Young Russian Royalty

[Warren]

I would have thought the difference between "standing" and "bowing" was self-evident, and I would think it equally obvious that Queen Elizabeth would formally greet people while standing on two feet rather than remaining seated.

Nonetheless, ignoring this diversion into definitions, the claim that EIIR "bowed" to Prince Nicholas is manifestly incorrect as the quoted source states that she stood. I am disappointed that you twice chose to misquote the source, thereby giving a false impression.

Since none of us know what Queen Elizabeth was thinking at the time I think it important that any description of the meeting is quoted correctly.

[Russophile]

Because, Warren, I was having a senior moment. I have read and re-read those books several times, YEARS ago. I happened to have that book on hand and re-read it. Standing and bowing seems the same to this Yankee. Since it was an mistake, I apologize. Don't forget, you're dealing with an American who's not familiar with royal protocol. This wasn't meant to be cheeky. This was meant to be a learning experience.

[Warren]

You've got way too much spark and good humour to fall into the "seniors" category!

[Russophile]

Really? They keep telling me 42 is the new 32 but I have reservations about that. . .

[JPhinala]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

Where did you get that idea on weight? We have nothing of this sort here in Russia.

As for Maria, you put it the most "politically correct" way. She looks Jewish, which she is. It is beyond understanding how an "imperial heir" could have married to the nation that deposed and massacred his family, and destroyed his country.

I would just like to clarify that I was, in no way, trying to insinuate that Maria Vladimirovna "looked Jewish" or that it was a bad thing. I have many faults but antisemitism isn't one of them. I also don't agree with your assertion that the Jewish "nation" "deposed and massacred his family and destroyed his country." That seems like an urban legend of the ugliest kind.

[AGRBear]

Here's another Yankee asking a question about who bows to whom.

Who ranked first, second and third on the royal ladder in 1916 among these three: King of England, Emperor of Germany, and Emperor of Russia?

AGRBear

[Warren]

Depends on which ladder you mean. All three were Emperors (of India, for George V), but since all were Heads of State they would rank 'equal'. The pecking order within this 'equality' would be based on the date of accession to the throne (ie reigning seniority), so we have:

Wilhelm II - 1888
Nicholas II - 1894
George V - 1910

[Russophile]

Well that's interesting! I wonder if that ranking had anything to do with Willy wanting to take over the world??
Thanks Warren for being patient with us Yanks!

[Warren]

Being #1 on this list wouldn't have been enough for Willy. He didn't have the autocrat's power of a Russian Tsar, nor the international standing and prestige of a British Monarch. So he had to make up for it by throwing his weight around as best he could, eg placing his newly-widowed mother under house arrest, and Tangier.

[JPhinala]

Also, this precedence only held true if all three were at some other location. If they were in England King George would have ranked first, the same sort of thing holds true for Germany and Russia.

I love your comment about Willy, Warren. Though I think his placing the Dowager Empress under house arrest had more to do with her attempts to undermine him with "evil liberalism" than his desire to throw his weight arround.