always took the view that someone who likes to add such letters to their name is lacking in self-confidence and is over-compensating.

I used to run my own tax consultancy practice and am both an FCA and CTA (Chartered Tax Adviser). I used to use these on my letterheading, as did other professionals. Just a commercial decision - for tax advice would you rather go to:

joe Bloggs Accountant or Joe Bloggs Chartered Accountant & Chartered Tax Adviser?

I don't know. I have hired two accountants in the last 25 years. I assume they have some letters they can use but I never noticed and would not really understand their significance anyway.

I would assume that some kind of license is needed to practice any profession, and that that requires a minimum level of training and qualification, plus indemnity insurance. Beyond that I would choose based on my discussion with him or her.

Lootman wrote:
I would assume that some kind of license is needed to practice any profession, and that that requires a minimum level of training and qualification, plus indemnity insurance. Beyond that I would choose based on my discussion with him or her.

And herein lies the annoyance for many professionally qualified accountants - while I don't follow the newsflow in respect of this anymore, it certainly used to be the case that any Joe Bloggs could call themself an accountant.

But then leaving that aside, you have a number of differing professional bodies within accountancy which while they may mean something to me, the differences probably don't mean much to the majority of people outside of that circle.

For example, and I'm sure there's loads more - MAAT, ACCA (FCCA), ACA (FCA), CIMA (FCMA), ICAS (CA) - would / does /should Joe Public know about the differences when looking for an accountant.

And then on top of the boring accountant qualifications, and I say this tongue in cheek - for really boring accountants - you have additional qualifications such as CTA etc.

I am an FCCA and I went back to uni at 32 and completed an MBA but I'd be useless at doing anything other than a bog standard tax return (like mine which is pretty straightforward with salary, a directorship, UK rental income, UK share income and Foreign income) as I've never worked in Practice and don't hold a practicing certificate. I've specialised in financial restructuring for the last 10 years or so which is different from client focussed activity or statutory accounting.

Not holding that certificate while holding my professional qualification prevents me as per my Code of Ethics from stating that I can do certain things for a client should I be asked but I'm sure there are plenty of unscrupulous types who would.

I would assume that some kind of license is needed to practice any profession, and that that requires a minimum level of training and qualification, plus indemnity insurance. Beyond that I would choose based on my discussion with him or her.

No licence is needed to practice as an accountant, and there are a wide variety of qualifications for those who wish to obtain a qualification. I acted for an unqualified accountant doing almost all his 'non-routine' tax work. His clients never knew.

I've specialised in financial restructuring for the last 10 years

I wouldn't know where to start with this. I specialized in tax fraud, sometimes acted as an expert witness for Crown Court cases taken by HMRC.

At university I didn't really know what to do so i thought that I would qualify as a Chartered Accountant as it would give me a load of options. I didn't intend stopping in the profession, but forty year later......

Nemo wrote:

I would assume that some kind of license is needed to practice any profession, and that that requires a minimum level of training and qualification, plus indemnity insurance. Beyond that I would choose based on my discussion with him or her.

No licence is needed to practice as an accountant, and there are a wide variety of qualifications for those who wish to obtain a qualification. I acted for an unqualified accountant doing almost all his 'non-routine' tax work. His clients never knew.

And on two occasions I have hired a solicitor only to discover that in both cases it was a paralegal doing all the work, with the solicitor just signing the documents. I am guessing that the paralegals had no letters after their names. But their work was fine and in one case I preferred her to the actual solicitor.

And on two occasions I have hired a solicitor only to discover that in both cases it was a paralegal doing all the work, with the solicitor just signing the documents. I am guessing that the paralegals had no letters after their names. But their work was fine and in one case I preferred her to the actual solicitor.

I would have staff doing most of the routine work - quite normal in a professional office

Lootman wrote:I cannot imagine using such honorifics anyway. Or rather I cannot imagine choosing to associate with someone who thought such things were important, let alone expect to be addressed as such.

In fact I always took the view that someone who likes to add such letters to their name is lacking in self-confidence and is over-compensating. Besides almost everyone has a degree these days, whilst aristocratic titles have been out of vogue ever since Python's murderous "Upper Class Twit of the Year" skit.

I used to think the same until a conversation with a solicitor friend over a decade ago. His recommendation was to include them where you sign off any correspondence with academia and public sector bodies (especially DEFRA and HMRC). He said that public sector types are more easily impressed by this sort of thing, particularly if you have several sets of letters, as this makes them think you're a more serious and reliable person (even if they discover that your degree is in Grievance Studies or similar nonsense).

That said my string of letters has been sod all use with my appeal to HMRC against fines and interest for late submission of a tax return. It's been seventeen months since I sent it; HMRC definitely got the appeal as I have a signed courier's receipt. I also have a courier's receipt showing that they signed for the original tax return two days after the end of the tax year for which they fined me!

That said my string of letters has been sod all use with my appeal to HMRC against fines and interest for late submission of a tax return. It's been seventeen months since I sent it; HMRC definitely got the appeal as I have a signed courier's receipt. I also have a courier's receipt showing that they signed for the original tax return two days after the end of the tax year for which they fined me!

In these circumstances a letter to your MP would be appropriate. Complain and send copies of everything.

I did when my clients were being messed about.

That usually shifts HMRC. Always worked for me.

Many years ago "Doctor" was a superior title to that of a surgeon who was merely "Mr". Curious how it has now inverted.

Forty years ago in a professional office, letters to clients were addressed "Mr. J. Smith, Esq.,". I think it started to die out some time later.

SalvorHardin wrote:

Lootman wrote:I cannot imagine using such honorifics anyway. Or rather I cannot imagine choosing to associate with someone who thought such things were important, let alone expect to be addressed as such.

In fact I always took the view that someone who likes to add such letters to their name is lacking in self-confidence and is over-compensating. Besides almost everyone has a degree these days, whilst aristocratic titles have been out of vogue ever since Python's murderous "Upper Class Twit of the Year" skit.

I used to think the same until a conversation with a solicitor friend over a decade ago. His recommendation was to include them where you sign off any correspondence with academia and public sector bodies (especially DEFRA and HMRC). He said that public sector types are more easily impressed by this sort of thing, particularly if you have several sets of letters, as this makes them think you're a more serious and reliable person (even if they discover that your degree is in Grievance Studies or similar nonsense).

I could only put BSc after my name but obviously don't - even if I were inclined to do so, I couldn't help but think of Arnold J Rimmer BSC SSC (bronze swimming certificate, silver swimming certificate)...

My sister got an OBE some years ago and is a Deputy Lord Lieutenant and she does put "OBE DL" after her name on official stuff. But most of her work is with charities and others applying for grants from local and central government and I guess she thinks it helps to remind them that she has both been recognised by "the establishment" and volunteers her time for civic functions. But she's always been really strong on self-promotion in a way that I could never do. FWIW, she's also entitled to use MA but doesn't because that's irrelevant professionally.

SebsCat wrote: "OBE DL"

Is that an Irish beadle?

UncleEbenezer wrote:

SebsCat wrote: "OBE DL"

Is that an Irish beadle?

I'll try and remember that next time I see her!

I seem to remember an "I'm sorry, I'll read that again" sketch involving Mr Something Something OBE BSc and Webbs Wonder. He had lettuce after his name. OK I'll get my coat.