In reply to Andy Cairns:
I'm 100% with you on this one. Quite frankly, "climber" describes me better than "mountaineer" and that is true of pretty much everyone else I know.
Lots of routes I that I really aspire to climb are mountaineering ones (i.e. Alpine North faces) but I spend more time winter climbing than mountaineering, more time trad climbing than winter climbing, more time sport climbing than trad and more time climbing indoors than anything else.
In my dreams I might be a mountaineer, in reality I'm a climber and I accept and embrace that.
The issue is one of self identification. If someone has self identified for 40 or 50 years as a "mountaineer" it isn't surprising that they feel strongly about the term. As such, a vocal minority reacted both predictably (in hindsight) and also fairly irrationally to that abrupt announcement last year.
It is not and never was an attack on anyone's identity or implied any disrespect to tradition or history. Unfortunately age does not bring wisdom and the proverb about old dogs has never been truer, it seems, than when applied to aging alpinists.
Thankfully, it is not an entire generation; Sir Chris and others understand the concept of a broad church within climbing and are not stuck in the nineteenth century.
Certain individuals would be well advised to actually demonstrate some knowledge of the deep history of British climbing rather than denigrate the style and manner in which others choose to approach climbing and mountaineering.
Our fellow Climbers' Club member, John Laycock writing back in 1913 is as eloquent now as ever and his sentiments on justifying short outcrop climbs apply equally well to sport routes, bouldering, indoor climbing and competitions:
"It is now generally recognised that rock climbing is an art complete in itself, and not merely a preparation for and adjunct to Alpine Mountaineering. There still survives a remnant of the popular feeling that height - mere elevation above sea level - is perhaps its main objective. Altitude assuredly lends a charm, a sense of solitude; and a long climb calls for more varied knowledge and judgement than a short one. Nevertheless, now and always, the climbing itself is the thing. One can feel quite happy after a day well spent on the rocks, even if one has accomplished nothing of note - which is not to say that one does not feel pleased at the successful conclusion of a long and difficult climb. And as the climbing is the thing, a day on Castle Naze may be better at times than a day on Pillar Rock. Therefore I do not apologise for these climbs - we are proud of them; if climbing is worth doing, they are worth doing, many of them very well worth doing. It is not because I fear comparisons that I say comparisons are odious to both sides. One can respect and adore the Queen of England and still love one's wife."
It just depresses me that many of those who vigorously opposed the name change (and who support the MoNC) are making exactly the "odious comparisons" that Laycock riled against over a century ago.