If the country of Iran knighted (the equivalent of "knighted") someone we wouldn't be using that title in every interaction with them.
I remember back when it was not culturally okay in the US to call someone "Sir" whatever. Because we had revolted against them, and their titles were not relevant to us. Even some of the Founding Fathers commented on this. Seems that culture slipped somehow. Curious.
It's just a title, not part of their legal name. From a pretend-monarchy (it doesn't actually rule over anything except its own vast properties that it has to pay tax for).
As a staunch republican (small r), I yearn for a time where royal titles and heredity become irrelevant.
NemoNobody · 1h ago
Has nobody pointed out the obvious hypocrisy/contradiction of your entire overall statement and the behavior, actions, language, rhetoric, personal and professional writing of the current leader of the small r party?
If I recall correctly, and I do, he thought it was funny to post an AI image of of him on the cover of time magazine "for real" instead of parody - it was captioned, "long live the king" - thats many levels higher than sir, especially considering he was being called out for unconstitutional overstepping of his authority - to which he wants the courts to ignore.
That's easily the most monarchical an American President has ever acted.
He also named his kid Baron - also a title, also worse than sir.
agency · 18m ago
There is no small r party. The point of saying "small r" is to distinguish the political ideology of republicanism[1] from the "big R" Republican Party™
Maybe the small-r republican is more about the republic and less about the Trump party?
yesfitz · 2h ago
When was it not culturally okay to use the term "Sir" in the United States?
sjtgraham · 3h ago
A knighthood is not a hereditary title.
aussiegreenie · 2h ago
Knighthoods can be hereditary titles. A Baronet is "Sir" and it passes through the eldest son of a Baronet. It is one of the lowest ranks in the Peerage.
rideontime · 3h ago
...Relevance?
e: Oh, the suit names him as "Sir Jonathan Paul Ive." Yes, that is silly for a lawsuit in a US court, that title is (or, at least, should be) meaningless here.
diasf · 3h ago
Pretty terrible of them to do meetings with IYO, see the product and then start a new company with very similar name??
What reason do they have to do something like this given the enormous resources they have? It feels that in the last 10 years more and more startups have started embracing the win-at-all cost strategy which was previously reserved for big tech players like MSFT?
I remember back when it was not culturally okay in the US to call someone "Sir" whatever. Because we had revolted against them, and their titles were not relevant to us. Even some of the Founding Fathers commented on this. Seems that culture slipped somehow. Curious.
It's just a title, not part of their legal name. From a pretend-monarchy (it doesn't actually rule over anything except its own vast properties that it has to pay tax for).
As a staunch republican (small r), I yearn for a time where royal titles and heredity become irrelevant.
If I recall correctly, and I do, he thought it was funny to post an AI image of of him on the cover of time magazine "for real" instead of parody - it was captioned, "long live the king" - thats many levels higher than sir, especially considering he was being called out for unconstitutional overstepping of his authority - to which he wants the courts to ignore.
That's easily the most monarchical an American President has ever acted.
He also named his kid Baron - also a title, also worse than sir.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_...
e: Oh, the suit names him as "Sir Jonathan Paul Ive." Yes, that is silly for a lawsuit in a US court, that title is (or, at least, should be) meaningless here.