The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #481  
Old 04-14-2008, 09:44 PM
KingJosh's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penn Hills, United States
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
I think a great deal also depends on where you physically are located - in which or whose country this mythical introduction is being placed.



When Charles came down the steps of his airplane, he was greeted at the bottom of the stairs by Mrs. Annenberg, who practically fell over herself to throw herself at Charles' feet. In California. Embarrassing for all, really. The papers had quite a field day, printing and reprinting the picture of the wife of the former US Ambassador hurling herself groundward in a curtsey. And reason for the furore was this: in the United States, on US soil, curtseying and bowing are simply not done. Not. Done. Period. We are a Republic, and that is not done.

Mrs. Annenberg bleated that she always curtsied to Charles and the RF when they were visiting England, and the response is yes: that's right. Their country, their customs, their rank, bow/courtesy all you like. This was US soil; no bowing, no curtseying, no titles: stop pretending you're somewhere or someone that you are not.
First of all I think it's fine that Mrs. Annenberg curtsied to His Royal Highness as a sign of respect. That was what she was used to and so thats what she did.

Second No matter where in the world they are U.S. or not Her Majesty is still Her Majesty the Queen, just as Prince Charles and his wife are still Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales and should still be treated as such and if Bowing/curtsing is how to show them respect then thats what should be done, regardless of what country they are in. For example when i'm in uniform in the United States and a higher ranking officer from another country is walking past I still salute him becuase regardless of country he is still a higher rank then me, and it's the same with Royalty. The biggest problem in America is that most of us have lost our manners.
__________________

__________________
JIR
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 04-14-2008, 09:59 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
The only members of the BRF that I would bow to is the Queen and Prince Philip.
It really is one's choice to bow or curtsey to a royal.
__________________

__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 04-15-2008, 04:54 AM
candygirl_68's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: -, France
Posts: 236
okay, it's true that it counts most for the british royals...
__________________
If you have much, give of your wealth; If you have little, give of your heart-arab proverb
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:48 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by attaininggrace View Post
I think that it was very charming of Madame Sarkozy to curtsey as well as being good manners. I hope that Mrs.Rudd (the Australian PM's wife) did the same, but probably not.
In observance with protocol, Mrs. Rudd would be expected to curtsey based on the fact that QEII is the sovereign of Australia.
Now, Mrs. Sarkozy's curtsey has nothing to do with charm or lack thereof. She committed the same mistake that Madame Chirac used to make constantly. Mrs. Sarkozy's relationship to the British Royals is through her husband's position as France's Head of State. Therefore, while in public and in deference to France, she should never curtsey to any royal anywhere. What she did is an expression of affectation, if you will, but it is diplomatically inappropriate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:47 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
George VI issued letters patent in 1937 stating The Duke would continue to hold royal rank, but it was limited to him alone and explicitly denied to his wife and children. Given that, Wallis was never HRH because The Sovereign denied her the right to share her husband's rank.
I am well aware that, through letters patent, George VI withheld the HRH style from Wallis Simpson. That's what I was alluding to when I said "She was legally HRH The Duchess of Windsor". With respect to British Peerage, the legal wife of a peer assumes upon marriage, as a courtesy but legally, her husband's titles, rank and style. Although a letters patent is a legal document, it can be questioned how a duke's legal wife cannot be a duchess by marriage, and an HRH's wife cannot be an HRH (again) by marriage - conditionally of course, that is, for as long as she remains married to him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The Duke never "instructed" his wife to curtsey or not curtsey. She certainly knew what the proper protocol was and extended the honour to those members of the royal family who were HRH as well. Obviously, she refused to curtsey to The Queen Mother, who played a major role in ensuring The Duchess never became HRH. .
How do you know that he didn't instruct her to do so? All evidence suggests that he did. Wallis was a very opinionated and arrogant parvenue and she was determined to take revenge. Do you have evidence that she curtseyed to other HRHs, when and where?
Of course, she knew the protocol because she loved it and she was smart, but knowing something is one thing, respecting it is another.
At any rate, the point I was trying to make here is that the Duke, who was also very bitter about the HRH issue, would never question the British Monarchy as an institution and, knowing her personality, he was anxious to see that she address the sovereign with utmost deference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The situation with Camilla is completely different and she is married to Charles equally with the right to all of his titles and styles. She chose to be known as The Duchess of Cornwall (which is simply her style), rather than Princess of Wales out of respect to the memory of Princess Diana.
Camilla is married to Charles as equally or as unequally as Mrs. Simpson to the Duke of Windsor insofar as the two ladies' personal status was concerned prior to their royal marriage - both divorced, both commoners. Whichever title she chose to be known by (and this is her prerogative), she is legally HRH The Princess of Wales.

I apologize since this discussion has no bearing to the thread's title but the remarks are historically very important.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 04-17-2008, 09:18 PM
Duchess Ravenna's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 33
I'm finding this discussion absolutely fascinating. (And no, I'm not sure what, as an American citizen, I'd do myself...)

I recall reading in William Manchester's "Death of a President", his excellent book about the assassination (and after) of President Kennedy, that while she was still First Lady, and about to meet the Queen and Prince Philip, Jackie Kennedy asked her chief of protocol should she curtsy. He said absolutely not, heads of state and their spouses do not curtsy to one another.

After the funeral, when she received Prince Philip as HM's emissary bearing royal condolences, she did indeed curtsy, and said to the same protocol chief, "I'm no longer the wife of a head of state."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 04-18-2008, 08:05 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,346
I am always rather amazed that the same people who HATE the Duchess of Windsor seem to absolutely LOVE the Duchess of Cornwall. Should the 'rules' not apply to both of them who had a very similar marital background/future? Previously married and divorced wives who were mistress/love of the lives of the POW? Would everyone who shouts 'Queen Camilla' be equally enthusiatic about 'Queen Wallis'? If not, what is the difference?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:32 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
If not, what is the difference?
I would imagine that they're different enough people to make that difference for some. Marital background isn't the only thing people make judgments on.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:38 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
You also have to take into consideration the social norms of the times in which we live now compared to Wallis' day. We are a lot less stringent in our moral values, a sad comment to our times I suppose. I imagine Victoria was spinning in her grave when her great grandson abdicated for a woman who was not only a commoner, but also a divorcée and American at that!

Cat
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:56 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
I actually think it's better that we live in a time where people aren't seen as outcasts for making a poor choice in starting a relationship. Nobody has perfect foresight, so it's ridiculous to think of divorcees as second class citizens anymore.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:05 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyCat View Post
a woman who was not only a commoner,
Actually, anyone not Royal is a commoner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:07 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Oops, I guess I should have made that remark a little clearer. As I am a divorcée of some 20 years, I know very well I do not want that mistake held against me.

I was mainly thinking of other areas we are more relaxed in our morals than in previous decades. In some ways it's a good thing and in some ways, not such a good thing. However, this is not the place for a debate on morals - then vs. now, so I'll just leave it at that.

Cat
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:11 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Actually, anyone not Royal is a commoner.
Exactly, and Victoria had a thing about her family marrying other royals, most especially the heir to the throne. The abdication alone was bad, but Wallis was even worse, or at least she would have been in Victoria's eyes. Please note I am stating my opinion of how Queen Victoria would have reacted had she been alive at the time, not my own personal opinion.

Cat
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:20 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Victoria was less insistent on royal marriages than some of the European families, especially the German ones. Princess May wasn't royal enough to marry heirs to the little German principalities, but she was good enough in Victoria's eyes to marry the heir to the British throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:43 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
With Vicky, Alice and Bertie she appears to have been quite insistent upon royal spouses. I think more to spread the idea of a constitutional monarchy throughout Germany in the cases of her two eldest daughters marriages, an endeavor that sadly failed. I recall Victoria and Vicky did have trouble finding someone they thought suitable for Bertie and finally settled on Princess Alexandra of Denmark, though I think Vicky would have preferred a German Princess for her brother.

As for Princess May of Teck, well, I'll have to read the book about Victoria's sons (if one exists) as the subject of Bertie and his children was barely touched upon in the book Victoria's Daughters. Or perhaps King-Kaiser-Tsar, the Royal Forums Book Club book for May (shameless plug!) will give me some insight as the King involved is May/Mary's husband George!

And if I don't get back on topic here the Mods and Admins are going to have a field day deleting me. So to answer the question would I curtsy? Probably. Even though I am American and will probably never be in the presence of Royalty, if it should ever come to pass that I was so lucky I would do so for two reasons - 1) to show respect and 2) as a former ballet dancer I do a killer curtsy!

Cat
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:43 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Actually, anyone not Royal is a commoner.
That's incorrect. Peers are not commoners. Strictly speaking, even royals who are not the sovereign or peers are commoners. Of course, nobody would consider the Princess Royal or Prince William to be commoners in real life.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:58 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
That's incorrect. Peers are not commoners. Strictly speaking, even royals who are not the sovereign or peers are commoners. Of course, nobody would consider the Princess Royal or Prince William to be commoners in real life.
Sorry. It's been a...social evening, and I wasn't clear.

My understanding is that anyone who is not royal (HRH or up) is a commoner. Even peers are, actually 'commoners' inasmuch as 'commoner' means 'not royal' and thus 'of the common people' (if, in the case of peers, somewhat elevated.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 04-20-2008, 02:01 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Waitaminute.

I said:

Quote:
Actually, anyone not Royal is a commoner
You said:

Quote:
That's incorrect. Peers are not commoners.
Peers are not royal. One takes the highest designation to which one is entitled. So, while the Earl of Wessex, for example, is a Peer of the Realm, he is also royal--which takes precedence. And, by definition, anyone not royal is a commoner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 04-20-2008, 02:36 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
My understanding is that anyone who is not royal (HRH or up) is a commoner.
Your understanding is incorrect. "Commoner" means someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Peers are not royal. One takes the highest designation to which one is entitled. So, while the Earl of Wessex, for example, is a Peer of the Realm, he is also royal--which takes precedence.
His peerage takes precedence in determining whether or not he is a commoner. Since he is a peer of the realm, he is not a commoner. The Princess Royal, however, is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
And, by definition, anyone not royal is a commoner.
That's not true. Royal status means nothing in determining whether or not one is a commoner, except for the Sovereign.

alt.talk.royalty FAQ: British royalty and nobility

Quote:
This tends to generate confusion and debates, and use of the word should perhaps be avoided where possible.
Indeed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 04-21-2008, 03:55 PM
politikgirl's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew View Post
A very nice gesture from Natalie Portman!

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...e-portman1.jpg

Very well done on Natalie's part!

I wonder what people here think of Madame Carla Sarkozy's curtsey for HM The Queen during the UK visit, given the above discussion about protocol for wives of head of states.

You can see the curtsey at this link:

__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman picture of the month pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:15 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]