My Lord and Your Excellency!

WHEN Bismarck was Prussian ambassador at the court of Alexander II in eighteen sixties one day he looked out of a window at the Peterhof palace and was amazed to see a sentry on duty in the middle of a lawn. He inquired from the Czar why the man was there. The Czar asked his aide-de-camp who did not know. The aide-de-camp sent for the officer in command who did not know either. The general commanding troops at Peterhof was summoned. The general informed that it way in accordance with the ancient custom. "What was the origin of the custom?" put in Bismarck.
"I do not recollect at present," answered the general.
"Investigate and report the result," ordered Alexander.
The investigation that took three days revealed that the soldier was posted there by an order put on the books eighty years before! For one morning in spring Catherine the great had looked on that lawn and seen the first flower thrusting above the frozen soil. She ordered a sentry to be posted to prevent anyone picking the flower. And in 1860s there was still a sentry on the lawn - a memorial to a flower, and to Catherine, who had earned the cognomen of 'Great'.
Such is the fear of antagonizing the high and mighty that several hangovers of the past continue to persist without any rhyme and reason and the supine favour-seekers uphold them without any compunctions lest they lose what they have been getting. One such ludicrous practice is the mode of addressing VIPs and prefixing honorifics with their names. Traditionally 'Majesty', 'Excellency' and 'Highness' were used for different categories of people. Excellency is used for ambassadors, governors and Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops. Majesty is used only for the king or queen while Highness is used for the members of the royal family.
Historically speaking, Kings have been portrayed as ones with divine sanction to rule and so, they have been addressed by various high-sounding titles. In Egypt, when king Senusrest I of the Middle Kingdom period died, Sehetepibre, who had served under him, wanted to make a public display of his adulation and loyalty to the king. On his funerary Stela, Sehetepibre sang a hymn in which he named the king as the equivalent to the gods:
The King is Ka.
His utterance is abundance.
The one whom he brought up will be somebody.
He is khnum for all limbs.
The begetter of the begotten.
He is the Bastet who protects the Two Lands.
The one who praises him will be protected by his arm.
He is Sekhmet against those who disobey his orders.
Since the beginnings of the kingship and royal titulary in Egypt, the king was perceived to be connected to the Egyptian deities. Surprisingly, ‘pharaoh”, the most popular title of the Egyptian king, does not have an Egyptian genesis. Egyptians did not call their king “pharaoh” until very late in their history, and began using it only when non-Egyptians took up the word. “Pharaoh” is a Hebrew pronunciation of the Egyptian word, per-aa, meaning Great House, and was used as a label for the king himself around 1450 BCE. But the title word for the knig was nisu, as can be seen for example in the Offering Formula, or hetep di nisu. Egyptians attached a lot of importance to names which represented aspects of a person or personality, and often more than one name was required to accomplish this. From around 2500 BCE, the king was adorned with up to five names. The five royal titles consist of four names, which the king assumed on the day of his accession, along with a fifth name, given to him at birth. Three of the names indicate the king’s role as god while the remaining two emphasise the perceived division of Egypt into two lands, both under his control.
In Russia, “Tsar“ is the traditional title for a monarch. Tsar has its genesis in the Roman word Caesar. Peter the Great was the first Russian ruler who did away with this title to call himself “emperor”. As the Russian empire expanded, so did the title of the king. Nicholas II of Russia, the last tsar, held a title that was as large and unwieldy as the Russian Empire itself:
Emperor and autocrat of all Russia; Tsar of Moscow. Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan, Poland, Siberia, the Tauric Chersonese and Georgia; Lord of Pskov; Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and Finland: Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigalia, Semogatia, Belostok, Karelia, Tver, Yugria, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria and other lands, Lord and Grand prince of Nizhnyi Novgorod and Chernigov; Ruler of Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl’, Belo-Ozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislavl, and all the Northen Lands; Lord and Sovereign of th iverian, Kartalinian and karbadinian lands and of the American Provinces; Hereditary Lordand Suzerain of the Circassian Prices and Highland Princes and others; Lord of Turkestand; Heir to the throne of Norway; Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, the Dithmarschen and Oldenburg.
In England, royal titles have been conferred even by acts of parliament. The Royal Titles Act of 1876 (39 & 40 Vict., c. 10) was an Act of the parliament of the United Knigdom which officially recognized Queen Victoria as the “Empress of india”. She assumed this title in 1876 under the encouragement of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. The long title of the Act is “An Act to enable Her most Gracious Majestyto make an addition to the Royal Style and titles appertaining to the imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies.”
When India attained independence every citizen was considered equal and to bolster the spirit of democracy a circular was issued abolishing the use of 'Excellency' for anyone. But damn circular. Instead of discarding the practice it is almost mandatory to prefix 'His Excellency' (H.E.) with President, Vice-President and Governor if being addressed in the third person. Even the letters issued by their own offices refer to them as H.E. only. C. Subramanian has been the only Governor so far who parted with this practice. Within a month of his assuming the office of the Governor of Maharashtra in February 1990, he made it clear that he was genuinely embarrassed by being addressed as ‘Your Excellency’. Thereafter, he was referred to as the Honourable Governor. In Goa, he again sent such a message by not wearing his black convocation robe. The Madhya Pradesh government created a history of sort when it restored riyal title for its minister Yashodhara Raje, a scion of the Scindia family. On 19 October 2006, the state government slipped out an official gazette notification that ‘Srimati’ Yashodhara Raje Scindia would henceforth be addressed as ‘Shrimant’ Yashodhara Raje Scindia. However, the Indian National Congress took a decision in June 2009 to drop the royal titles of its leaders who are former kings but were still referred to as ‘Maharaja’ or ‘Shrimant’.
Another ludicrous practice still in vogue is the mode of addressing the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as 'My lord' reminding one of the colonial period. When India was under the yoke of imperialism the practice of addressing the judges of the Privy Council, who happened to be the members of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, as 'My Lord', tricked down to our High Courts also as had become the practice in the British High Court. In fact, in England, since justice was delivered by the King or the Queen through the King’s Benches, it is the King who is addressed as ‘My Lord’, Therefore, judges presiding over the King’s or Queen’s Benches are addressed as ‘My Lord’.
It may be mentioned that lordship is a reminder of the aristocratic, feudal British society of distant past where family background, and not the merit, counted. The House of Lords has its origin to the Curia Regis (Great Council) created in 1215 AD, in which all barons were members. When Edward III started inducting common men into the Great Council, aristocrats objected to it, and, therefore, a 'commonality' had to be created which grew into the House of Commons. In the fourteenth century the Great Council was divided into the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Lords comprised three strata of aristocrats - Duke, Earl and Viscount who were addressed as 'My lord'. Knights, who formed the lowest rung of aristocracy, were addressed as 'Sir'. The membership of the House of Lords was hereditary and a lord was succeeded by his eldest son. The king was also empowered to increase the number of peerage at the recommendation of the prime minister. For the first time Pitt the younger increased the number for the first time in the second half of eighteenth century to pass a bill.
When India ushered in freedom it was expected that the scars of colonialism would be obliterated sooner rather than later. In this very spirit the Supreme Court issued a circular in the early fifties of the last century that judges of superior courts would be addressed as 'Sir' or 'Mr. Judge', and not as 'My Lord'. It also said that 'Honorable' would be used for the court, not for the judge. But is was not to be, as neither judges were ready to adapt themselves to the new democratic mores nor were lawyers prepared to risk their practice. It has also become almost mandatory to use 'Honourable' for the judge. The nameplates carry this honorific and in some cases the judges themselves use it with their names even in private correspondence. In the Socialist Republic of India, since justice is imparted by common men, not king, judges should not be addressed even as ‘Your Honour’, much less ‘My Lord’.
What we have not been able to achieve even after several decades of independence the nascent Republic of South Africa did in one stroke. The country witnessed its first multi-racial democratic elections in April 1994. In October 1994 the Constitutional Court was created which is now the highest court of the country. It look a decision before its first sitting in March 1995 that judges of the Constitutional Court would not be addressed as 'My Lord' or 'Your Honour' but as 'Mr. Justice so and so' and it is being followed there. Actually 'lord' means god, e.g., Lord Rama, Lord Buddha, et al.
Moreover, the whole style of judges smacks of feudalism- when the judge gets up peons must remove the chair immediately, when the judge moves the security will accompany him/her whistling commanding others to keep the way clear. In ancient India kings also functioned as judges as the administration of justice was considered a divine duty. But as judges their appearance and demeanour were different. As kings they put on the crown and royal robes and sat on the throne while participating in the Rajyasabha or Darbar and discharging their executive functions. But while acting as judges they dispensed with such expensive attire and were required to enter the court hall in "a simple dress" and "with a pleasant demeanour". B. R. Agarwal comments: "The elaborate paraphernalia which we see in the courts today seems to have been introduced by Muslim rulers and further elaborated by the British who were fond of pomp and show." (Our Judiciary, NBT, p. 12)
There is a recent trend of using Hon'ble for ministers, MPs and MLAs also but only God knows how many them really deserve it.