Bowing and Curtseying

[Ish]

IMO a salute is a sign of respect from one soldier to another, soldiers are people who have actually accomplished something more than just being born. If Americans don't have a right to their opinion then I guess this should just be a EU board or an EU only thread.
I will say I will not state that curtseying is stupid and will try to refrain from criticizing the custom in a condescending way.

What does the EU have to do with this?

Many monarchies are not in Europe - in fact Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch of 15 nations that are not in Europe, let alone in the EU (and one nation that, while being in Europe is in the process of leaving the EU).

If you look at what is being said, some posters (primarily from the US) are attacking the custom of curtsying as being archaic, while other posters (primarily not from the US) are saying that American posters should refrain from criticizing a custom that they don't understand. This attitude is fairly common on these forums - it is common for some American posters to attack and/or criticize customs and practices of monarchies (and even the institution of monarchy itself) simply because they differ greatly from the ideals promoted in American culture.

American cultural values are not wrong, but neither are they superior to non-American values. And while there is much that can be said about the practice of curtsying and bowing, simply dismissing it out of hand as archaic because it goes against American values is hugely disrespectful to the cultures which continue to embrace the custom - particularly as it is not a symbol of subservience to a person, like is often believed by American posters, but rather a symbol of respect to an institution (and an entirely voluntary one at that).

 

[M. Payton]

Just *Brilliant comment* and so very much agree with you. I can only speak for me, yet if I met a royal I would not mind curtsying at all, it is a matter of respect to the country and the position that the royal holds. I think from my own view point and not just here, but in life in general, lots of Americans need to learn the *customs* of other countries and remember that America is not the only country on this planet. IMO I think we as Americans put ourselves in a little box and do not peak out unless something horrible happens. Sometimes I question if most Americans even know that there are kings, queens and royals outside the history books if they even read those books......

Curtsying is just a form of respect like a handshake or a kiss on both cheeks and it is up the individual if they chose to do it or not.....as long as I do not fall flat on my face, I would love to curtsy to a king or Queen, would even love a picture of it for ole time sake...

 

[Marchesina]

i found this picture explaining who kate needs to curtsy to when she is alone, and who curtsies kate always. in the picture, it says the sophie, zara and harrys wife must curtsy to kate always. WHAT?! i have never seen sophie or zara curtsying to kate. wonder if the chart is incorrect?

http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/curtseykate.jpg

If we lived in 18th century France, when protocol and etiquette were at their highest peak, probably this chart would be correct. Catherine is not a Princess of the Blood which would make her lower in rank to other royal women. But I think that,still in this hypothetical 18th century, Catherine becoming wife of the heir with Charles accession she would outrank the York Princesses and Princess Alexandra.

 

[Dman]

i also do not find it necessary for mrs. may to curtsy to william and kate. she is the PM after all, and although she owes respect to the queen (and, okay, to the heir, charles) i doubt she is required to curtsy to anyone else. the sooner we know, she will be curtsying to george and that is just not right.

i found this picture explaining who kate needs to curtsy to when she is alone, and who curtsies kate always. in the picture, it says the sophie, zara and harrys wife must curtsy to kate always. WHAT?! i have never seen sophie or zara curtsying to kate. wonder if the chart is incorrect?

http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/curtseykate.jpg

Members of the royal family don't curtsy to one another. They only curtsy and bow to The Queen.

I blame palace officials for not clearing this up when the media went nuts over reports that Catherine have curtsy to the blood royals when William isn't present.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I am an American, and I see nothing wrong with bowing or curtsying as a mark of respect to one's sovereign. I think it's a lovely, old, courtly mark of respect.

I genuflect(as do most other parishioners) when I am in church and the Cardinal or one of his Bishops visit and I approach him. It would not occur to me to do otherwise.

What is the harm?

Of course anyone who doesn't want to is not compelled to do so.

 

[Dman]

What people don't understand that there's no longer a rule that you have to curtsy to The Queen or any other member of the royal family. It's all down to your own personal choice.

It was PM May's personal choice to curtsy to the Cambridge's.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I've been lurking for years and have only asked one or two questions before. I do I have a quick question. I am disabled and not able to curtsy to anyone. If I ever met a Royal, would it ever be appropriate for me, as a woman to bow to royalty and if you have a link showing that, I"d really appreciate it.

Making a révérence (ladies) or a bow (gentlemen) is always optional and is never required. So when you are introduced to a royal, a nice handshake is simply perfect indeed.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

For myself bows or curtsies to Her Majesty The Queen feels as "natural". Besides the immense history she carries in person, it is also a sign of respect for the high Office of State.

It feels unnatural to see people sinking down their knees for a Máxima Zorreguieta, for a Letizia Ortiz or for a Camilla Shand. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them and each lady is an asset to their respective monarchies. But they are not royalborn, not even from the aristocracy, they have no Office of State and are in fact nothing less than "the spouse of".

Suddenly, because they became "the wife of" and now suddenly it is going down the knees and mumble with servitude: "Your Royal Highness" / "Your Majesty". Then -for me- we have reached the point that it has become a vaudeville.

The late Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester was no royalborn lady either but born Lady Alice Christabel Montagu Douglas Scott she was so immensely deep connected with the fine web of the who-is-who in Britain and had links to almost all the most esteemed families in the peerages. So the there was an intrinsic "load" to Princess Alice. (The same applied to the other Princess Alice, and to the Queen Mother, and to Diana, Princess of Wales).

Monarchy is not an exact science. It needs to appeal to a certain feeling, historical awareness and a sort of national instinct. Never it would occur to me to bow down for a Kate, a Máxima or Mette-Marit. I would never hesistate to bow for the Princess Royal or for a Queen Sofía.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

i found this picture explaining who kate needs to curtsy to when she is alone, and who curtsies kate always. in the picture, it says the sophie, zara and harrys wife must curtsy to kate always. WHAT?! i have never seen sophie or zara curtsying to kate. wonder if the chart is incorrect?

http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/curtseykate.jpg

The chart may have confused curtseying with the British order of precedence amongst women.

Precedence Amongst Ladies in England and Wales

The Table of Precedence, arranged according to rank and status, can be used to dictate the order in which people arrive and depart at official functions, are announced, seating plans (both official and social) and list of signatories to a document.


THE QUEEN
The Sovereign’s Daughter
The Sovereign’s Granddaughters
The Sovereign’s Cousin
The Wife of the Heir Apparent
Wives of the Younger Sons of the Sovereign
Wives of Dukes of the Blood Royal
Wives of Princes of the Blood Royal
Duchesses of England
Duchesses of Scotland
Duchesses of Great Britain
Duchesses of Ireland
Duchesses of UK and Ireland since the Union
Wives of Eldest Sons of Dukes of the Blood Royal
Marchionesses of England
Marchionesses of Scotland
Marchionesses of Great Britain
Marchionesses of Ireland
Marchionesses of UK and Ireland since the Union
Wives of Eldest Sons of Dukes
Daughters of Dukes
Countesses of England
Countesses of Scotland
Countesses of Great Britain
Countesses of Ireland
Countesses of UK and Ireland since the Union
Wives of Younger Sons of Dukes of the Blood Royal
Wives of Eldest Sons of Marquesses
Daughters of Marquesses
Wives of Younger Sons of Dukes
Viscountesses of England
Viscountesses of Scotland
Viscountesses of Great Britain
Viscountesses of Ireland
Viscountesses of UK and Ireland since the Union
Wives of Eldest Sons of Earls
Daughters of Earls
Wives of Younger Sons of Marquesses
Baronesses of England
Ladies of Parliament, Scotland
Baronesses of Great Britain
Baronesses of Ireland
Baronesses of UK and Ireland since the Union, including Life
Baronesses and Wives of Life Barons
Wives of the Eldest Sons of Viscounts
Daughters of Viscounts
Wives of Younger Sons of Earls
Wives of the Eldest Sons of Barons
Daughters of Barons
Ladies of the Garter
Wives of Knights of the Garter
Privy Counsellors (Women)
Wives of Younger Sons of Viscounts
Wives of Younger Sons of Barons
Wives of Sons of Life Peers
[…]

 

[duchessrachel]

What does the EU have to do with this?

Many monarchies are not in Europe - in fact Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch of 15 nations that are not in Europe, let alone in the EU (and one nation that, while being in Europe is in the process of leaving the EU).

If you look at what is being said, some posters (primarily from the US) are attacking the custom of curtsying as being archaic, while other posters (primarily not from the US) are saying that American posters should refrain from criticizing a custom that they don't understand. This attitude is fairly common on these forums - it is common for some American posters to attack and/or criticize customs and practices of monarchies (and even the institution of monarchy itself) simply because they differ greatly from the ideals promoted in American culture.

American cultural values are not wrong, but neither are they superior to non-American values. And while there is much that can be said about the practice of curtsying and bowing, simply dismissing it out of hand as archaic because it goes against American values is hugely disrespectful to the cultures which continue to embrace the custom - particularly as it is not a symbol of subservience to a person, like is often believed by American posters, but rather a symbol of respect to an institution (and an entirely voluntary one at that).

I am an American and I got attacked awhile back for being supportive of curtsying to the royal family, so there is no winning this argument.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I am American but I would gladly curtsy to any of the working royal family members because I am such an admirer of them and of their commitment to service. However, it hurts my knees so I am afraid they would have to pick me up off the floor afterward.

Of course you are completely free to go down your knees and mumble in utter adoration, with servitude and obedience "Your Royal Highness" to Meghan Markle. No one will stop you to do so. For myself I think that this will be the summum of the theatre play called How-Busy-We-Are-With-The-Who-Is-Fooling-Who-Here ?

 

[Jacknch]

It all seems a simple case of each country - north, east, south and west of world - will have it's own customs and within each country individuals will have their own customs too. It's what makes the world go round.

 

[Pranter]

Of course you are completely free to go down your knees and mumble in utter adoration, with servitude and obedience "Your Royal Highness" to Meghan Markle. No one will stop you to do so. For myself I think that this will be the summum of the theatre play called How-Busy-We-Are-With-The-Who-Is-Fooling-Who-Here ?

You really need to add some sugar to your coffee.


LaRae

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

You really need to add some sugar to your coffee.


LaRae

Not at all. I have common sense. A handshake between two individuals is a greeting on par. Going down to your knees or making bow, is an act of servitude, of obedience, of reverence. I can imagine someone doing so towards the high-and wellborn lady Margrethe Alexandrine Thorhildur Ingrid von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, the current embodiment of the ancient Danish Crown.

I can not imagine someone with a sound mind doing so to a Máxima Zorreguieta, to a Meghan Markle, to a Marie Cavallier. Why would a self-conscious citizen suddenly going down the cracking knees and mumble "Your Royal Highness" to them? That is just a theatre play without any meaning.

 

[LadyRohan]

Not at all. I have common sense. A handshake between two individuals is a greeting on par. Going down to your knees or making bow, is an act of servitude, of obedience, of reverence. I can imagine someone doing so towards the high-and wellborn lady Margrethe Alexandrine Thorhildur Ingrid von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, the current embodiment of the ancient Danish Crown.

I can not imagine someone with a sound mind doing so to a Máxima Zorreguieta, to a Meghan Markle, to a Marie Cavallier. Why would a self-conscious citizen suddenly going down the cracking knees and mumble "Your Royal Highness" to them? That is just a theatre play without any meaning.

With all due respect, you are confusing 'common sense' with pomposity.
To give reverence and respect to someone because their family was given a certain rank centuries ago, but not doing the same for someone who is married into a royal house, is a distinction made by, fortunately, very few.
When I met the King of Norway while walking some time ago, it didn't occur to me not to slightly curtsey as we passed, and say 'Good evening, Your Majesty'. I cannot imagine not doing the same for Her Majesty the Queen, just because she was born into a 'commoner' family 80 years ago. Her efforts in representing, preserving and protecting the institution of monarchy and the Royal House of Norway is not one inch shy of the work the King has done, and to distinguish between a King and Queen because of the misguided belief that bloodlines is the main thing that keeps the monarchy going, is passé.
When curtseying, or showing reverence in any way, to a royal, one is showing respect and reverence to the office they hold, the work they do and the history and institution they represent.

Of course, for someone who constantly refers to the Queen of Spain by her maiden name, the Queen of the Netherlands similarly, it comes as no surprise that this view is espoused. To try and pass it off as anything but silly snobbery and pettiness however, is pointless.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

With all due respect, you are confusing 'common sense' with pomposity.
To give reverence and respect to someone because their family was given a certain rank centuries ago, but not doing the same for someone who is married into a royal house, is a distinction made by, fortunately, very few.
When I met the King of Norway while walking some time ago, it didn't occur to me not to slightly curtsey as we passed, and say 'Good evening, Your Majesty'. I cannot imagine not doing the same for Her Majesty the Queen, just because she was born into a 'commoner' family 80 years ago. Her efforts in representing, preserving and protecting the institution of monarchy and the Royal House of Norway is not one inch shy of the work the King has done, and to distinguish between a King and Queen because of the misguided belief that bloodlines is the main thing that keeps the monarchy going, is passé.
When curtseying, or showing reverence in any way, to a royal, one is showing respect and reverence to the office they hold, the work they do and the history and institution they represent.

Of course, for someone who constantly refers to the Queen of Spain by her maiden name, the Queen of the Netherlands similarly, it comes as no surprise that this view is espoused. To try and pass it off as anything but silly snobbery and pettiness however, is pointless.

I think the summum of pomposity is going down to the knees, or making a bow (= showing servitude, obedience, reverence) for a person which just happens to be married to a HRH.

Note that we not only talk about Queens but also about a Meghan Markle or a Sofia Hellqvist, or a Mabel Wisse Smit. Just because they married (will marry) a royal you are willing to go down your knees? Be my guest, I would say. Do what your self-assured personality and sound mind reflexes inside you and sink down your knees for Meghan, Sofia or Mabel. No idea why... but no one will stop you anyway.

A handshake would equally be perfect (and possibly far more at ease for the ladies themselves!).

 

[Osipi]

What it boils down to, frankly, is what one feels comfortable doing. No one would expect Duc to be any less than who he and to express himself however he wishes to and the same goes for each and every one of us. There's no right way or wrong way when something is totally optional. Its our choice.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What it boils down to, frankly, is what one feels comfortable doing. No one would expect Duc to be any less than who he and to express himself however he wishes to and the same goes for each and every one of us. There's no right way or wrong way when something is totally optional. Its our choice.

Sure it is. I feel the idea here is: "a cursty is such fun". But what is the message of making a curtsy or a bow? No one goes down the knees for anyone else. That is exactly what makes a curtsy or a bow special: you show servitude and obedience to a person.

While anyone is perfectly free to do so, I was astonished to read from a fellow poster from the USA that she "would gladly curtsy to any of the working royal family members", apparently because they work so hard, and for their commitment to service.

Eeeeerrrrmmmmm..... the nurses in the care home right around the corner work hard and are deeply committed to their blessed work. No one bows to them. But then some fellow posters will do for Meghan. Or Kate. Or Máxima. Anyway: posters feeling the knees getting wobbly in the sight of royals: do what you want.

 

[duchessrachel]

Sure it is. I feel the idea here is: "a cursty is such fun". But what is the message of making a curtsy or a bow? No one goes down the knees for anyone else. That is exactly what makes a curtsy or a bow special: you show servitude and obedience to a person.

While anyone is perfectly free to do so, I was astonished to read from a fellow poster from the USA that she "would gladly curtsy to any of the working royal family members", apparently because they work so hard, and for their commitment to service.

Eeeeerrrrmmmmm..... the nurses in the care home right around the corner work hard and are deeply committed to their blessed work. No one bows to them. But then some fellow posters will do for Meghan. Or Kate. Or Máxima. Anyway: posters feeling the knees getting wobbly in the sight of royals: do what you want.

Let me elaborate further. The service that the royal families do was not chosen by them. They were born into it and their life was decided for them. They did not get to make this choice. Those who marry into the royal families, as far as I am concerned, are just as much a royal as those who were "high and well-born" as you called it in a previous post. You defeat your own argument with that phrase, by the way. These people who marry into the royal families sever any chance of ever being able to make a choice for themselves in the future. If anything, they are to be more admired, but I admire blood royals and royals by marriage the same. This is really a fruitless conversation we are having because I won't change your mind and you definitely won't change my mind.

 

[Rudolph]

In England morganatic marriage isn't recognised. Under common law a person who marries into the royal family is just as 'royal' as blood royals.

Catherine for example is both a princess and a peeress. So if The Duke of Cambridge is deserving of a bow of the head, The Duchess of Cambridge is equally deserving of a curtsey.

 

[loonytick]

Just because they married (will marry) a royal you are willing to go down your knees?.

If they married a royal then they become a royal. Period.

I don't understand how one can be so fixated on titles/status some women are given by birth, yet willing to wave off the same titles/status if given through marriage. What an illogical, nonsensical way of thinking!

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I am an American and I got attacked awhile back for being supportive of curtsying to the royal family, so there is no winning this argument.

I will not curtsy to anyone I don't feel deserves it and to me being born or marrying someone does not mean you deserve it.
But the idea that us being American negates us from standing against archaic, insulting beliefs like the ones duc et par always expresses regarding "commoners" and then marrying royalty does not sit well with me. It is this idea and "custom" that spurs on those who look down on the Middleton's as upstarts who don't know their place.

 

[COUNTESS]

There is no such thing as royalty. It is a made up concept by those with the biggest swords, so to speak. They kept their town folk and ministers, at bay, by making up this, I was sent by God to rule over you stuff. Hence the anointing, etc. There is nothing special about them. In times when people were bullied into this state of affairs, bowing and curtseying was expected to show you were "royal". Today, we may like the queen, she is a very nice person, but she is no better than any other person. So, if you marry a royal, you are a royal. So, if I stand in a garage I am a car. It's archaic, like slavery and serfdom. And wrong.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Of course, for someone who constantly refers to the Queen of Spain by her maiden name, the Queen of the Netherlands similarly, it comes as no surprise that this view is espoused. To try and pass it off as anything but silly snobbery and pettiness however, is pointless.

I also have a problem with this attitude as well. Queen Letizia and especially Queen Maxima have conducted themselves well and have represented their countries well. Sometimes the way these "commoner brides" act put the born princesses to shame.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

There is a difference in a full blown curtsy or bow as was done in years past (and occasionally by some people currently) and the head bob we see from most people now as a sign of respect for a royal's position. As a US citizen, I doubt I would curtsy (for one thing, I probably couldn't do a real curtsy) but I can't say I wouldn't bob my head when shaking hands if i got to meet Queen Elizabeth.

I agree, some consorts have conducted themselves better than some of those born royal, apparently excepting Prince Henrik at the moment.

 

[Mbruno]

There is no such thing as royalty. It is a made up concept by those with the biggest swords, so to speak. They kept their town folk and ministers, at bay, by making up this, I was sent by God to rule over you stuff. Hence the anointing, etc. There is nothing special about them. In times when people were bullied into this state of affairs, bowing and curtseying was expected to show you were "royal". Today, we may like the queen, she is a very nice person, but she is no better than any other person. So, if you marry a royal, you are a royal. So, if I stand in a garage I am a car. It's archaic, like slavery and serfdom. And wrong.

Again, bowing and cutsying has nothing to do with one thinking of him/herself as "inferior" to someone else. It is just a social custom to greet people like shaking hands. In the past, it used to be done not only to royalty, but pretty much to any courtier. In some countries like Japan, bowing is still the standard way to greet anyone (they even bowed to me when I was there and I can assure you I am not even remotely superior to anyone or don't even look superior in any sense).

Basically, when you assume that a lady who performs a curtsy thinks of the person she cursties to as "better" than her, you are just projecting the values and preconceptions of your own culture onto somebody else's culture. Princess Anne for example performed a deep curtsy to King Felipe a few weeks ago at the Guildall dinner and I'm pretty sure she doesn't think of herself as being inferior to Felipe.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

Would someone be required to curtsy to Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra of Kent, is it that she is a lesser royal that you don't have to bow.

 

[Skippyboo]

No one is required to bow or curtesy to anyone. You don't even have to do it to Queen Elizabeth II. They are not going to arrest you if you don't do it.

 

[Dman]

Would someone be required to curtsy to Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra of Kent, is it that she is a lesser royal that you don't have to bow.

There's no requirements to curtsy or bow but, yes, you can curtsy and bow to Princess Alexandra.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I will not curtsy to anyone I don't feel deserves it and to me being born or marrying someone does not mean you deserve it.
But the idea that us being American negates us from standing against archaic, insulting beliefs like the ones duc et par always expresses regarding "commoners" and then marrying royalty does not sit well with me. It is this idea and "custom" that spurs on those who look down on the Middleton's as upstarts who don't know their place.

For the good order, it has nothing to do with being royalborn or not. I would not bow by head to Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón and if I was a lady I would not go through my knees for Philip of Greece and Denmark. I would respectfully offer my hand to them in a nice and well-meant handshake. The ones who blame me for making a difference between royals and commoners I would like to look to the top of this page and see the second word of the title: The Royal Forums.

This means we are discussing royals. And when we discuss royals we make a difference in royals and non-royals, like you and me. Sometimes things are pretty simple, it is as it is. Elizabeth II von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, known as "Windsor", is a royal. Miss Meghan Markle is a commoner. Sometimes things are what they are.

The ones blaming me for archaïc because I point to that difference are in no position to do so, when on their own turn they are willing, as self-conscious, well-educated and assured citizens to go through the knees for a Kate, mumbling in utter adoration "Your Royal Highness" showing servitude and obedience. And then having the guts to blame another poster for being archaïc?

For the good order: if we are denying any difference between royals and commoners because of the political-correctness-brigade here, am I allowed to open a thread to discuss Emmanuel Macron and his spouse Brigitte? No royals, but that is a dirty word here, apparently.