The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Ceremony and Protocol (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f162/)
-   -   Questions About Royalty (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f162/questions-about-royalty-6743.html)

aj00192557 08-01-2005 08:52 PM

Questions About Royalty
 
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 08-01-2005 09:48 PM

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 08-01-2005 10:00 PM

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 08-01-2005 10:06 PM

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 08-01-2005 10:30 PM

Quote:

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 :confused:

Von Schlesian 08-02-2005 07:27 AM

Answers
 
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 08-02-2005 07:32 AM

Quote:

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 08-02-2005 07:45 AM

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 08-02-2005 07:54 AM

Quote:

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 08-02-2005 10:29 AM

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 08-02-2005 12:57 PM

Quote:

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 08-02-2005 01:13 PM

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 08-02-2005 01:42 PM

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 08-02-2005 02:02 PM

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 08-02-2005 02:12 PM

Quote:

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.

: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.

Von Schlesian 08-02-2005 05:08 PM

Quote:

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 08-02-2005 05:27 PM

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...

runaway princess 08-02-2005 05:59 PM

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:

hillary_nugent 08-02-2005 06:36 PM

Quote:

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 08-02-2005 07:03 PM

Quote:

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?: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.

runaway princess 08-02-2005 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GömdNatt
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?

Squidgy 08-02-2005 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aj00192557
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)

michelleq 08-02-2005 09:21 PM

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.

Scott 08-02-2005 09:57 PM

Quote:

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. 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

Von Schlesian 08-03-2005 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillary_nugent
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.

Idriel 08-03-2005 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott
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?

GömdNatt 08-03-2005 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by runaway princess
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.

runaway princess 08-03-2005 06:27 PM

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?

GömdNatt 08-03-2005 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by runaway princess
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.

GrandDuchess 08-04-2005 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by runaway princess
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.

ElisaR 08-04-2005 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrandDuchess
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.

Elspeth 08-04-2005 02:00 PM

Here's a list of letters patent; it's the one in November 1948 that's being referred to.

These are pdf files, btw.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/cuhags/info/proclp-w.htm

Queen Shirley 11-18-2012 04:42 AM

I have a question: Let say I'm British (which I am not). I'm walking down the street passing lots of people. How would I know if someone is "Royal" like Lord, Count, Prince, or Princess (I understand there are more then just William and Harry). How would I know to say: My Lord, Your Grace, or just say Sir.?

Lumutqueen 11-18-2012 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Shirley
I have a question: Let say I'm British (which I am not). I'm walking down the street passing lots of people. How would I know if someone is "Royal" like Lord, Count, Prince, or Princess (I understand there are more then just William and Harry). How would I know to say: My Lord, Your Grace, or just say Sir.?

Erm, you wouldn't? You would only know if they chose to tell you.

Lee-Z 11-18-2012 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Shirley (Post 1484134)
I have a question: Let say I'm British (which I am not). I'm walking down the street passing lots of people. How would I know if someone is "Royal" like Lord, Count, Prince, or Princess (I understand there are more then just William and Harry). How would I know to say: My Lord, Your Grace, or just say Sir.?

You wouldn't know, but I don't think it's a crime if you call someone Sir and it turns out to be a Lord or something :flowers:

An Ard Ri 11-18-2012 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Shirley (Post 1484134)
I have a question: Let say I'm British (which I am not). I'm walking down the street passing lots of people. How would I know if someone is "Royal" like Lord, Count, Prince, or Princess (I understand there are more then just William and Harry). How would I know to say: My Lord, Your Grace, or just say Sir.?

For starters I doubt you'd meet any of them walking down the street :biggrin:

This link may help you

Forms of address in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Artemisia 11-18-2012 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Shirley (Post 1484134)
I have a question: Let say I'm British (which I am not). I'm walking down the street passing lots of people. How would I know if someone is "Royal" like Lord, Count, Prince, or Princess (I understand there are more then just William and Harry). How would I know to say: My Lord, Your Grace, or just say Sir.?

You wouldn't, not unless they were wearing badges designating their styles and/or titles.
On the other hand, why would you need to know the styles or titles of complete strangers you aren't even planning to talk to?

Meraude 11-18-2012 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GömdNatt (Post 254074)
you recieve titles through your father, not through your mother.

This is not entirely true, it depends on what country a princess is from, as the children of princess Margriet of the Netherlands are titled while her husband is Mr. Pieter van Vollenhoven. Men who have married future queens have got their wife's title (Claus of the Netherlands, Henrik of Denmark and Daniel of Sweden) and there will most likely be a number of men who gets their wife's title when the princess heirs of today's crown prince/ss start getting married.

AnnEliza 11-18-2012 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Shirley (Post 1484134)
I have a question: Let say I'm British (which I am not). I'm walking down the street passing lots of people. How would I know if someone is "Royal" like Lord, Count, Prince, or Princess (I understand there are more then just William and Harry). How would I know to say: My Lord, Your Grace, or just say Sir.?

I would think it would only come up if there were introductions made. You don't know what to call anyone until they're introduced to you, or introduce themselves.

yvr girl 11-18-2012 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisele (Post 253433)
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.

Sashes belong to orders. Each order has particular rules as to how the sashes are to be worn. It is custom.

yvr girl 11-18-2012 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meraude (Post 1484359)
This is not entirely true, it depends on what country a princess is from, as the children of princess Margriet of the Netherlands are titled while her husband is Mr. Pieter van Vollenhoven. Men who have married future queens have got their wife's title (Claus of the Netherlands, Henrik of Denmark and Daniel of Sweden) and there will most likely be a number of men who gets their wife's title when the princess heirs of today's crown prince/ss start getting married.

These men did not receive title by the act of getting married. They were given these titles because the were getting married. Kate Middleton became the Duchess of Cambridge the moment she was married whereas Daniel Westling was created a Prince of Sweden by the King of Sweden on the day of his marriage.

Meraude 11-18-2012 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yvr girl (Post 1484368)
These men did not receive title by the act of getting married. They were given these titles because the were getting married. Kate Middleton became the Duchess of Cambridge the moment she was married whereas Daniel Westling was created a Prince of Sweden by the King of Sweden on the day of his marriage.

Whether they got the title by the act of getting married or were given the title because they were getting married, it's the fact that the title came to them because they married a man or a woman with a title, as a grant from their father/mother-in-law. Their titles are not given them because they have done something great for which a monarch wants to honor them, for example Jean Baptiste Bernadotte got the title Prince of Ponte Corvo as an award for his services at Austerlitz, and he was later elected as crown prince of Sweden.

Mermaid1962 11-19-2012 12:19 AM

I'm a Canadian monarchist. I would curtsy if I met a member of the Royal Family, but the British Royal Family (i.e. Canada's Royal Family) have made it clear that it's a matter of choice. It's not "required." As I see it, the curtsy is a recognition of the person's position and doesn't have to do with a person's feelings about the royal in question. We have the monarchy because the modern nation was settled by people from Britain and France, both of which countries had monarchies. Unlike the United States, we didn't have a revolution; and so there was no need to jettison the Head of State (George III in your case). When Canada did become independent of Britain, the monarch wasn't seen as a foreign tyrant.


Quote:

Originally Posted by aj00192557 (Post 253400)
-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.
.


sarahedwards2 11-19-2012 12:20 AM

Then why did Andrew, Edward and William only get their titles on their wedding days?

Lumutqueen 11-19-2012 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2
Then why did Andrew, Edward and William only get their titles on their wedding days?

Because there was no need for them to have one prior to marriage.

sarahedwards2 11-19-2012 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Because there was no need for them to have one prior to marriage.

But as the second son of the reigning monarch, Andrew was still the Duke of York, wasn't he?

Lumutqueen 11-19-2012 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2

But as the second son of the reigning monarch, Andrew was still the Duke of York, wasn't he?

Nope. Prior to his marriage he was HRH The Prince Andrew, he was created Duke of York when he married Sarah.

Osipi 11-19-2012 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2 (Post 1484403)
But as the second son of the reigning monarch, Andrew was still the Duke of York, wasn't he?

HM also created Andrew the Duke of York on his wedding day. It seems to be a tradition in the British royal family. With this practice also, the bride becomes titled at the time of marriage. Hence why we have The Duchess of Cambridge rather than Princess William. The same applied to Sarah and Sophie on their wedding days.

Jacknch 11-19-2012 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aj00192557 (Post 253400)
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.

I will answer your excellent questions from my own perspective:

In terms of bowing to a royal, if I happen to bump into one unexpectedly, then I would not bow, as the situation would be informal. If I met a royal in formal circumstances where tradition and/or convention requires a bow in honour of the office held by the royal, then I would bow, albeit more a nod of the head than a full-blown right-angked bow. It is not an unusual situation in everyday life to show some form of resepct to someone. For instance, we all generally shake hands with someone we are being introduced to as it is polite and shows respect to them. It is no different from holding a door open for someone or giving up your seat to an elderly person on the bus, it's just basic manners. If I were to meet the US President, I believe I would very likely bow to him too because the office he holds deserves respect and regard in a polite and meaningful manner.

Titled persons such as Lady Dorothy Brabinghton-Smythe, would sign her name much the same as anyone well. A titled person with a place attached to their title will sign as follows:
The current Duke of Devonshire's name is Peregrine Cavendish and his nick-name is Stoker. He varioulsy signs his name as either "Stoker Devonshire" or just "Devonshire". His wife signs her name as "Amanda Devonshire".

My partner works in a large company in London and worked for a time with a peer of the realm. The peer in question was treated no differently than anyone else and acted no differently from anyone else.

Given that a vast amount of untitled people believe it is quite justified to look down upon those with titles, I feel the two things probably cancel eachother out.

Yes, I respect my monarch very highly indeed on the basis that her role is important for the country and she never sought the high office that she holds. I respect very few politicians because they have sought high-office for their own gain (personal and political).

Andolini 11-19-2012 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelleq (Post 254135)
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.

I agree completely. :smile:

Muhler 11-19-2012 01:19 PM

To me the answer is simple: I salute the rank, not the person.
So any royal will be greeted in a proper respectful manner by me.

The royals of my own country, because I believe in the monarchy and because they no matter what my opinion might be are the highest official representatives of my country.
That I also happen to respect and even like most of them is just a bonus.

All other royals with be greeted with respect simply because they are official representatives of their countries and I would be a poor representative of my country I didn't show proper respect.

Meraude 11-21-2012 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muhler (Post 1484623)
To me the answer is simple: I salute the rank, not the person.
So any royal will be greeted in a proper respectful manner by me.

:previous:I agree, it's the rank, not the person I would salute. Monarchs, as well as other heads of state, would get a bow, but I would never curtsey, if I ever was to greet a head of state. As for minor royals, they would get the same kind of greeting as any other person I meet for the first time.

Andolini 11-21-2012 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri (Post 1484171)
For starters I doubt you'd meet any of them walking down the street :biggrin:

This link may help you

Forms of address in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks for the wiki link!!! Off topic - I love Queen Sofia, especially when she is with her grandchildren, she is so very much a natural grandma!!! Just so genuinely happy and loving with them, so I appreciate your avatar!!

Queen Shirley 07-25-2013 08:37 PM

How long will they keep calling her Duchess Catherine Middleton? She is married now. Shouldn't she be called Duchess Catherine Windsor, or Duchess Catherine of Cambridge or just Duchess Catherine? Why do they keep using Middleton? We all know her now. Is this some royal rule?

PrincessKaimi 07-25-2013 09:18 PM

Who is "they", Queen Shirley? The media is all over the place in what to call her.

There are a couple of ways of properly referring to her; Duchess Catherine Middleton isn't one of them.

AdmirerUS 07-25-2013 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1484376)
I'm a Canadian monarchist. I would curtsy if I met a member of the Royal Family, but the British Royal Family (i.e. Canada's Royal Family) have made it clear that it's a matter of choice. It's not "required." As I see it, the curtsy is a recognition of the person's position and doesn't have to do with a person's feelings about the royal in question. We have the monarchy because the modern nation was settled by people from Britain and France, both of which countries had monarchies. Unlike the United States, we didn't have a revolution; and so there was no need to jettison the Head of State (George III in your case). When Canada did become independent of Britain, the monarch wasn't seen as a foreign tyrant.

Her majesty agrees. See the monarchy page on this at: https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/G.../Overview.aspx

Ish 07-25-2013 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Shirley (Post 1582203)
How long will they keep calling her Duchess Catherine Middleton? She is married now. Shouldn't she be called Duchess Catherine Windsor, or Duchess Catherine of Cambridge or just Duchess Catherine? Why do they keep using Middleton? We all know her now. Is this some royal rule?

Catherine's official title is HRH Duchess of Cambridge. Her title will not include her name in it until she is queen.

The press continue to use Middleton because they don't understand titles, or they don't respect a woman's decision to be known by her married name, or they simply don't care.

PrincessKaimi 07-25-2013 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2 (Post 1484377)
Then why did Andrew, Edward and William only get their titles on their wedding days?

I've always seen at as a kind of wedding gift/incentive to grow up and settle down.

I suspect that only HRH The Queen knows for sure.

Queen Shirley 07-26-2013 11:51 AM

Yes I was talking about the TV media and newspapers and the internet. They keep using Middleton. I makes it sound like she is single. "Prince William and Catherine Middleton". The press needs to be corrected, It just sounds wrong.

Skippyboo 08-18-2013 11:42 PM

Internet search keywords also play a part in keeping Kate as her maiden name.

Regards to titles of the children of the sovereign, only one title is automatic that is duke of Cornwall who is the eldest son and heir apparent. The prince of wales, princess royal, dukedoms have to be given.

CyrilVladisla 01-01-2015 06:42 PM

aj00192557 inquired if somebody has a title like count/countess, do they use it in real life?
I was able to speak to a Grof Mailath from Hungary.
He explained that when a son is born in this noble family, the boy is a grof (count). He explained that when a daughter is born in this noble family, the girl is a countess.
He explained that he does not use his title in the United States.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises