Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Osipi]

Where's the corner where this conversation went from titles to cutlery? I want to hop in a car and go back.

Yeps.. its obvious that this topic took the wrong turn at the fork in the road.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It happens like this at this time of the year when there is no real news to report as they are on holidays.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Shouldn't you have learned to bow from your father? Also, I think it should have been taught much earlier, around two-ish.

Although my father knows how to bow very well (as it's not a very difficult task), mom was the one in charge to teach us good manners.

I remember my sisters having a hard time learning how to curtsy, but the two ended up doing well, when a curtsy was necessary.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When would anyone in this day and age would need to know how to bow or curtsey?

I certainly wouldn't see a need to ever curtsey to anyone but I suppose some countries still teach their youth that they are inferior to other people while I was taught, and teach modern Australian youth, that we are all equal and that no one is better or worse than anyone else.

Anyone who bows or curtseys to another person is actually saying to that person 'I am inferior to you' and I don't believe that is the case between people.

 

[cepe]

When would anyone in this day and age would need to know how to bow or curtsey?

I certainly wouldn't see a need to ever curtsey to anyone but I suppose some countries still teach their youth that they are inferior to other people while I was taught, and teach modern Australian youth, that we are all equal and that no one is better or worse than anyone else.

Anyone who bows or curtseys to another person is actually saying to that person 'I am inferior to you' and I don't believe that is the case between people.[/QUOTE

As for who would need to ever curtsey or bow - I'll take the question literally and would say ballet dancers, opera performers, entertainers generally.

It is NOT about being inferior but a mark of respect, either for the audience (as in the examples I have cited) or an individual. you speak in abolute terms and that is limiting. Perhaps you should look at a broader context

 

[Iluvbertie]

I still see no reason for anyone to curtsey or bow - the examples you have sited don't need to do so - and the word I used was 'need'.

They do so to say - we are better than you because we have this skill and you don't - don't think it is a mark of respect at all but them laughing at their audience.

If they didn't do it - would it matter - no. It wouldn't change the enjoyment the audience has of the performance or the appause they would give.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

I still see no reason for anyone to curtsey or bow

It's a sign of respect. I never felt myself inferior while bowing.

 

[Roslyn]

It could be that I've bowed more than anyone else on this forum. I've bowed to a lot of judges and magistrates in the course of my career, every time I have entered or left a courtroom when the bench was occupied, and also when a judge or magistrate entered or left the room if I was there first. In this context the bow is a sign of respect for the office and the institution, and it's really not optional for members of the legal profession, however it's more a deep bob of the head than a flourishing bow, but I've seen some rather deep bows from litigants who have no doubt been told by their lawyers that they have to bow to the judge.

I cannot imagine ever bowing to anyone else unless I chose to do so to indicate my respect for that person, but that would be a matter of personal choice. And I cannot contemplate curtseying to anyone in any circumstances.

 

[cepe]

The BRF have always said that people are free todo what they like. they do not demand a curtsey or a bow.

if you want to ten do it, but it is a mark of respect, nothing else.

As part of my job I spent time in Poland in the 1990's when they were moving from communism to open market economics. Staff in the organisation I was with used to bow to their senior management. Even though life was changing, they saw it as respecting their knowledge and seniority. different from my world but I respected their view.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

It's a sign of respect. I never felt myself inferior while bowing.

I have to agree, I obviously wouldn't bow to any president as it not called for but If I ever met the Queen (or any King) I would bow out of respect not because I felt Inferior to them. Americans don't have to bow or curtsey to any British Monarch if they don't wish to too. but I would bow out of respect to the Government (The monarch)

There was a uproar when Obama bowed to The Queen a few Years ago bit it is a sign of respect from one head of state to another country.

 

[LauraS3514]

There was a uproar when Obama bowed to The Queen a few Years ago bit it is a sign of respect from one head of state to another country.

Or a younger man to an elderly woman?

 

[cepe]

Or a younger man to an elderly woman?

Well said. It is an example I hadn't thought of quoting but so right. TY

 

[miche]

Richard Palmer is saying that Buckingham Palace should apologize. Look like he was not paying attention back in 2011.
Peter Hunt
‏@BBCPeterHunt
What's in a name? Asked in 2011 by the BBC can't we just call William and Kate prince and princess, their spokesman, Paddy Harverson...(1/2)

Peter Hunt
‏@BBCPeterHunt
that's absolutely natural, no one's going to have any argument with that... they are happy (with Duke/Duchess title), we are happy..

Peter Hunt
‏@BBCPeterHunt
".., but if the public want to call them Prince William and Princess Catherine that's fine."
(Paddy Harverson 2011)

 

[Skippyboo]

I don't know why the press is getting so huffy about the princess thing. I am American and I even I know that Kate is Princess William of Wales but doesn't use that title. But she still is a princess of the UK because she married a prince of the UK and women in the UK take the rank of their husbands. She isn't a princess in her own right and if she divorces William she will lose the HRH like Diana and Fergie did.

Is the press going to apologize for still using Kate Middleton even after 2 + years of marriage? How about years of Princess Diana, which isn't correct anyways? Also the fact that the rest of royalty world a woman becomes Princess Name when marrying a prince doesn't help. But in the UK, sons of sovereign get peerages which they use instead of Prince Name.

 

[Ish]

One correction. Catherine is not Princess William of Wales, because William is no longer Prince William of Wales. He ceased to be "of Wales" when he was granted a peerage in his own right.

William is HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, ... etcetera. Catherine is HRH Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, ... etc. Both have their titles shortened for regular use to simply HRH Duke/Duchess of Cambridge.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The hullaballoo is because some people in the press erroneously told all and sundry that she wasn't a princess at all because they misinterpreted the statement from BP which said that to call her 'Princess William would be 'misleading''. Many in the press, and elsewhere, took the word 'misleading' to mean that she wasn't a princess whereas those of us who actually understand how these things actually work realised that what it meant was that she had a higher title to use - that of Duchess.

It people only realised that HRH The Duchess of Gloucester was known as HRH Princess Richard of Gloucester when she first married and then stopped using the term 'Princess' when her husband became a Duke they might then 'get it' - that being a Duchess in the UK is higher than Princess because it means that your husband is a peer of the realm rather than a commoner.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Palmer needs go get over it. The press don't need an apology. If they understood how titles worked this wouldn't have happened.

 

[HRHHermione]

Palmer needs go get over it. The press don't need an apology. If they understood how titles worked this wouldn't have happened.

I think that's why he's angry- he actually broached all these points and asked for confirmation and was told that he was wrong.


But I agree that he should probably let it go

 

[Dman]

It seems like we understood the royal titles better than the official royal correspondents.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The difference is that we are actually interested in it whereas many of them fall into the job because that is where they are sent when they get to their jobs and so they may make an effort to learn the intricacies or not - it is just a job for them - for us it is a passion as well.

 

[Queen Shirley]

Not sure this goes along with the topic but it kinda does. My Question is why does the Queen or King change their name. Example: I heard that Prince Charles would be call King William (some number). George VI real name is Albert Frederick Arthur George, Edward VII is really Albert Edward, Queen Victoria is really Alexandrina Victoria. Why did they do that? Any ideas?

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Not sure this goes along with the topic but it kinda does. My Question is why does the Queen or King change their name. Example: I heard that Prince Charles would be call King William (some number). George VI real name is Albert Frederick Arthur George, Edward VII is really Albert Edward, Queen Victoria is really Alexandrina Victoria. Why did they do that? Any ideas?

There is no truth that Charles will be called something else other then his first name when he become King. It just rumors and actually it has been said he would be known as king George VII not William but again it just rumors and speculations nothing more.

 

[royalistbert]

I think nowadays with mass media the days of using a different name are gone. It was much easier to use a different name back then than now.

 

[Ish]

Not sure this goes along with the topic but it kinda does. My Question is why does the Queen or King change their name. Example: I heard that Prince Charles would be call King William (some number). George VI real name is Albert Frederick Arthur George, Edward VII is really Albert Edward, Queen Victoria is really Alexandrina Victoria. Why did they do that? Any ideas?

Some monarchs - not many - have chosen to go with a name other than their given name for various reasons.

Victoria was christened Alexandrina Victoria, going by "Drina" when she was really young, then eventually just "Victoria." It was the name she identified with, so when she became Queen she chose to use just that instead of the double barrelled name.

Edward VII was christened Albert Edward and was known as such publicly throughout life - privately he was Bertie. The intent was that starting with him all male monarchs would have the double barrel of Albert Something, but when he became king he chose to drop his first name. It was said that this was so as to preserve the legacy of his father, but I always figured it was more because he didn't particularly like his parents and the name change gave him a bit of a chance to break free from his image as PoW.

George VI was Prince Albert previously, but known in the family as Bertie (in contrast to his brother, who was Prince Edward, but known in the family as David). The reason behind his choice of name change was because it presented a continuity with his father's reign. Given the circumstances around his ascension, I don't think they would have wanted the monarch to be a first in name.

The speculation that Charles might change his name - which is pure speculation and rumour at this point - is based on the so-called unsavouryness of the name "Charles" as a British monarch. Charles I was beheaded, Charles II left behind no legitimate heirs (leading to James II...), and Bonnie Prince Charles is styled as Charles III by the Jacobites. If Charles changes his name it's typically considered he'll go with George VII.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not sure this goes along with the topic but it kinda does. My Question is why does the Queen or King change their name. Example: I heard that Prince Charles would be call King William (some number). George VI real name is Albert Frederick Arthur George, Edward VII is really Albert Edward, Queen Victoria is really Alexandrina Victoria. Why did they do that? Any ideas?

There are different reasons in each case:

Victoria - although baptised Alexandrina Victoria was called 'Drina' until she was about 6 or 7 when her mother started called her Victoria. Her parents had wanted to name her Georgiana but George IV overruled them at the christening and insisted they name her after one of her godfathers - Alexander I of Russia and her mother, The Duchess of Kent. So by the time she became Queen Victoria was known officially and in private as Victoria.

Edward VII was baptised Albert Edward and his mother expressed the opinion that he should reign as Albert Edward I but... he dropped the Albert - a very German name in many minds, associated heavily with his father - a man whom Edward VII didn't get along all that well, and he also wanted to make it clear that he was now the King and not under the thumb of his mother so he said something along the lines of: 'I was baptised Albert Edward with the intention that I would reign as Albert Edward but I have chosen to reign only as Edward VII as I believe the name Albert, rightly associated with my father, should stand for him alone.' I am paraphrasing here as there are a few versions around as he did the announcement 'off the cuff' at the ascension council and a number of those present wrote down what he said from memory.

George VI came to the throne after the abdication so he chose to use George as a throwback to his father - to make that link of continuity from the beginning of the year after the upheavals of the 10 - 11 months of the reign of his older brother.

Each case has to be looked at individually rather than assume that it is a 'tradition' or something like that.

Elizabeth reportedly was asked what name she would use having become Queen and she replied 'Why my own of course'.

What name Charles will use - and I believe the rumour that has been around since the 1970s is that he will reign as George VII - as a tribute to his grandfather but there is no official statement to that effect. We will simply have to wait until the time comes and he announces his decision.

 

[Skippyboo]

I think in all likelihood Charles will reign as Charles III. By the time he is king a small handful of people would have been alive for the reign of George VI. The late King's name is honored by George being named for him. It seems strange that a man who might be in his 70s then would go by a different name than the one he is known by for a job that he has waited his entire life for.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Albert Edward did - having been officially referred to as HRH Prince Albert Edward for nearly 60 years when he decided to drop the Albert and people didn't have a problem with that - he was still called 'Bertie' by his family but the name on official documents was Edward and that is all that really a name change would mean - what name is used when he signs documents.

 

[Lady Kathleen]

Albert Edward did - having been officially referred to as HRH Prince Albert Edward for nearly 60 years when he decided to drop the Albert and people didn't have a problem with that - he was still called 'Bertie' by his family but the name on official documents was Edward and that is all that really a name change would mean - what name is used when he signs documents.

Wasn't he officially referred to as HRH The Prince of Wales?

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I have a question about titles from centuries ago. Edward IV's daughter was known as Elizabeth of York, would her cousin Margaret also be known as Margaret of York or Margaret of Clarence? If Richard III had a daughter would she be ____ of York of _____ of Gloucester?

 

[Ish]

I have a question about titles from centuries ago. Edward IV's daughter was known as Elizabeth of York, would her cousin Margaret also be known as Margaret of York or Margaret of Clarence? If Richard III had a daughter would she be ____ of York of _____ of Gloucester?

A hypothetical daughter of Richard's would have been "of Gloucester," in reference to her father's dukedom (unless she was born while he was king, then she would have been "of England."

Margaret would have been "of Clarence."