General Questions About Royalty and Monarchies

[aj00192557]

hi to all, i am new to this forum and i have a bunch of questions for people under the monarchial system. i think im a monarchist but i live in america so i haven't experienced to be under a system like that. i may sound ignorant but its not wrong to ask. here are my questions:
-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.
-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?
-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.
-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).
-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.
- 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.

thanks for viewing or answering my questions. it is greatly appreciated.

[dw2108]

Hi, I'm new too with some questions and I would like to know if any royals of this century or this past century were disabled vets or just disabled. If so, how did it affect or not affect their ability to serve as royals?

Thanks,
David

[Reina]

well i'll answer your first question. As an American, you must never, ever bow/curtsy. Now if you really like the monarch and want to show a little more respect, you can bow your head a little. But if you bow/curtsy that will be seen as weird.

[Lisele]

I'm a newb myself and there is one thing I would like to have clarified since I've never got anyone to answer it before.

Here's the question - thos baldrics or sashes or whatever you wish to call them, is there a reason that some people wear them from left to right and others wear them from right to left? I've noticed this on many pictures and no one's been able to answer the question. Hopefully someone can do so here.

Thanks and I'm enjoying the forums and the photos.

[GömdNatt]

Originally Posted by Lisele

I'm a newb myself and there is one thing I would like to have clarified since I've never got anyone to answer it before.

Here's the question - thos baldrics or sashes or whatever you wish to call them, is there a reason that some people wear them from left to right and others wear them from right to left? I've noticed this on many pictures and no one's been able to answer the question. Hopefully someone can do so here.

Thanks and I'm enjoying the forums and the photos.

it depnds on the country. for example: Denmark and Sweden both have pale blue sashes (as well as Greece, but theirs is tiny bit different). Sweden wear theirs on their right shoulder while Denmark wear theirs on their left shoulder. that's how you tell the differen between the two countries.
however, Iceland also wear theirs on their left shoulder, and as far as I know, no one else has the same or similar sash.

hope I've been of some help

[Von Schlesian]

Hallo aj00192557!

In answer to your first question: Yes I do bow when I am in the presance of a member of a Royal family. I always acknowledge their position as a member of a Royal family. For me ther are no boundaries: Christian Royals, Muslim Royals, Hindu Royals, Bhuddist Royals etc. Of course I take my own Royal House with most sincerity. I don't think that 'the royals should acknowledge the people for paying them to be their kings and queens.' Monarchs are not paid by anyone to be 'their kings and queens'. Monarchs recieve an amount of money from the elected/nominated governments of their countries to allow them to live the way they are entitled, and to perform the countless duties with which their lives are filled. Fulfilling these duties is, acknowledgement enough.

Number two: Any title, Baron, Lord, Viscount, Count, Earl, Marquis, Duke etc is entirely real life, thus it is used. If a person (in the British peerage), doesn't wish to have their title, they have a certain amount of time after succeeding to the title to disclaim it for life. Anyone not in possession of a genuine title, should not use it. These are bought from title mills, usually in countries where there are no real titles, to increase self-importance. It is an entirely futile venture, and deserves no more discussion. But simply, yes. Those who hold real title, use them if they are allowed. (Titled families of Germany, who aren't recognised as members of reigning Royal houses, aren't permitted to use titles, but are permitted to include the title within their name eg: Graf Claus von Stauffenberg (translation: Count Claus of Stauffenberg), becomes Claus Graf von Stauffenberg.

Number three: In a professional environment, nobles generally recieve no preferential treatment. If they di, it certainly isn't advocated by the government. But when acting in their capacity as the head/member of a noble family, then their title is reguarded in the highest fashion. Eg: at a coronation, the Lords etc assemble and are presented in order of precedance (highest to lowest), etc. Those are the times when titles people recieve preferential treatment.

Number four: In the modern world, barely any "look down" on "commoners". If so, it has become more a case of the richer nobles, recognising themselves as such. Eg: Does Donald Trump, or Tom Cruise etc ever look down on someone simply because they're rich?? I think we can find a similar answer somewhere there..

Number five: I respect and love my Monarch. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by Grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Queen of Australia (I use two of her 27 monarchies because I am a citizen of both, and therefore, she is my Queen twice over), is a remarkable person and ruler. Her Majesty has moved and adapted with changing times over her 79 years of life, and 53 as Queen, and at the same time shown amazing consistancy, genuine feeling and interest for her subjects. But Her Majesty doesn't need to prove herslef to anyone. For there is one un-deniable truth - for us, she is The Queen.

Number six: Great Britain is a Monarchy, because throughout history, as the people developed through civilisation, leaders emerged, and/or were chosen by God. Those leaders then lead their people to inhabit lands which became kingdoms. And then after a very long time, we still see the descendants of those original leader sitting on the thrown throughout the world.

Australia is a Monarchy because that was the system of government that the country that brought Australia into the modern world had as it's own. But Australia wasn't quite a country, it was a colony of Great Britain. In 1901, the colonies became a group of federated states, and under the Crown, would function together under one federal government, with each state also having it's own government. Up until the 1950's, with most of the population being Anglo-celtic, or of anglo-celtic descent, it was natural to think of England as the mother country. Many still do today. But with the high level of non-British immigration, the culture has become far more diverse, with all of the various backgrounds. But still the Monarchy remains intact.

There was a referendum regarding the issue of Australia becomming a republic in 1999, in which the Australian people voted against the idea. To be truthful, there aren't really that many people who genuinely wanted a republic, it was simply a matter of ticking a box, (a practice many many Australians do without any real consideration). Given the facts however of the state of our Monarchy, there would have been fewer still who'd have voted for a republic.

Lisele:

Please never be tricked by thinking that each country only has one 'sash'. Those sashes, are part of the insignia worn of an Order of Knighthood. Generally, it is the highest grade of the order which has 3 pieces of insignia: The Breast star, The Sash, and the Pendant (a small weight at the bottom of a sash, which depicts of shows the motif of the order eg: the Danish Order of the Elephant has a small jewelled Elephant on the end of the sash).

Many rules and conventions apply to the awarding of these orders, and the wearing of the insignia. Most orders are worn from right to left. However, it is generally the senior orders where the sashes are worn left to right. Two examples are The Order of the Garter, and The Order of the Thistle. They are the highest orders of knighthood of the United Kingdom, and are worn over the left shoulder.
I hope that helps.

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Reina

well i'll answer your first question. As an American, you must never, ever bow/curtsy.

aj00192557;

It is entirely your own choice. It is not against the rules of the world to bow or curtsy to a member of a Royal family just because you are an American. Such a gesture is one of acknowledgement of the persons' position, while they are obviously not your Royal, it cannot be denied that in their own country, they have great importance. If you choose to recognise that importance, then you aren't forbidden to do so based on your nationality.

Yet, I would never bow to President Bush, he is an elected politician, not a member of a Royal family. If America had a Royal family, then I'm sure I'd pay appropriate compliments:)

[Idriel]

Thank you Von Schlesian for taking time to write this long post. You make very good points.
Also you explanation of German titles is the clearest I had so far. So thank you again.

[Australian]

Originally Posted by Von Schlesian

There was a referendum regarding the issue of Australia becomming a republic in 1999, in which the Australian people voted against the idea. To be truthful, there aren't really that many people who genuinely wanted a republic, it was simply a matter of ticking a box, (a practice many many Australians do without any real consideration). Given the facts however of the state of our Monarchy, there would have been fewer still who'd have voted for a republic.

.

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.

[GrandDuchess]

To aj00192557, here are my answers to your questions.

Question number 1:
It depends on the situation. If I am for example present at a congratulatory call for a name day or birthday of a member of the Royal Family, which are held on the courtyard outside the Royal Palace, I don’t, because then you stand squeezed in a big crowd in a very public situation. But if I would be for example invited by the Court to attend an official ceremony or festivity, and the right kind opportunity would present itself (for example if I would be introduced to a member of the Royal Family, or present for a dinner - in the salon when the Royal Family enters and the guests give room), then I would. When one is present at an official occasion in the presence of one or several member of the Royal Family in Sweden, it is the custom to rise from the seats when they enter and take their seats, and when they have reached their places everyone sings the King’s song. It’s personal preference whether to just rise and stand still when they pass, or if you wish to curtsy. I myself choose to save my curtsies for the occasion that I would ever be invited to a “smaller” and not so public function in the presence of royals (like I described in the beginning), then when one would be closer and in the eye sight of them, it feels like the right time to curtsy.

Question number 2:
Yes, titles in the Swedish nobility are used by their holders, but only as an honorary thing... I don’t think that they sign checks or things like that with their titles, since they are strictly honorary titles these days. Since the year 2003, the Swedish nobility holds no legal status as they have done throughout history. This means that since that year, the nobility has lost all official links and connections that they have held with the Swedish state, government and crown (their last privilege also went with that). The titled Swedish nobility consists of the Count/Countess (in Swedish Greve/Grevinna) and Baron/Baroness (in Swedish Friherre/Friherinna).

Question number 3:
In general society, the nobility receives no preferential treatment whatsoever. The nobility is today quite assimilated into the normal population. The only time the titled nobility are treated as such is at Court, to which some (those closest to the Royal Family I would say) are invited to attend some ceremonies and occasions. When they attend official functions at Court or by the State, I would say that their positions are considered by courtesy for something like the table placing etc.

Question number 4:
We all live in a modern world, I don’t think the majority of people look down on anyone merely on the basis of family heritage, titles or money (with some exceptions of course, there’s always the odd chap here or there). In Sweden, were equality is one of the signums for a modern country, it is the strive for an equal society that has driven forward all the changes in things like abolishing the official status of the nobility, abolishing the old way of titling people etc.

Question number 5:
I have a very deep respect and “love” (in whatever way you can “love” someone you don’t know, even if it’s not the romantic kind here) for my monarch, His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. I admire and honour the way he has ruled as King; how he has really been a very modern monarch, despite what he was once born into.

In the very beginning of his reign, the Government and Parliament changed the Constitution drastically, really changing the monarch’s role, stripping the monarch of so many functions and tasks – but he moved on, and with dignity and a modern outlook accepted the new role of the monarch that had been created. And what a great job he has done, managing to combine the few constitutional tasks he still holds, while striving to be a modern monarch and Royal Family, really living with the times, and working for the people and Sweden’s best. He has certainly lived up to his wonderful motto, “For Sweden With the Times”.

The King was born into the old kind monarchy, and the old way of Court – a world where the laws concerning the Royal Family were very strict (for example, females didn’t have rights to be in the succession to the throne, and the members of the Royal Family had to marry a royal in order not to loose their titles and places in the succession) and the rules and protocol of Court were enormously strict (the Royal Family he was born into led a very secluded and privileged life, surrounded only by the chosen few). I really admire how King Carl Gustaf when he succeeded to the throne, managed to modernise the old Court, taking it into the new and modern world, but still keeping the dignity around it, and keeping the good bits of the old and traditions.

Question number 6:
The Swedish monarchy is part of our history. There have been different dynasties on the throne throughout history, but after 1 000 years of having a (official) monarchy of various kinds, the Royal House has become part of the Swedish identity (at least to me).

[Princess BellyFlop]

Originally Posted by Reina

well i'll answer your first question. As an American, you must never, ever bow/curtsy. Now if you really like the monarch and want to show a little more respect, you can bow your head a little. But if you bow/curtsy that will be seen as weird.

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.

[Lisele]

My thanks to everyone who has enlightened me and straightened me out on the various sashes/baldrics/orders and how they are worn. As I said, I could never get an answer before now.

Since the subject's come up anyway - I am an American/Canadian and I have a very international family (literally) and since a lot of the members of my family have served in the diplomatic corps, I was brought up to curtsy to royalty. I was brought up to know the formal modes of address. Regardless of your nationality, not bowing or curtseying to a member of a royal family is viewed IMHO as disrespect period. If I went to Rome and met the pope, I would curtsey - OUT OF RESPECT - and I'm not even Catholic. That's what it boils down to, respect. But those are what I was taught and brought up with.

[Cathérine Bergeyck]

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.

[norwegianne]

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.

[Harry's polo shirt]

Originally Posted by Princess BellyFlop

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.

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.

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Australian

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:)

[aj00192557]

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...

[runaway princess]

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?

[hillary_nugent]

Originally Posted by Australian

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.

[GömdNatt]

Originally Posted by runaway princess

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?

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.