Another royal question

[Rhea]

But rumour has it that the royals take all this curtseying in private very seriously.

You've ruined it for me! I've always envisioned William just walking in and saying, "Yo, Queenie!" as he greets his grandmother in private. I can't imagine how long greetings must take if every private meeting is cluttered with formalities. I understand putting on a bit of a show for the public and at more formal events, but could you imagine all the formalities if you walk in from the garden and Beatrice or Charles have just popped over for a few minutes?

 

[AGBF]

I have never, ever understood the royal tradition of bestowing dukedoms on the monarch's sons or future heirs upon marriage. I can't see any reason for it, seeing as it's a demotion. Prince William was formally known (and formerly known) as Prince William until he married and received the wretched dukedom. A prince outranks a duke, you see. Of course he's still Prince William, but he'll never be a prince in his own right again, because now he must go by the Duke of Cambridge, then he will be Prince of Wales, then King. A duke and duchess are lower in rank than a prince and princess. Personally, I don't blame them for being a bit miffed. Technically, Prince Michael and his wife, Princess Michael, fairly minor members of the family, now outrank William and Kate. In order to counteract this effect and others like it, the Queen had to create and then update, when William married, the Order of Precedence of the Royal Household, establishing William and Kate's position and others in the Royal Household. Why they couldn't just be Prince and Princess William, I'll never know.

Smith-

I have read and reread this and, without researching it, I am going to go out on a limb here. I may be wrong, but this just does not feel right to me.

If, indeed, the Order of Precedence had to be changed I suspect it was to accommodate the new Duchess of Cambridge. I do not believe that Prince William lost his place in the order by being elevated to being a Royal Duke nor do I think he lost his ability to use his title Prince William of Wales. I believe that that is still among his titles and that Catherine is, indeed, Princess William of Wales. Being a Royal Duke, however, is a higher rank than being a mere prince. The Prince Andrew ceased to use that title and immediately started to use The Duke of York once he was given the title Duke of York. Prince Phillip was elevated to Duke of Edinburgh. A Royal Duke is not just any duke. It has always been a position to which members of the Royal Family are elevated.

AGBF

 

[Polished]

by Rhea » 25 Jul 2013 02:39

Written by Smith1942 » 25 Jul 2013 01:35:
But rumour has it that the royals take all this curtseying in private very seriously.



You've ruined it for me! I've always envisioned William just walking in and saying, "Yo, Queenie!" as he greets his grandmother in private. I can't imagine how long greetings must take if every private meeting is cluttered with formalities. I understand putting on a bit of a show for the public and at more formal events, but could you imagine all the formalities if you walk in from the garden and Beatrice or Charles have just popped over for a few minutes?

I doubt they obey such conventions in private. Mike Tindall has said that on occasions such as Prince William's wedding you see the Royals at their extreme but in private it is much more relaxed. Zara Phillips has said they all don't think hierarchy when they get together, they simply think family. On the other hand some formalities do seem to be adhered to and how far they go we don't know. I've read that Prince Andrew, for example if he wishes to speak to his father he has to make an appointment to do so first. I also remember seeing William and Catherine greeting the Queen off a train for an official function during her 60 years on the throne celebrations. William greeted her with a kiss but when Catherine did the same, the Queen took a step back, indicating a protocol had been breached.

 

[JewelFreak]

The custom of granting a dukedom to a royal prince on marriage was to provide him with the income from the lands that belonged to that dukedom. To some extent that still applies. Charles receives an income from the Dukedom of Cornwall and in Scotland from the Dukedom of Rothesay. I presume these are in the form of rents for lands & real estate owned by the dukedom. It is not a demotion; royal dukes outrank non-royal & are still HRHs.

Smith et al. are right that there's royal and commoner, no in-between. The Queen Mother was a commoner before her marriage to the Duke of York, in that she was of the nobility but not royal.

The title of Princess Royal must be conferred by the monarch via Royal Warrant; it is not automatic. It can be given only to the oldest daughter & is a lifetime title; there can be only one Princess Royal at a time. Therefore, Princess Elizabeth did not have the title because her aunt Mary (Countess of Lascelles through marriage), designated Princess Royal by her father, George V, was still alive. There have been only 7 Princesses Royal since the title was invented, first given by Charles I to his daughter Mary in 1642. The title's inception came from Queen Henrietta-Maria, daughter of the French king & Charles's wife, who wished for a British equivalent of the French style for the king's oldest daughter, "Madame Royale." I remember when Anne was created Princess Royal, the Queen said it was in recognition of her hard work for the nation & monarchy.

--- Laurie

 

[Smith1942]

Kenny - I know!!!! It's crazy, isn't it. I like your pictures.

Jewelfreak - thank you for solving the mystery of the dukedom! These days, there is no income attached the the dukedom of Cambridge or York, for example, but this is clearly where the tradition comes from. In the case of the dukedom of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales owns the Duchy of Cornwall and the title comes along with it - so yes, that dukedom confers an enormous income. In fact, it's that income which pays for Kate's fab dresses, new jewels, hairdresser, etc.

AGBF - I think you're right about the Order of Precedence. The Order of Precedence was updated when Camilla joined the family and then when Kate did, too. Princess Anne refused to curtsey to Camilla even though Camilla is the senior royal, (because Camilla was an adulterer and also a newcomer who had not spent a lifetime doing royal works) then the blood princesses Beatrice an Eugenie didn't want to curtsey to Kate because she was not royal by birth, and so it goes on and on. The Queen needed to make clear who stood where.

I'm not at all convinced that a royal dukedom outranks a royal prince, though. Only a king or sovereign queen outranks a prince. I think that the non-income dukedoms are bestowed at marriage as a matter of tradition for the reasons that Jewelfreak wrote. It doesn't matter about the ranking of the dukedom in the princes' cases since they are princes also. One of the questions addressed in British newspapers this week was whether the new Prince Cambridge would outrank his duke and duchess parents, and the answer was no, because William is also a prince. It would be very odd if a royal duke outranked a royal prince.

I still don't like it that William and Catherine have to use the duke and duchess titles instead of prince and princess. I am sure that those titles are lesser than prince and princess. It's possible that duke and duchess are used to highlight the higher rank of the senior royals who are princes, otherwise you have too many people called prince and princess when some of those are lower-ranking royals than others.

For example, the heir to the throne ranks higher than his son, and upon marriage you don't want two sets of princes and princesses when the older set is ranked higher, so duke and duchess suits their position as third in line. (The wife of the Prince of Wales is always the Princess of Wales; Camilla being called the Duchess of Cornwall is unprecedented and is only because of all the sensitivities about the late Diana, Princess of Wales.) And when Prince Andrew married, his York dukedom indicated that he and his wife are further from the throne than his older brother, who remained the Prince of Wales and was not given a dukedom. Note that the closer to the throne you get, the dukedoms are dropped. So when the Queen dies, William and Kate will be one step closer to the throne and they will no longer be duke and duchess, but Prince and Princess of Wales - but Harry will be a duke upon marriage. It demarcates seniority and helps keep the order of things. In medieval terms, Harry is less likely to make a grab for the throne, and William is less likely to murder his father in the night in order to leapfrog to be king, if they have a lower status as duke than those closer to the throne.

Deb, you're right that Kate is technically Princess William, but that title is never actually used, and I don't know why. I feel that if she married a prince she should be allowed to call herself Princess William, but she is always the Duchess of Cambridge. She does have other titles too. On her wedding day, she woke up a Miss and went to bed a princess, duchess, countess, and baroness. Her full title is Her Royal Highness Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus.

It's not bad for a day's work, is it!

Polished and Rhea - There are journalists at certain royalist newspapers who are very close to the family and pretty much used by them - or by their Private Secretaries and Assistant Private Secretaries and Press Secretaries - as mouthpieces when they want to get something out. In the words of one of them, the royals take their place in the pecking order very seriously and, on the subject of curtseying, do obey the Order of Precedence and are "at it like mad" behind closed doors. In the example you gave, the royals don't pop over to see one another like normal families because they are very busy with their 400-plus engagements a year and their time is planned months in advance. Prince Charles is also a senior royal, another reason why you couldn't just pop round to see him. This is the family who communicate by letter!

 

[Smith1942]

Deb - I tried to edit my previous post to say that when I was talking about dukedoms being used to demarcate between princes who are closer or further from the throne, that is just a theory of mine. It does make sense, though. If a royal dukedom was higher than a prince, the dukedoms would not be absent for those princes who are the most senior- i.e. those closest to the throne.

Adding weight to my theory is the dukedom of Prince Philip, who is of course Duke of Edinburgh. He is not in line to the throne at all - he is a consort and could never, ever rule Britain. (The furthest heir to the throne that I can think of, off the top of my head, is Prince Michael's son Lord Frederick Windsor, who is 39th in line.) So Philip's dukedom delineates him as no threat to the throne and as having no claim, I think. He is a senior royal because of his status as consort to the Queen, not because of his royal dukedom. As I said above, the most senior royals who are the closest to the throne don't have dukedoms. Prince Charles, being the heir to the throne, did not receive a dukedom upon marriage.

 

[Ally T]

It is not so inconsistent, the man has always bestowed his name, and titles on the woman he marries, and not the other way around.

Just like the wife of Prince Michael of Kent is Princess Michael of Kent, the wife of Mr John Doe is Mrs John Doe.

You're right. When Diana and Charles got married, there was talk of her being called Princess Charles, but that was dropped, and if the Queen hadn't bestowed a dukedom on William, Kate would have been Princess William. That's because princesses in their own right are born, not made. So, Diana was not Princess Diana, she was the Princess of Wales and later Diana, Princess of Wales. Everyone called her Princess Diana, of course, but she was not Princess Diana. Fergie's daughters are called Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie because they were born princesses in their own right, the daughters of a prince. If the queen hadn't bestowed a dukedom on Andrew, making them the Duke and Duchess of York, Fergie would have been called Princess Andrew. Again, she couldn't be Princess Sarah because she was not born a princess.

When Charles succeeds to the throne, William will be Prince of Wales. The eldest son of the Sovereign is always the Prince of Wales. So Kate will be the Princess of Wales before she becomes Queen Consort, but she will never be Princess Catherine as she was not born a princess. But the media and the public will call her Princess Catherine, of course, in the same way they called the late Princess of Wales Princess Diana, even thought that was not her title.

It is within the Queen's power to create someone a princess in their own right, though. The Queen has done this only once, when she created Princess Alice. Alice was the wife of the Queen's uncle, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. So she was the Duchess of Gloucester. The Queen allowed her to be called Princess Alice to recognise the fact that she had been the wife of a prince who was the son of a monarch, George V, and to recognise her incredible public service during the war and after. It's the only time a woman who was not born a princess has been allowed to call herself Princess Firstname. Kate shouldn't hold her breath for that one!

If this is the case, why aren't Prince Edwards children a Prince & Princess, seeing as they are born to a Prince in the same respect to Prince Andrews girls being Princesses? They are Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn.

 

[Smith1942]

Alex, I think it goes back to primogeniture. Edward is the least important of the four, being the youngest, and therefore he was granted an earldom upon marriage, which is lower than a dukedom. The children, being much lower down the pecking order as the children of the fourth child, take their titles from the earldom, unlike Prince Andrew's daughters who are princesses. Andrew is higher up the pecking order than Edward, being the second son.

It may also have been due to the royal family's modernising over the last few years and their attempts to streamline the monarchy. It's well-known that the Queen and Prince Charles want a leaner monarchy, and that those lower in the pecking order should get jobs and not expect a full-time royal role. Not calling the children prince and princess makes this a lot easier.

 

[Ally T]

Gosh, thanks for that. Talk about being shown in your place in life

 

[Smith1942]

I know. I don't think being a member of the royal family is for the faint-hearted. I've always thought that Kate was extremely brave taking on one of the most senior, high-ranking roles of the Firm. She's either extremely tough or blissfully ignorant!!!

 

[babs23r]

I know that I will be wrong again, but I read that Prince Edwards children could have been prince and princess but they decided not to!!!!!
I read this.... promise!

 

[Smith1942]

I did some more research and it seems the second reason I gave is correct: To pare down the monarchy and achieve the leaner institution that the Queen and Prince Charles think is appropriate for our times, the children take their titles from the earldom. So you're right - constitutionally, Edward's children could have been prince and princess had the Queen allowed it.

In similar vein, Fergie's daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, were told in the last 12 months or so that they are not to expect full-time royal roles and that they should get jobs. It's all part of creating a small core of senior royals. There have been criticisms in the past that the royal family has too many minor members on the civil list and too many also benefitting from grace and favour apartments. That's why Prince Michael was finally forced to pay market rent for his five-bed apartment in Kensington Palace. Previously, he had been paying a peppercorn rent of 115 pounds a week.

 

[JulieN]

I think they must have turned down being called prince/ss for their children, because as grandchildren of the monarch they could be called that.

 

[Smith1942]

Yes - correct. The queen didn't want them to be prince or princess because she and Charles are trying to create a leaner monarchy more appropriate to our times. From the royals' own website:

"At the time of their wedding it was decided, with the couple's agreement, that any children they had should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness..."

I love the part "with the couple's agreement". The initiative for a pared-down monarchy comes straight from the top. As if they could defy the queen over this!

Interesting link about Sophie's children and their titles:

http://ukroyaltitles.tumblr.com/post/4980797327/the-wessex-question-are-prince-edwards-children

 

[amc80]

This has been a fascinating thread, I've learned a lot.

Question- how much of this is common knowledge amongst the British? Do you learn it in school? Did Kate have to take some sort of class when she was dating William to learn everything? There seems to be so much to learn and it's all very technical.

 

[AGBF]

Princess Anne refused to curtsey to Camilla even though Camilla is the senior royal, (because Camilla was an adulterer and also a newcomer who had not spent a lifetime doing royal works) then the blood princesses Beatrice an Eugenie didn't want to curtsey to Kate because she was not royal by birth, and so it goes on and on. The Queen needed to make clear who stood where.

Smith-

Princess Anne cannot "refuse" to curtsey to someone and what Princess Beatrice or Eugenie wants is of no interest to the Queen. As you know, the wishes of a member of the Royal Family have nothing to do with the way he must behave. Everything is dictated by protocol. When Camilla is Queen (should Charles outlive Prince William), Princess Anne will curtsey to Camilla.

AGBF

 

[AGBF]

Alex, I think it goes back to primogeniture. Edward is the least important of the four, being the youngest, and therefore he was granted an earldom upon marriage, which is lower than a dukedom.(snip)

It may also have been due to the royal family's modernising over the last few years and their attempts to streamline the monarchy. (snip)

It also had to do with Edward's lifestyle choices, Smith. He made it very clear that he wanted independence. He was a dreamy sort who had been accused of being a homosexual because he didn't like the armed services and wanted to work in the arts. I think he wanted distance from the Royal Family for both himself and his family. I think that his choices for his family are similar to the choices which the Princess Royal (Princess Anne) made for her children: he didn't want his family as burdened as he had been throughout most of his life.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Smith1942]

Princess Anne refused to curtsey to Camilla even though Camilla is the senior royal, (because Camilla was an adulterer and also a newcomer who had not spent a lifetime doing royal works) then the blood princesses Beatrice an Eugenie didn't want to curtsey to Kate because she was not royal by birth, and so it goes on and on. The Queen needed to make clear who stood where.

Smith-

Princess Anne cannot "refuse" to curtsey to someone and what Princess Beatrice or Eugenie wants is of no interest to the Queen. As you know, the wishes of a member of the Royal Family have nothing to do with the way he must behave. Everything is dictated by protocol. When Camilla is Queen (should Charles outlive Prince William), Princess Anne will curtsey to Camilla.

AGBF

Anne's a firecracker and does what she wants! That's why the Queen had to update the Order of Precedence when Camilla joined the family, as Anne was kicking up about it. And I wouldn't say that Bea and Eugenie's wants are of no interest to the queen. She loves her granddaughters. The OP says that Kate is supposed to curtsey to the blood princesses when William is not present, and they are supposed to curtsey to her when William is present. Who knows if the younger generation adhere to the OP when no senior royals are present? They're all supposed to be pretty keen on the OP, but only they and the four walls would know if the younger ones follow it when no older ones are around.

What you say about Edward's lifestyle above and wanting to distance himself is purely speculative, but you report it as fact.

ETA: It is absolutely possible to refuse to curtsey to someone. Tony Blair's wife refused to curtsey to royalty when her husband was PM, which was roundly condemned and hugely embarrassing. There are lots of rules but this is 2013 and nothing bad happens to you if you don't follow them.

Now, I'm going to leave this thread because I'm beginning to find it tiring to be firmly told how things are in my own country. You are applying book-learning when you say such things as "Princess Anne cannot refuse to curtsey to anyone." She absolutely can and does, as did a commoner, Cherie Blair. You don't understand how things work in my country in reality, and you are missing a lot of nuances. It was also silly yesterday when Gypsy was insisting that you are only titled if you hold the peerage. That is news to all the ladies, countesses, viscounts, baronets and lairds in the country. I'm sure Princess Margaret's son and the Queen's nephew, Viscount Linley and his wife Viscountess Linley would be staggered to learn that they are not titled. She saw the phrase "courtesy title" and assumed that it wasn't a real title. And told me, very firmly, that this was so. By this logic, Prince Edward's children are not titled since their titles are also courtesy titles. Anyone who isn't the holder of a peerage is deemed to have a courtesy title, but the title is no less real for that. I tied myself in knots trying to explain this to Gypsy yesterday, and it was ridiculous.

I don't mean to be rude, but this thread has become really tiring. I am British and lived there for 32 years, and I know how my own country works. If you and others want to believe otherwise about certain things, I just can't continue trying to persuade you differently. However, I look forward to speaking with you both on other topics!

 

[maccers]

Like amc, I've often wondered how Kate was schooled in the royal protocol -- how does one adjust to being a world recognized public figure, particularly when they've come from a commoner background. Thoughts?

 

[maccers]

Like amc, I've often wondered how Kate was schooled in the royal protocol -- how does one adjust to being a world recognized public figure, particularly when they've come from a commoner background. Thoughts?

 

[JulieN]

I'm pretty sure she had to take princess lessons, like in The Princess Diaries (Anne Hathaway.)

 

[AGBF]

Anne's a firecracker and does what she wants!

ETA: It is absolutely possible to refuse to curtsey to someone. Tony Blair's wife refused to curtsey to royalty when her husband was PM, which was roundly condemned and hugely embarrassing.

Now, I'm going to leave this thread because I'm beginning to find it tiring to be firmly told how things are in my own country. You are applying book-learning when you say such things as "Princess Anne cannot refuse to curtsey to anyone." She absolutely can and does, as did a commoner, Cherie Blair. You don't understand how things work in my country in reality, and you are missing a lot of nuances.

I disagree that Anne "does what she wants". She certainly is strong-willed, but she is very disciplined when it comes to her royal duties.

I did not say, "it is not possible for someone to refuse to curtsey to someone else" (you mentioned Chérie Blair). I said that it was not possible for Princess Anne to violate protocol in such a way. Chérie Blair was herself a lawyer and was the wife of very liberal politician, not a member of the Royal Family!

You are free to leave any thread at any time for any reason. I am sorry that you see fit to fault my understanding as the reason for doing so, however. It is disagreeable to be told that one has been so tiresome.

Deb/AGBF

 

[rosetta]

Good grief, I now know more about the royal family then I ever cared to know!

Anyway, it was interesting, even though the whole concept of monarchy is utterly archaic.

 

[Smith1942]

Anne's a firecracker and does what she wants!

ETA: It is absolutely possible to refuse to curtsey to someone. Tony Blair's wife refused to curtsey to royalty when her husband was PM, which was roundly condemned and hugely embarrassing.

Now, I'm going to leave this thread because I'm beginning to find it tiring to be firmly told how things are in my own country. You are applying book-learning when you say such things as "Princess Anne cannot refuse to curtsey to anyone." She absolutely can and does, as did a commoner, Cherie Blair. You don't understand how things work in my country in reality, and you are missing a lot of nuances.

I disagree that Anne "does what she wants". She certainly is strong-willed, but she is very disciplined when it comes to her royal duties.

I did not say, "it is not possible for someone to refuse to curtsey to someone else" (you mentioned Chérie Blair). I said that it was not possible for Princess Anne to violate protocol in such a way. Chérie Blair was herself a lawyer and was the wife of very liberal politician, not a member of the Royal Family!

You are free to leave any thread at any time for any reason. I am sorry that you see fit to fault my understanding as the reason for doing so, however. It is disagreeable to be told that one has been so tiresome.

Deb/AGBF

I'm sorry. This thread has been tiresome and then Gypsy's position on titles was tiresome. I HAVE found it a little tiresome that you keep reporting things as facts which are not facts, like Edward's lifestyle being a factor in his kids' not being prince/princess. That's pure speculation. You probably wouldn't like it if I was sitting in England, never having lived in America, telling you firmly how America was run and not always being right, now would you?

So, here's a link to the royalist quality broadsheet the Telegraph. Mandrake is a mouthpiece of the royals. When Camilla married Charles there is no doubt that she became senior to Anne and Anne should have curtseyed in all circumstances, not just when Charles was present. But Anne kicked up a fuss about that. So the Queen changed the OP at that time so that Anne did not, after all, have to curtsey to Camilla if Charles was not there. Here's a link - note the third paragraph under the blue box and the last paragraph. Anne didn't want to curtsey to Camilla if Charles wasn't present, so the Queen changed the OP to accommodate Anne's feelings on the matter. See? She didn't have to curtsey if she didn't want, and the queen backed her up. Anne has no problem curtseying to Camilla when Charles is present because she accepts him as having a higher rank. It's curtseying to Camilla alone she objected to.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9351571/The-Queen-tells-the-Duchess-of-Cambridge-to-curtsy-to-the-blood-princesses.html

This thread has been absolutely exhausting. I did not mean that you and Gypsy were tiresome in yourselves, but in this thread your firm positions and statements as facts which were not always correct were a little irksome to me when, after all, neither of you are British, haven't lived there for 32 years like me, and you don't know how the place works in reality. In this case, Anne didn't want to curtsey so she didn't have to - the queen changed the OP to accommodate her wish not to curtsey. But you were so sure that Anne had to take complete direction from the queen's protocol and there was no room for manoeuvre! Because I'm British and I know the place intimately, I'm familiar with the fact that the queen can be surprisingly flexible when you least expect it...such as changing protocol to suit Anne's flouncy wish not to curtsey.

It really has been an exhausting thread. Kenny's pictures made me laugh!

 

[maccers]

Smith - don't leave! I've loved reading this thread despite it making me feel like my eyes have crossed, i've been spun around and asked to stand on my head.

Do you know how Kate was trained in the royal protocol?

 

[Smith1942]

Smith - don't leave! I've loved reading this thread despite it making me feel like my eyes have crossed, i've been spun around and asked to stand on my head.

Do you know how Kate was trained in the royal protocol?

I feel exactly the same way myself! My eyes are killing me.

It was widely reported in the royalist newspapers that Kate had been schooled in the fine points of royal laws by constitutional experts, yes. It would make sense. You can see how complicated it is, and it's important that she understands it all.

 

[amc80]

Smith - don't leave! I've loved reading this thread despite it making me feel like my eyes have crossed, i've been spun around and asked to stand on my head.

Do you know how Kate was trained in the royal protocol?

I feel exactly the same way myself! My eyes are killing me.

It was widely reported in the royalist newspapers that Kate had been schooled in the fine points of royal laws by constitutional experts, yes. It would make sense. You can see how complicated it is, and it's important that she understands it all.

I asked this question a bit up the thread and perhaps it was overlooked- are you guys taught any of this in school? How much of this is general knowledge amongst the British?

 

[rosetta]

Smith - don't leave! I've loved reading this thread despite it making me feel like my eyes have crossed, i've been spun around and asked to stand on my head.

Do you know how Kate was trained in the royal protocol?

I feel exactly the same way myself! My eyes are killing me.

It was widely reported in the royalist newspapers that Kate had been schooled in the fine points of royal laws by constitutional experts, yes. It would make sense. You can see how complicated it is, and it's important that she understands it all.

I asked this question a bit up the thread and perhaps it was overlooked- are you guys taught any of this in school? How much of this is general knowledge amongst the British?

I didn't go to primary or secondary school in the UK, but my husband went to public (read: very old fashioned and expensive boys only) school here. He says no, he wasn't taught any of it as part of compulsory curricula.

 

[Smith1942]

It's not really taught - you just soak it up. I mean, when I was really small we were probably told at some point that there was a queen and she was a ruler and her oldest son would become a king, but I don't remember. Our British history lessons covered things like the Industrial Revolution. The Monarchy isn't taught in detail, although it's discussed a lot on TV, in the quality broadsheets, at home, and of course, events unfold in front of your eyes.

When I was working in PR in London, I got into terrible trouble regarding a royal matter once and the stupid Daily Telegraph. See the link below.

Our PR firm had the account for the tourist board of this island, the Isle of Man. It was my account. The Queen is Lord of Mann and sometimes visits. She was visiting on this day, Tynwald, which is the island's national day, and there was a festival with lots of stalls and Barbara Taylor Bradford was coming, too. All these planned events were common knowledge and were in the Court Circular. That's the royals' diary of upcoming events, published in the Times. So I had to write a press release saying that this event was going on, that the Queen was visiting (which everyone knew and was very excited about) etc etc etc. I wrote it and my clients on the Isle of Man and all their dignitaries signed off on it. It was sent out.

But....apparently I should not have mentioned that the Queen was coming. Not allowed. Since the visit was public knowledge, it never occurred to me that I shouldn't have put it in the press release. It didn't occur to anyone who signed off on it, either.

It wasn't actually a big deal - the Palace press office just asked me to take it out and re-issue the release, and I did. They were fine about it.

However, some horrible journo at the Telegraph got hold of it and proceeded to conjure up a mountain out of thin air, saying that the tourist office had tried to promote Taylor's book using the queen, or some such nonsense. Why on earth would the Isle of Man tourist office have any interest in promoting an American author's book, with nothing to gain from it? It was total fiction, and neither was Barbara Taylor Bradford using the day to promote her book. I also doubt that BP was as upset as the article makes out. The press release was merely a list of events happening on Tynwald Day, same as is sent out every year, and no one on the island's press office or parliament, or me, saw any reason to leave out the queen's visit - the most major part of the day!

I was terrified, absolutely terrified when this journo rang me up. He asked me who had written the press release. Group effort, I told him - which was mostly true, since all my clients on the Isle of Man had to read it, make any corrections and sign off on it. I told my boss the same thing when he asked. Had I said, "Oh, it was mine - all me!" I would have been sacked instantly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1434985/Manx-tourist-office-rebuked-for-linking-Queen-to-bestseller.html

This incident was a part of my decision to leave PR and a lesson in the fact the people get hysterical around the royals. Although it was that journo's fault for making up something out of thin air, and it wasn't the royals' fault, it left a nasty taste in my mouth about the UK being a monarchy. I was so, so worried the night before this article came out. I thought he would name me and I'd lose my job. I had total hysterics on the phone to my mother the night before.

This incident is another reason that on balance, I prefer to live in America, although I appreciate Britain's rich and glorious history. I agree with Rosetta that the royals are archaic....and over here, you don't have to worrying about things like this happening to your career.

 

[AGBF]

When Camilla married Charles there is no doubt that she became senior to Anne and Anne should have curtseyed in all circumstances, not just when Charles was present. But Anne kicked up a fuss about that. So the Queen changed the OP at that time so that Anne did not, after all, have to curtsey to Camilla if Charles was not there. Here's a link - note the third paragraph under the blue box and the last paragraph. Anne didn't want to curtsey to Camilla if Charles wasn't present, so the Queen changed the OP to accommodate Anne's feelings on the matter. See? She didn't have to curtsey if she didn't want, and the queen backed her up. Anne has no problem curtseying to Camilla when Charles is present because she accepts him as having a higher rank. It's curtseying to Camilla alone she objected to.

...​

This thread has been absolutely exhausting. I did not mean that you and Gypsy were tiresome in yourselves, but in this thread your firm positions and statements as facts which were not always correct were a little irksome to me when, after all, neither of you are British, haven't lived there for 32 years like me, and you don't know how the place works in reality. In this case, Anne didn't want to curtsey so she didn't have to - the queen changed the OP to accommodate her wish not to curtsey. But you were so sure that Anne had to take complete direction from the queen's protocol and there was no room for manoeuvre!

Smith,

I do not blame you at all for becoming tired. You have been working overtime on this thread and I appreciate your efforts. Please do not underestimate the intelligence of anyone who has not lived in the UK, however. We are not all dolts. I was perfectly open to the notion that the Queen could have been maneuvered to make changes to protocol with pressure exerted behind the scenes (e.g. Princess Anne and maneuvering not to curtsey to Camilla when alone). I would have welcomed your bringing that information to me earlier in the thread because I love to learn. Why keep that information to yourself and grumble about the stupidity of Americans rather than sharing whatever you know about the back room politics with us at the outset? That is what I have tried to do. And when I get the politics wrong, someone corrects me. Often you.

Hugs,
Deb