The Catholic Herald refers to someone they call "Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks".
This is incorrect. "Lord John Smith" means that John Smith is a younger son of either a Duke or a Marquis.
If a plain Mr John Smith is made a Life Peer or even a hereditary baron, he is Lord Smith. Nothing comes between the 'Lord' and the 'Smith'.
Years ago, a politician called George Brown, being ennobled, wanted to be called 'Lord George Brown'. The authorities explained why this was impossible. A solution was discovered: he changed his surname to George-Brown, thus becoming 'Mr George George-Brown'. So, as a Life Peer, he was entitled to be called 'Lord George-Brown'. I'm afraid everybody laughed.
Lord Peter Wimsey, on the other hand, is the younger son of a Duke. So, if you were to hear him being addressed as 'Lord Wimsey', you could be pretty sure that the speaker came from some unimaginably mystical and mythical land distant far even beyond the Indies.
Rabbi Lord Sacks is a Life Peer. His father was not a Duke or a Marquis.
Currently, our constitution works rather well because retired and respected magnates ... Service chiefs ... Union chiefs ... Industrial chiefs ... Archbishops ... retired senior Cabinet Ministers ... top judges etc. etc. go into the House of Lords as Life Peers where their experience can be of service. (Rumour has it that Cormac Murphy O'Connor was very miffed when he was offered a Life Peerage only to be told by the Vatican that he was prevented by Canon Law from accepting.)
Chief Rabbis, laudably, come into this category.
Sacks ... a man of considerable distinction of whom we are very proud ... could be referred to as
Rabbi Lord Sacks
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks
Jonathan Lord Sacks ... and probably quite a lot of other things.
What a lot of possibilities! So why is it that people so instinctively go for the one formula which is wrong ... wrong, simply because it conveys misinformation?