Bowing and Curtseying

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by alvinking

HSH Princess Charlene of Monaco curtsying to HRH the Prince of Wales and to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall

https://youtu.be/ukSh5vJu-nc

To this day I don't understand why Charlene curtsied to the PoW. Her mother in law Grace never curtsied to him
when they were together.

Whenever they met publically, Charles simply kissed Grace's hand and cheek.

When Princess Caroline met Diana Princess of Wales the two young women kissed one another as well....there was no curtsey.

I am tempted to believe that Charlene, who was newly married when she met Charles and Camilla, curtsied out of insecurity or lack of knowledge of protocol.

As the wife of a Head of State she should not have curtsied to an Heir even though she is a Serene Highness and he is a Royal Highness.

She should only curtsy to the Queen.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

To this day I don't understand why Charlene curtsied to the PoW. Her mother in law Grace never curtsied to him
when they were together.

Whenever they met publically, Charles simply kissed Grace's hand and cheek.

When Princess Caroline met Diana Princess of Wales the two young women kissed one another as well....there was no curtsey.

I am tempted to believe that Charlene, who was newly married when she met Charles and Camilla, curtsied out of insecurity or lack of knowledge of protocol.

As the wife of a Head of State she should not have curtsied to an Heir even though she is a Serene Highness and he is a Royal Highness.

She should only curtsy to the Queen.

Charlene is an HSH whereas Charles and Camilla are HRHs. It is proper then that she should curtsy to them as they outrank her.

[sarahedwards2]

I sometimes curtsy to my piano/vocal teacher during recital prep, when I'm doing a complete run through during my lesson and she pretends she's the whole audience and applauds me when I'm done ("A little curtsy?" she cutely asked me in her girlish voice one time after I did one), although last year at the year-end recital I was feeling a little bit shy about curtsying to the entire audience, so on my way back to my seat I stopped in front of hers in the front row and just gave her a little dip (I was wearing a floor-length lightweight white summer dress); she smiled prettily back at me.

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by JSH

A curtsy is in no way subservient by definition IMO. It is a gesture of respect. If people don't like it, simply don't do it! No member of the public is required to curtsy or bow to any royal.

'Respect' to someone superior to one. It is obsequious, and especially so for a woman to do. (Imagine a man doing it to get the full 'flavor'). Sends all the wrong signals imo. I think when members of royal families do it amongst each other, that is another matter, something like theater perhaps. Okay. In all other cases, outmoded.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2

I’m not American, and even if I were, my father would not be caught dead presenting his only daughter to society (he told me that himself), not even at a local ball. My mom says those are the 1 percent of wealthiest people. Same with private school; she wouldn’t sent me or my brothers to one even if we could afford the 25 grand apiece per school year (so $75,000 in total). She says they’re just a bunch of wealthy snobs. Our parents both went to public school, so why shouldn’t we?

Nothing like reverse snobbery...the irony...


Lots of folks scrimp and save and work more than one job to send their kids to private schools etc. Perhaps you should reconsider making such broad sweeping judgements of others.


LaRae

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Charlene is an HSH whereas Charles and Camilla are HRHs. It is proper then that she should curtsy to them as they outrank her.

No, as the wife if a Sovereign she outranks them, the HSH versus the HRH dosn't come into it. That's why at European royal events she and Albert are always seated ahead of the crown princes and their wives even though they are also royal highnesses.

[Osipi]

I've had a private education for my entire childhood and my parents were far from being wealthy. Instead of being a group of snobs, we had an education that was taught to include a strict code of ethics in dealing with life and the people around us. Dignity, respect, tolerance and courtesy were as much a part of the curriculum as the subjects that were taught.

We were not required to bow or curtsy but we were expected to treat others with respect at all times. There was a time though I was required to bow and that was after the symphony orchestra I played with finished, we all stood up and bowed to the audience in appreciation for their clapping.

The important thing here is no matter who you are, prince or pauper, having respect for something other than one's self is a hallmark of being a civilized human being. Ralph Waldo Emerson's words still ring true today. "In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him."

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Nothing like reverse snobbery...the irony...Lots of folks scrimp and save and work more than one job to send their kids to private schools etc. Perhaps you should reconsider making such broad sweeping judgements of others. LaRae

I would disagree. Sarah has a point. I see the issue debated around me all the time.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

I would disagree. Sarah has a point. I see the issue debated around me all the time.

And?? Not talking about the issue being debated...but about the reality that you do not have to be wealthy to send your kids to private schools. Someone talking about their mom/dad's (and presumably theirs) views is just their view...and a fairly judgemental one at that.



LaRae

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by sophie25

No, as the wife if a Sovereign she outranks them, the HSH versus the HRH dosn't come into it. That's why at European royal events she and Albert are always seated ahead of the crown princes and their wives even though they are also royal highnesses.

If she is alone, she doesn’t take her husband’s rank.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I've had a private education for my entire childhood and my parents were far from being wealthy. Instead of being a group of snobs, we had an education that was taught to include a strict code of ethics in dealing with life and the people around us. Dignity, respect, tolerance and courtesy were as much a part of the curriculum as the subjects that were taught.

We were not required to bow or curtsy but we were expected to treat others with respect at all times. There was a time though I was required to bow and that was after the symphony orchestra I played with finished, we all stood up and bowed to the audience in appreciation for their clapping.

The important thing here is no matter who you are, prince or pauper, having respect for something other than one's self is a hallmark of being a civilized human being. Ralph Waldo Emerson's words still ring true today. "In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him."

There are many reasons why parents send their children to private schools, one of which being that they want their children to go to schools that are affiliated with a specific religious denomination, as opposed.to public schools which, in the US, are constitutionally mandated to be secular.

In some Canadian provinces like Ontario for example , there are Catholic or Protestant public school districts, but, in the US, if you want to attend e.g a Catholic or a Jewish school, then a private education is your only choice.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Charlotte_Aster

Oh there can be horrible curtseys with a long gown. Just watch arrivals for the birthyday party of CP Frederick. Many cringeworthy moments there.

...if well-born women in long gowns are being forced to contort themselves into undignified and cringeworthy positions...

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by JSH

A curtsy is in no way subservient by definition IMO. It is a gesture of respect. If people don't like it, simply don't do it! No member of the public is required to curtsy or bow to any royal.

Hear, hear. Curtseying to the monarch and members of a Royal Family is both an acknowledgement of the work the person does and the institution they represent, and as it is not compulsory or required any longer, simply go with your preference. However, if a person chooses not to, please don't claim that others who do it are subservient, because when I curtsey, I do it out of respect and because it is customary, and I'm sure that's the same for most people.



Frankly, today women bow from the neck, from the back, curtsey and some do nothing and it's all acceptable. However, a well executed curtsey is still a sight to see, and a classic and centuries old sign of respect and acknowledgement that is well held in monarchies still.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

If she is alone, she doesn’t take her husband’s rank.

She went alone to Princess Madeleine's wedding and was still seated ahead of the crown princes and princesses in the church. As a princess consort she outranked them even without her husband being there.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Charlene is an HSH whereas Charles and Camilla are HRHs. It is proper then that she should curtsy to them as they outrank her.

Well, someone should have told Grace and Caroline. Grace did not curtsy to Charles, and Caroline didn't either , nor did she do so with Diana and this was BEFORE her marriage to Ernst August.

Anyway I agree with sophie25. A Consort out ranks an Hereditary couple whether they are HRH or not.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

But it is 'subservient' by definition, however 'elegantly' executed. It's a couple of steps up from laying prostrate on the ground before the sovereign or conqueror, but the 'genuflection' or kneeling before another has very clear implications of who is superior/inferior. It's outmoded. As well as looking strange.

I say it's time to do away with it. We all seem to automatically nod our heads to each other upon greeting, when taking hands to shake hands. It seems to be a natural gesture of acknowledgement of the other across cultures, whereas prostration, kneeling, curtsey, has a very definite archaic significance best left imo.

It is fine to say that it is not a custom in your country and that should you ever encounter royalty you would not curtsey because it is not your culture. That is quite clear by your inaccurately equating a curtsey and by default a bow, with prostrating oneself or genuflecting. It has been centuries since either action were in common use, except within the Church.

That you would choose to neither curtsey or bow to royalty is normal and makes sense and I would be very surprised if any royal took exception to such an event because if nothing else they have manners and respect the rights and customs of other people.

However, there are a lot of people, certainly here on this forum, to whom the concept of paying respects to one's Royal Family with a curtsey or bow is an accepted norm. Having curtseyed to HM and later to the heir and his wife, I resent being told that my act of respect is considered obsequious and outmoded. It most certainly was not. Good manners are never outmoded.

Your labelling it so shows a total lack of respect for those whose customs differ from your own. But you are culturally intolerant and disrespectful of your fellow forum members and, one would assume, any other person who lives in a monarchy and follows it's norms.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by MARG

It is fine to say that it is not a custom in your country and that should you ever encounter royalty you would not curtsey because it is not your culture. That is quite clear by your inaccurately equating a curtsey and by default a bow, with prostrating oneself or genuflecting. It has been centuries since either action were in common use, except within the Church.

That you would choose to neither curtsey or bow to royalty is normal and makes sense and I would be very surprised if any royal took exception to such an event because if nothing else they have manners and respect the rights and customs of other people.

However, there are a lot of people, certainly here on this forum, to whom the concept of paying respects to one's Royal Family with a curtsey or bow is an accepted norm. Having curtseyed to HM and later to the heir and his wife, I resent being told that my act of respect is considered obsequious and outmoded. It most certainly was not. Good manners are never outmoded.

Your labelling it so shows a total lack of respect for those whose customs differ from your own. But you are culturally intolerant and disrespectful of your fellow forum members and, one would assume, any other person who lives in a monarchy and follows it's norms.

Hear, hear.
You're spot on, and it just eludes me that some constantly have the need to reduce the act(s) of tradition and respect shown towards a monarch or member of a Royal Family to something not belonging in our time. It may not belong in the world of the original poster, and that may stem from their country of origin, but when you live in and come from a nation that is thousands of years old, steeped in history and one that continues to have a monarch as head of state, it just comes naturally.


I would completely agree with the offense the previous poster takes at the act of curtseying or genuflecting in the way it was. I have curtseyed to monarchs and royalty on many occasions and not once, not once, has that been done out of subservience, but out of genuine respect and affection, not just for the person, but above all, the institution they represent.


Every country and every system of society has its traditions and ways, and these ones that are upheld and continued as respect and gratitude for the services done by a Royal Family, is not something to be scoffed at or dismissed as outdated. It is a personal choice of respect, that most of us learn from early on in life, and something that comes as natural to those who live in monarchies and have an appreciation for the system and/or the persons who inhabit it, as it is for an American to hold his hand on his heart during the national anthem.


That being said, you won't suffer any consequences if you don't curtsy or bow in a monarchy. In the U.S, if you don't adhere to the custom of placing your hand on your heart during the anthem, you will be berated and attacked as disrespecting the country.


Oh, the irony.

[Dalriada]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

Hear, hear.
You're spot on, and it just eludes me that some constantly have the need to reduce the act(s) of tradition and respect shown towards a monarch or member of a Royal Family to something not belonging in our time. It may not belong in the world of the original poster, and that may stem from their country of origin, but when you live in and come from a nation that is thousands of years old, steeped in history and one that continues to have a monarch as head of state, it just comes naturally....

Oh, the irony.

Being a former “colony” the state of New Zealand is a relatively new country but it’s monarchy co-exists with the Maori monarchy which has wholly different kinds of customs that even the British royals respect such as nose touching on greeting etc

[fandesacs2003]

Originally Posted by alvinking

HSH Princess Charlene of Monaco curtsying to HRH the Prince of Wales and to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall

https://youtu.be/ukSh5vJu-nc

Sorry but i don't understand why Princess Charlene should curtsey, she is the wife of a ruling Prince, and Prince Charles is the Prince of Wales, it doesn't look correct to curtsey.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

Sorry but i don't understand why Princess Charlene should curtsey, she is the wife of a ruling Prince, and Prince Charles is the Prince of Wales, it doesn't look correct to curtsey.

She shouldn’t in my book. The Prince of Wales is the heir, the Princess is the consort of a sovereign. In my book, he should nod to her and she should gracefully accept his respect for her station. Then again, royalty who has married into royal families tend to make these errors from time to time. I would hand it down to a bit of nerves and a wish to avoid mistakes, therein leading to the mistake. As far as mistakes go however, this is certainly the smallest one to make. The only reason it’s a little more fun than some others, is the visibility of it

There is another side of the argument that some have made, and that is that titles reflect different ranks of royalty. For example, as heads of state, most presidents and kings do not bow to the only emperor left, the Japanese one, but some, including Obama, have chosen to bow, and that is technically not wrong. The rank of Emperor is the highest one to be had in our world of titles, whereas kings and presidents would be equalled at tier 2 of a ‘ranking ladder’. Royal Highnesses outrank Serene Highnesses, who would equal Grand-Ducal Highnesses, who all outrank Highnesses etc etc.
However, in the world today, it would appear to me that most would equalize one head of state with another, regardless of title, with the possible exceptions of an Imperial Majesty and His Holiness the Pope, who for historical and religious reasons are still held in the highest tier of esteem and reverence. After that, one sovereign does not need to bow to another, but can choose to, as, again, it is simply a mark of respect and not the claimed act of subservience by those who have little historical or cultural appreciation.
An heir to a throne would genuflect/bow to a sovereign, and a member of a royal family would do the same to any other member who outranks them. Everyone else, from ministers to citizens, who choose to follow the custom, would genuflect/bow to all of the above in an encounter and would never be wrong for doing so.