Aren’t these the same thing?
Ahem, there most certainly is an ‘England’. The United Kingdom is exactly that, a political union of kingdoms - we never ‘abolished’ the separate nations. I am both English AND British, thank you very much.
By protocol, you have to wait for her to speak to you. Although I guess it depends on how official the party is.
Nothing would ‘happen’ - you aren’t going to get dragged off to the Tower of London. I’m sure the Queen has met a gazillion people over the years who haven’t used the correct protocol and I’m quite sure she doesn’t lose sleep over it. Seeing as you’re not trying to be rude, the safest thing would be to call her ‘Ma’am’, which is what everyone is expected to call her anyway after the initial ‘Your Majesty’.
However, I don’t see why you’re getting your knickers in a twist about it. It’s no more deferential than calling Mr Bush "Mr President’ or calling my college head of department ‘Professor’. Different job, different job title.
Calling her anything else, such as ‘Mrs Windsor’ would just make you look rude or ignorant. Your choice.
Aren’t what the same thing?
If you mean “Etiquette” = “foolish old tradition”, then I’d say no, on the whole.
If you mean that abstaining from doing a thing expected by custom, because you think it’s silly, is – in itself – a political statement; well… possibly. It would be a wider definition of the word “political” than I was thinking of, though.
I meant that they would be tantamount to the same thing. You’d be making a statement about your beliefs by declining to participate in protocol.
Me, I don’t think I’d have much choice if I met the queen but to bow even though I’m vaguely a republican, what with me being one of her employees and all.
Well, it kind of is more deferential. “Professor” and “Mr. President” are job titles, and nothing else. But “Majesty” is a word with meaning outside of its use as an address - “The quality of being impressive and great.” And the form of address came from the word, not vice-versa.
Don’t get me wrong - if I met the queen, I’d follow the rules. If I thought I couldn’t, I’d decline the opportunity to meet her (since I doubt many people meet her without knowing it ahead of time), rather than disregard the rules, just because I don’t agree with them.
[hijack] Isn’t there a story out there about a Nobel prize winner who, after learning that you cannot turn your back on the King of Norway and had to back up a few steps after receiving the prize, planned to hop up the steps backwards? ISTR he was disappointed to find this was no longer court protocol, and it was OK to turn around and proceed up the steps normally.
"Hey, your Majesty, those pigs in a blanket were meant for everyone!’
By that stage in the party, I’m thinking "Hey, MA’AM, those pigs in a blanket were meant for everyone!’ would be the correct protocol
Who’s getting up in arms here? Not me.
This was a lighthearted bit of fun revolving around a silly question about a silly institution. Nevertheless, there have been more than a few interesting factual answers, including yours.
For the record, I see no reason to use “Mr. President” or “Professor”. Nor do I or any of my coworkers call the CEO of our company “Chairman” or “Founder”, and he is a billionaire who very nearly has the power of life and death over us. We don’t call most other people by their job titles, why this select few? In college, “Dr. XYZ” always worked, and it has the advantage of being the person’s name.
I would like to know if anybody has any information about addressing other high and mighty folks, though.
It is my understanding that there shall always be one.
When in doubt of the correct form of address, I always use “excellency.” I have no idea who really rates “excellency,” but it seems to work for ambassadors, minor princes and so on.
“Dr” is another title, earned by getting a PhD (or MD, I guess, though we all know those aren’t REAL doctors 
) In college I just referred to my professors as “mr. xyz” or “mrs. xyz” and that’s how they introduced themselves to us, so I guess it fit. I’m from california, though, we do things more laid back there (hell, I’ve been to a wedding in sandals before, and I wasn’t the only one!)
Back to Japan, I know most of the formality in dealing with the Emperor was dropped after WWII (when the emperor basically passed the buck to Gen. Morimoto (I think?) and said “oh yea, that war thing? his idea! Your sons/husbands/fathers didn’t actually die for me, they died for that guy!” which pissed off a lot of people, understandably) and in fact half the people I talk to around here (Toyama) don’t even know who the current Emperor is! (It’s Akihito, for those keeping score). But there’s defniitely a lot of severe-angle bowing that takes place, and a lot of formality around the visits. That said, formality is inherent in the Japanese culture in all walks of life, so it’s no surprise
Or perhaps you would like a free resource with actual information you can have right now. Imagine, you can actually get a lot of free information on the web, instead of sending $19.95 and waiting six weeks for delivery. 
“Your Holy Worshipfulness” on first reference; “sweetheart” thereafter.
United Kingdom was until 1999 a unitary state, with one parliament. The Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of England do not exist anymore, the UK (via Great Britain) is their successor. The existance of state is quite an important concept in international law; if the case was as you said, then the UK would be in no different position from NATO or the EU (which are also political union).
There is a cultural region called “England” a legal judistriction called “England and Wales”. But there is no political entity called “England”.
Well excuse me for trying to be helpful.
I think we can all agree that the United Kingdom is a pretty unique political State, in no way comparable to the EU, as a collection of nation states, or the US as a collection of non-nation states. The Government itself describes the UK as ‘countries within a country’. Whilst they may be governed as a group, they are still viewed as separate countries by the populace. Quote from the offical website of the Prime Minister:
“The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”
England is more than a cultural ‘region’.
^
Check out Art 1 Treaty of the Union 1706, that is the clause that created Great Britain expressly created a new state. The fact that the old states retained distinct identities is a different and irrelevent matter entirely.
Or I better sue the Inns of Court School of Law in London, for my money back, they taught me bullshit?