Talk:Geromus Niall/@comment-30698228-20160106002210/@comment-6335668-20160106050121

Actually, it is very appropriate to use both titles. When one is naming the individual involved, to refrain from the use of either is inappropriate. To use the Bloggs case, the proper formulation is something along the lines of 'Admiral Lord Joe Bloggs', 'Admiral Joe Bloggs, Baron Greyshire' (or if he is a Knighted individual, 'Admiral Sir Joe, Baron of Greyshire'), and not 'Admiral Bloggs' or 'Lord Greyshire' only.

It is not correct to think that either 'trumps' the other. They reflect different dignities, stemming from different sources. One is dignity of title, another is dignity of service. Nor, unless the individual in question has so indicated or it is in a strictly military context, would you only use one of the two. To do so is actually inappropriate unless making verbal address, in which case the use of only the appropriate noble salutation is appropriate. When introducing a person or making initial address to them in writing, both should be employed unless specifically indicated otherwise by that person.

So, basically. Has Joe Bloggs said 'Call me Admiral Bloggs!'? Call him that, and address him as such formally (with limited exceptions). If he hasn't, default to the one of the above which invoke both.