General Questions About Royalty and Monarchies


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Hello "aj00192557", I can only answer your questions for myself of course, I live in Belgium which is a monarchy and this is how it is in our country

-do you curtsy when you see a royal? i dont think i can stomach curtseying to somebody just because they were born royal. in fact, the royals should maybe acknowledge the people for paying them to be their kings and queens.

It's happened a few times that I saw someone of the Belgian royal family on the street. People don't curtsey then of course, you just turn around to look again :)

Only on very official ocasions (let's say you were received by the king at the palace; also on the wedding reception of the crownprince a lot of people curtseyed to him and his bride) people can curtsey. But it's no problem if you don't. But you should stay polite of course :)

-if somebody has a title like lord or lady, count/countess, etc., do they use it in real life? do they write their name as Lord X blah, blah, blah in signing credit cards and writing checks?

Aristocracy is usually raised with a sense of "noblesse oblige", meaning that you get a priviledge by being born with a title, so you should also show yourself worthy of it. That means charity and also to a high degree modesty. So when a noble presents himself (let's say to someone new at work) he won't metion his title or his complete name (In Belgian noble sirnames are very long). On the other hand amongst nobles they do 'coquette' with it - also a way to see if they've got a common ancester. Usually the title isn't used to sign something , but it depends from person to person. It's a part of their name after all.

-do theses nobles with title get preferential treatment at work or at school? i would hate it if your boss or your principal shows preferential treatment towards a kid with a "Lord" attached to his name or to a kid with a really well known last name.

No certainly not. For young nobles (teenagers) it's often something their classmates make fun of. The days that a title gave you access to everything you wanted are over. But since the time that it has become necessary for nobles to work to make a living, a large part of them have good careers (now that they don't excell anymore by their name they want to excell by their career ?) and so in Belgium you can always find nobles among national bankdirectors, politicians, judges etc.

-do these noblemen actually feel entitled and look down on commoners? i am not talkin about a royal family. of course some of them could be snobs because they are prince or princesses, etc. but im talking about, for a lack of term, your "minor" noblemen ( your lords, barons, and a really old last name).

No, generally speaking not. As I said modesty and helping others is a part of the average noble upbringing. They're usually very proud of their family, its history and the part it played in their country but you won't find them boasting about it too easily. There are exceptions of course.

-do you guys "respect" your monarchs? if yes what makes you respect them? sure, well all need to respect each other but you know what im talking about.

I do, but that's also because of who they are and what they do for our country, I woudn't just like anyone just because he or she is royal. I think most people in Belgium think this way.

- why do you have a monarchy? is it because the ancestors of these ruling dynasties established your country and made it the way it is right now through war and conquest. i think that is the reason why europe has monarchy.

Belgium was founded in 1830 and at the time it was the best solution to keep that young small country viable. A German prince with family connections in Britain became king, and he married a daughter of the French king, that way Belgium got protection from powerful neighbouring countries. Through the years the Belgian kings (and their family) have worked hard for the country and the first 3 kings are personnally to be thanked for the fact that the country still exists today.

Nowadays the RF in Belgium is seen as the "glue" that keeps the country together. There's also a bit of a fairytale aspect which people love of course, but it goes deeper than that. When a little prince or princess gets born, it's like there's a birth in your family, and the same if someone dies - it affects you personnally. The big and small history of a royal family runs together with the history of your own family.
 
Welcome, then. And don't worry about sounding ignorant, we all have to begin to learn somewhere. There are no stupid questions.

I'll try to answer your questions.

1. Curtsying would depend on the situation. I've stood in a crowd and seen both the Danish queen Margrethe, and the Norwegian Royal family, and I didn't curtsy either of the times. Had the occasion been different, like a meeting in a more formal setting, I would definitely have curtsied. Most of the time, it is not the royal themselves you are acknowledging, but respecting the position they hold.

2. Norway has no nobility, so it isn't really an issue for most of us here. Denmark has it, but I wouldn't presume to know how they sign their checks. ;)

3. Nobody gets preferential treatment at work or school in either Denmark or Norway. I know that HH Princess Elisabeth of Denmark worked in the Ministry of Foreign affairs as a sort of secretary for many years, without getting preferential treatment at all because of her title. She has actually said that having the title worked against her, from time to time.

4. Again, Norway doesn't have a nobility, and I'm really not qualified to say what the Danish nobility may or may not do. I very much doubt you will find anyone looking down at commoners, though, as Denmark is a society where people are equal. I'd say that goes for all of Scandinavia.

5. Respect? Certainly. I respect Harald and Sonja for the incredible hard work they do, every year. Both of them have reached the Norwegian mandatory retirement age, but as they're royals, they're not under that law. And they work. Despite King Harald having had two major surgeries the past years, he's showing little sign of slowing the pace, unless when forced to. Queen Sonja's had her own share of bad health over the years, but that's not stopping her.

6. This is the part that makes it all great. Norway elected to have a monarchy, after having left Sweden, in 1905. The Norwegians chose to have a monarchy, instead of having a republic. After that, the parliament elected Prince Carl of Denmark to be the Norwegian king. Nobody forced them. Nobody told them that they had to have a monarchy. But in the result of the referendum, the people were quite clear. They voted for a monarchy, with an extreme majority. 259,563 voted for monarchy while 69,264 voted for a republic. You can read more about this, and the Norwegian royal family in the Norwegian Monarchy: 1905-2005 thread

Personally I very much like living in monarchies. I like the fact that we have a head of state that unites the people, instead of splitting it as I've seen in recent years other places. *shrugs* I guess there can't be too much wrong with monarchies, the Scandinavian way at least, Norway is said to be one of the best countries in the world to live in.
 
Princess BellyFlop said:
Incorrect.
If you are introduced to a royal then you show respect and bow/curtsy. Everytime I read the excuse «as an American, you must never, ever bow/curtsy» makes my hair go straight!
In a foreign kingdom or country you should follow the local customs. You can wear a t-shirt showing your belly button in LA but not likely in Windsor Castle or the Vatican - even if you are an American. You can drink and drive in Hillbillies country but not likely in Saudi Arabia. You can wear a gun in USA but not in Canada.
:mad: What does Hillbillies country mean! YOU CANNOT drink and drive in America or wear a gun! You can speak what is on your mind in American, but not in Saudi Arabia. You can sleep peacfully in America, but not in Pakinstan. You can be proud of your fellow citizens in America, but not in America Jr. or Canada as you call it.
 
Australian said:
The main reason why Australia voted against the republic was because they didnt like the style of government that was being offered, not because they wanted to keep the Queen, where the president has too much power. I believe most people wanted a republic, but wanted a Prime Minister who doesnt have all the power. IN my personal opinion, i think we should have a republic, i dont think Queen Elizabeth is relevant to Australia anymore. She really hasnt been for the past 50 years.

The case for the rejection of the republic was "Why fix whats not broken" not about keeping the Queen because shes apparently relevant to us.

Australian; While I acknowledged the existance of the true republicans in my post, I truley do not believe that the majority of people of voting age, 18+, are or were then, suitably educated in civics and citizenship, to make an informed decision. THe media campaign at the time was fugding facts constantly, basically telling people they had a choice to make. One would lead to another choice, the other would leavwe things the same.

I'm sorry that we have to agree to disagree, but we Australians can't agree on everything:)
 
Thank You!!!

why do people think we carry guns in america? LOLZ. america jr... hehehehe. so funny.

anyways, thank you guys for all your response. it is greatly appreciated. i didn't know that you beleive so strongly in the role of monarchy today. Thank you...
 
Titles

Why doesn't Princess Caroline and Princess Stephanie of Monaco's children have titles.....is it the same thing as Princess Anne of Britain...that she wouldn't allow her children have titles 'cause she wanted them to lead a normal life?:confused:
 
Australian said:
The main reason why Australia voted against the republic was because they didnt like the style of government that was being offered, not because they wanted to keep the Queen, where the president has too much power. I believe most people wanted a republic, but wanted a Prime Minister who doesnt have all the power. IN my personal opinion, i think we should have a republic, i dont think Queen Elizabeth is relevant to Australia anymore. She really hasnt been for the past 50 years.

The case for the rejection of the republic was "Why fix whats not broken" not about keeping the Queen because shes apparently relevant to us.
i agree with you there Australian, the Queen is so irrelevant for Australia - she barely does anything for our country apart form visit about once a decade, dress up, attend heaps of dinner parties etc. don't get me wrong i love the royal lifestyle and some of the royals but when it comes to running Australia the Queen is not a requirement at all.

and just to let everyone know, while australia voted against being a Republic it was a VERY close loss for the Republicans - i think about 52-48? that's not exact but i know it was close.
 
runaway princess said:
Why doesn't Princess Caroline and Princess Stephanie of Monaco's children have titles.....is it the same thing as Princess Anne of Britain...that she wouldn't allow her children have titles 'cause she wanted them to lead a normal life?:confused:

no. andrea, charlotte, and pierre did not get titles from birth because their father had no title. prss alexandra has a title because her father is titled. you recieve titles through your father, not through your mother.
 
GömdNatt said:
no. andrea, charlotte, and pierre did not get titles from birth because their father had no title. prss alexandra has a title because her father is titled. you recieve titles through your father, not through your mother.

So..if Albert has no legimate child and when Andrea will take up the throne...will they now have titles?
 
aj00192557 said:
why do people think we carry guns in america? LOLZ

... I guess because we have seen too many Michael Moore "documentaries" ...:) :rolleyes: (Just kidding - don't worry, I don't believe everything he says)
 
I am an American. If I met a Royal, I would curtsey. It is a sign of respect and it wouldn't bother me a bit.
 
Australian said:
The main reason why Australia voted against the republic was because they didnt like the style of government that was being offered, not because they wanted to keep the Queen, where the president has too much power. I believe most people wanted a republic, but wanted a Prime Minister who doesnt have all the power. IN my personal opinion, i think we should have a republic, i dont think Queen Elizabeth is relevant to Australia anymore. She really hasnt been for the past 50 years.

The case for the rejection of the republic was "Why fix whats not broken" not about keeping the Queen because shes apparently relevant to us.



I agree with you. I believe "Better the Devil you know that the one you don't know" (change "devil" to System") was mentioned a lot as well!:D
 
hillary_nugent said:
i agree with you there Australian, the Queen is so irrelevant for Australia - she barely does anything for our country apart form visit about once a decade, dress up, attend heaps of dinner parties etc. don't get me wrong i love the royal lifestyle and some of the royals but when it comes to running Australia the Queen is not a requirement at all.

and just to let everyone know, while australia voted against being a Republic it was a VERY close loss for the Republicans - i think about 52-48? that's not exact but i know it was close.

Hillary,
As a pergentage, 48% is huge, but in numerical terms, the gap between 48% and 52% is huge. What also needed to happen (when having a referendum, to formally change the constitution), is what is called a double majority: where there has to be a majority of the entire population of Australia, but also a majority of the states. So if 12 Million people (roughly VIC, NSW and QLD population), voted yes to a republic, but TAS, WA, SA and the territories didn't, the change would still not occur, even if a majority of the entire population voted yes. In any case, they didn't.

As I said before, I don't think all 48% were republicans, I think only a minority were true republicans, in the same way only a minority of the 52% were true and informed Monarchists.

Hillary, you also say that The Queen is not a requirement at all when it comes to Australia: Well, perhaps she isn't, but her reserve powers, as set out in the Australian Constitution, are vested in the Governor-General. So effectively, during the period of their appointment, and when Her Majesty is not in Australia, The Governor-General is our Head of State. THe powers exercised by the Governor General include, swearing in Ministers, opening and dissolving Parliament, inviting the leader of the majority party to form a government, Head of the Executive Government (the highest legislative decision-making body in Australia), and Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force.

All of these duties are carried out, while fulfilling one function - being the direct representative in Australia, of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II by Grace of God Queen of Australia.

So to say Her Majesty is irrelavent, or not required, is highly mis-leading.
 
Scott said:
I agree with you. I believe "Better the Devil you know that the one you don't know" (change "devil" to System") was mentioned a lot as well!:D
Just out of curiosity, what do you expect an elected president will bring you more than the Queen? Do you think it will be cheaper, that the country will suddenly become modern? What?
I've notice this republican optimism, and I don't quite understand it.
Can you help me?
 
runaway princess said:
So..if Albert has no legimate child and when Andrea will take up the throne...will they now have titles?

if Albert has no children, he will most likely confer a title on Andrea.
 
But Charles, Ann..and their siblings got a title and their father is not a royal...how did they have a title?...Is it because there's no one else to give it to?
 
runaway princess said:
But Charles, Ann..and their siblings got a title and their father is not a royal...how did they have a title?...Is it because there's no one else to give it to?

Philip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark.
 
runaway princess said:
But Charles, Ann..and their siblings got a title and their father is not a royal...how did they have a title?...Is it because there's no one else to give it to?
They have their titles as the children of a monarch, I think it would be a very strange situation if children to a reigning monarch would have no title... Charles is The Prince of Wales, the traditional title of the heir to the throne, as conferred to him by his mother. The Queen also appointed Anne to the title Princess Royal, a traditional title for the monarch's oldest daughter, and a special sign of appreciation.
 
GrandDuchess said:
They have their titles as the children of a monarch, I think it would be a very strange situation if children to a reigning monarch would have no title... Charles is The Prince of Wales, the traditional title of the heir to the throne, as conferred to him by his mother. The Queen also appointed Anne to the title Princess Royal, a traditional title for the monarch's oldest daughter, and a special sign of appreciation.

Charles and Anne were born when their mother was still a princess. However, before Charles's birth, the King decided (I think he issued a patent) that her daughter's children would have been princes and princesses, because she was the future monarch.
 
has there been more then 2 queens in a kingdom
we have in belgium 2 queens today
in sweden i think there was at one time 3 queens at the same time 2 queens was widows can maybe obe of the swedish experts say if i am right

in jordan is there 2 or three queens today
 
Which King and Queen of a certain country had the most royal children? I know Britians Queen Elizabeth II was doing quite well with four but what other royal families had the most children, they can be the new generation or way back in history.:)
 
HRHAmy said:
Which King and Queen of a certain country had the most royal children? I know Britians Queen Elizabeth II was doing quite well with four but what other royal families had the most children, they can be the new generation or way back in history.:)
I think the record may be held by Roberto I, Duke of Parma (1848-1907). He had two wives, Princess Maria Pia of the Two Sicilies, and Infanta Maria Antonia of Portugal (who died in 1959).

He had 12 children by his first wife and 12 by his second (including Empress Zita of Austria), a total of 24.
 
Warren said:
I think the record may be held by Roberto I, Duke of Parma (1848-1907). He had two wives, Princess Maria Pia of the Two Sicilies, and Infanta Maria Antonia of Portugal (who died in 1959).

He had 12 children by his first wife and 12 by his second (including Empress Zita of Austria), a total of 24.

Brave man! :D
 
Do the divorced wives of the British Royals have to return the Family Order and any seals, if they have received them, upon their divorce?:confused:
 
I have a question about royal brides, do the brides get to choose their own wedding dress such as the design, the designer, the fabric, their hair, their flowers? Or is someone else in charge of that?
 
HRHAmy said:
I have a question about royal brides, do the brides get to choose their own wedding dress such as the design, the designer, the fabric, their hair, their flowers? Or is someone else in charge of that?

In the UK, I believe they choose their own designer, fabric etc. Hence the crumpled disaster. The only remit here seems to be modesty and decorum. The flowers in the church reflect the flowers in any bouquet the bride may carry!:)
 
I have a question about royal's and their bodyguards. If this is mentioned anywhere else in the forums I do apologize. The questions is: Do ALL members of say the British royal family for instance have guards that protect them 24/7. Say for instance Peter and Zara Phillips or Prince and Princess Micheal of Kent's children Freddie and Ella and if they hold down full-time jobs what do the bodyguards do while they are at work? If anyone has an answer it would be appreciated.
 
Old Love?

Is it really true that Prince Richard, husband of Princess Benedikte of Denmark, once has been in love with the (then) Princess Beatrix of Holland?
I always thought they were just friends , but now I read in one of the threads that they have been a couple for a short time?
does anyone know?
 
kelly1972 said:
I have a question about royal's and their bodyguards. If this is mentioned anywhere else in the forums I do apologize. The questions is: Do ALL members of say the British royal family for instance have guards that protect them 24/7. Say for instance Peter and Zara Phillips or Prince and Princess Micheal of Kent's children Freddie and Ella and if they hold down full-time jobs what do the bodyguards do while they are at work? If anyone has an answer it would be appreciated.

As far as is known, I don't think Anne's children have bodyguards, so I wouldn't think the Kent children do either.:)
 
Back
Top Bottom