The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Current Events Archive (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/)
-   -   Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, General News 1: November 2017 - May 2018 (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-general-news-1-november-2017-may-2018-a-43861.html)

Lady Nimue 03-27-2018 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curbside (Post 2086273)
I'm really confused about why this is a thing. Why not just assume she didn't know and no one told her? It's not the sort of thing the vast majority of Americans would know.

Nor would anyone think to tell her (nor did they) I am guessing because this may not be a real thing to begin with. :ermm: Really. Can anyone confirm this? This may just be a convention not a real 'rule'.

Somebody 03-27-2018 04:24 PM

Where would you expect to find such a rule? Most of (royal) tradition is in non-written rules but you are still supposed to adhere to them. So, Meghan shouldn't have signed as just Meghan. We only don't know why she went against royal tradition/made this mistake: ignorance or rebellion ;)

It is a convention that royals sign with only their fist names and other people typically use initials with something that at least suggests a last name not only in the UK but also in other European countries.

Cocoasneeze 03-27-2018 04:28 PM

I personally think there are so many made up protocols and traditions, which are used to pick Meghan apart, and in reality they aren't protocols or traditions at all. I'd like to see the royal rule book, from which all these are pulled from. Is there a rule, which states, that a not yet royal can't sign with just their first name? And Diana/Kate signing with their full names doesn't do it, they're not bearers of this royal rule book. So many PERSONAL choices have been written as royal protocols, when in reality they weren't protocols at all.

Cocoasneeze 03-27-2018 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2086305)
Where would you expect to find such a rule? Most of (royal) tradition is in non-written rules but you are still supposed to adhere to them. So, Meghan shouldn't have signed as just Meghan. We only don't know why she went against royal tradition/made this mistake: ignorance or rebellion ;)

It is a convention that royals sign with only their fist names and other people typically use initials with something that at least suggests a last name not only in the UK but also in other European countries.

How do we know such rules exist? To me it seems like some royal enthusiasts take a liberty to bring up some 'royal rules' when convenient.

Somebody 03-27-2018 05:03 PM

The fact that both Diana and Catherine changed from using their full name to only using their first name is a clear indication (and again, this same rule can be observed in other royal houses). I thought it was a very well-known custom so no need for the (implicit) suggestion that it was only made up now.

Dman 03-27-2018 05:29 PM

Royal traditions aren’t written in stone. The thing is that the royals are pretty good at making it seem like what they’re doing are old and written in stone traditions. It’s all made up. Royal “traditions” is just a piece of made up theater.

Meghan only signed her first name because she’s been okayed to do so. There’s no major written rule involved.

Curryong 03-27-2018 05:31 PM

Harry signed the book and probably told her to sign under his name. Did he notice that she didn't sign her full name. Probably. Did he care? Almost certainly not. If he knew that people considered signing a guest book without a surname a breach of convention important enough to quibble over he'd probably laugh. And IMO so would other members of his family.

Osipi 03-27-2018 05:32 PM

It just may be that, as a rule, members of British royal family only sign things with their first names for the reason being that they do not, as a rule, have a surname. This was addressed in the letters patent issued by the Queen in 1960 which gives the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor to descendants that need a surname.

However, this does not make it exclusive to the BRF such that everyone else *must* use their surnames. I don't believe that Meghan made a faux pas by just signing "Meghan".

ACO 03-27-2018 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2086325)
The fact that both Diana and Catherine changed from using their full name to only using their first name is a clear indication (and again, this same rule can be observed in other royal houses). I thought it was a very well-known custom so no need for the (implicit) suggestion that it was only made up now.

Clearly not well known enough. But funny this so called rebellion means their marriage is doomed and she all for breaking rules she likely had no idea "kind of" existed.

Is it May 19th yet?

Rudolph 03-27-2018 05:50 PM

Is it treason? No. Is it a huge deal in the big picture of life? No.

But its the royal minutiae we all like to delve into.

People are free to google examples of signatures.

Prior to their marriage, William and Catherine visited the New Zealand high commission to pay their condolences to earthquake victims.

William signed as ‘William’ and Kate signed as ‘Catherine Middleton’. There are other examples as well.

Immediately after marriage Kate begins to sign as ‘Catherine’

There is her signature in a book of condolences to victims of a terror attack in France. She signs ‘Catherine’. There are other examples as well.

Diana on a pre marriage engagement visit with Charles signed as ‘Diana Spencer’. After marriage it’s just Diana. Lots of examples.

That’s the evidence I have and it appears to be that way in other royal houses.

So is it an iron bound constitutional rule. Probably not but most British royal traditions aren’t. Doesn’t mean they’re not observed.

Somebody 03-27-2018 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO (Post 2086340)
Clearly not well known enough. But funny this so called rebellion means their marriage is doomed and she all for breaking rules she likely had no idea "kind of" existed.

Is it May 19th yet?

That's not my opinion at all. Better not to generalize :whistling:

That something is not well known by Meghan doesn't mean it isn't well known by royal watchers :flowers: It is certainly not a 'made-up rule' just to make Meghan look bad as some seem to suggest.

A completely different issue is whether the royal family cares that she breaks several unwritten rules partly because she might not know better (in that she don't grow up as part of or surrounded by the British aristocracy) or because she was given permission do go a different route because of her relatively unique situation in moving to the UK from another continent and therefore relying more on the royal family than previous future royal brides. Just noticing that she breaks these rules is not to say that she is bad and certainly not that her marriage is doomed :ohmy:

ACO 03-27-2018 06:03 PM

I also wasn't suggesting you said it but commenting overall on what has been said by #namegate.

Somebody 03-27-2018 06:08 PM

Still I am glad that Meghan does adhere to some royal traditions as it is hard to imagine a royal family without...

I am sure Meghan isn't as bothered about all the 'gates' as some of her fans are :flowers: and in some cases she might actually think that she should do something differently next time (as part of her learning curve) and in other cases I am sure they will just have a good laugh about it.

jacqui24 03-27-2018 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2086325)
The fact that both Diana and Catherine changed from using their full name to only using their first name is a clear indication (and again, this same rule can be observed in other royal houses). I thought it was a very well-known custom so no need for the (implicit) suggestion that it was only made up now.

To be fair, Kate and Diana might have always signed things in their full name, it's just that they didn't have a last name once married. If Meghan has typically signed these things without using her name, I don't see why she should have to start now or it's any kind of indication that she's rushing to be royal. As mentioned by others, plenty of us have signed things without signing our last name. None of us would be assumed to be rushing to be royal.

And really, some "traditions" are more just the way they've preferred to do things rather than how it has to be done. And then, the royal enthusiasts made it into a rule of have to do it this way. It was thought in the past that royal fiancees not joining the family for Christmas at Sandringham was either a protocol or tradition, and well, we saw what Her Majesty did to that tradition.

Dani257 03-27-2018 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24 (Post 2086366)

And really, some "traditions" are more just the way they've preferred to do things rather than how it has to be done. And then, the royal enthusiasts made it into a rule of have to do it this way. It was thought in the past that royal fiancees not joining the family for Christmas at Sandringham was either a protocol or tradition, and well, we saw what Her Majesty did to that tradition.

Thank you. I've been trying to say this very thing, but thinking someone might find me rude or dismissive of another country's traditions. So, I'll just piggyback on your comment.

I'm hoping the Queen and the rest of the family will tell her the important traditions with kindness. Meaning if she breaks one that she doesn't know, they'll simply point it out for next time, but understand that she couldn't have known beforehand. But, I also like to imagine when it comes to some of the more "we do it out of habit" type things, that the Queen might laugh and even say "some members of the public might do a better job, given how much more strict they are about things than even I am."

Dani257 03-27-2018 06:53 PM

I wonder how much of this is because of Meghan's background. By that, I mean her being an American and an actress. Do people see her as deliberately flaunting a rule breaking attitude, and not making honest mistakes (or being given the go ahead to do things by the people who actually have a say? Do people see this as a prelude to her sticking an American flag on the grounds of Buckingham Palace while screaming "Murica!" and doing her one woman show "The Revolution: Part 2"?

Rudolph 03-27-2018 06:58 PM

The only issue if you can call it an issue is Meghan’s actressy dictum she uses when talking.

At this stage it’s probably second nature but the accent goes right through me.

Although my accent would probably grate on her so there you go.

Curbside 03-27-2018 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 2086381)
The only issue if you can call it an issue is Meghan’s actressy dictum she uses when talking.

At this stage it’s probably second nature but the accent goes right through me.

Although my accent would probably grate on her so there you go.

What is "actressy dictum?"

Rudolph 03-27-2018 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curbside (Post 2086382)
What is "actressy dictum?"

Her “were just trying to change the world one hashtag at a time” voice

All celebrities use it. Just grates on me.

Gawin 03-27-2018 07:15 PM

According to a forensic handwriting examiner the fact that Meghan copied Harry by only signing with her first name "allied her with him."

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/so...ting-analysis/

Personally, I think she was just following his example because she didn't know only royals do that.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises