I have no problem with deferring to any number of people no matter what their position. I also have no problem being firm with people who might deserve deference if their attitude gets in the way of me doing my job.
As an American citizen, I would definitely not bow to any monarch. I’d of course extend basic courtesy to her. While I do think the Queen is worthy of respect, I tend to treat all people with “full respect” lest they do something to warrant being treated otherwise. So I wouldn’t treat her with any more respect than I’d treat any other normal person who hasn’t earned my distaste.
If she was my queen, I think I would probably follow whatever protocols were proper–as she would be a national symbol and I tend to respect those.
If I was President of the United States, then if I was meeting the Queen as one Head of State to another, then I’d probably follow whatever protocols normally apply in such a situation. I think I’ve seen Presidents do a slight bow to the Queen, but I think that is probably the diplomatic conventions as to how Heads of State deal with each other.
For those that are offering some variant of, “I’d treat her with basic courtesy, but not with any deference,” what would you call her? Lizzie? Your Majesty? Something in between?
I’d listen to the little man whose job it is to remind me what I’m supposed to call her, and then I’d use that. Generally speaking, I try to remember to call people whatever they want to be called.
I suppose if I ran out of toilet paper in the ladies’ and she was in the next stall and I had no coaching, I’d address her as “ma’am”*, same as I would any other woman whom I didn’t know.
*Pronounced, in my dialect, “mam” to rhyme with ham, although I have a vague memory that “mum” is what one is supposed to call her.
What does she want to be called? My brother had a girlfried once, and introduced her as “Rio”. About a year later, it turned out that now we were supposed to call her “Jay”. So I stopped calling her Rio and started calling her Jay. It’s no big deal.
Do people really call her “Your Majesty” at these meet and greets? Suppose you’re the American Ambassador, and you’re introduced to the Queen. Is that what you’re expected to call her? “Your Majesty, could you pass the salt? Thanks. Traffic over here was murder, did you have any problems?” Like that?
“Ma’am”, as I’ve said before. “Thank you, Ma’am”, “A pleasure, Ma’am”, etc. When is “Ma’am” or “Sir” inappropriate?
It’s not like I’d holding long conversations in a moonlit park with her, nor sitting through a formal dinner. I assume I’d follow convention if I had any interest in chillin’ with a queen.
That was Diderot.
You might want to start by properly addressing her as Her Majesty. 
Actually, in conversation with Her Majesty, you switch to just “ma’am” after being introduced.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal … .”
As an American I would endeavor to treat her with the same level of politeness that I use for all nice old ladies. She deserves neither more, nor less.
I would treat her with the respect of any position that I believe she holds. I have no problem thinking she’s the Queen, so a “Your Majesty” wouldn’t really be out of the question. I’d even call her “Defender of the Faith” (should I ever need to), since while I don’t believe in the truth of the faith she is enshrined as the Defender of it.
I would be happy to call Stalin whatever named position it was he held. I don’t particularly like the idea that being a particularly nasty bastard means we don’t give him his title; it sends the message that holders of such titles are inherently good people. Not referring to people by their titles IMHO should be reserved for cases where you don’t believe they truly hold those positions, or that they cheated into them.
There’s a flaw in the construction of this question. The last two sentences in option B properly belong in option A. I’d treat the queen just as I’d treat any other charming and gracious 81 year old woman: with respect.
Gosh, you’re right, thanks for that I’d always thought it was Voltaire.
Step 1: Hang the last king with the entrails of the last priest.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Mrs Windsor, or whatever her surname is.
I’m firmly encamped in A. I generally treat people with respect. She would get no more, no less.
Obviously the Queen is category A.
She inherited the position (if she’d had an younger brother, he would have taken priority) and she’s never made a decision or done anything apart from being a figurehead at official events.
As for her titles:
Supreme Governor of the Church of England - she has never made any comment or given guidance over any of the religious controversies. Women priests? Don’t ask the Queen. Sharia Law? No comment.
Duke of NormandyNow French.
Paramount Chief of FijiNo political, economic or environmental effort.
How do you know she’s charming? Most of her family are dysfunctional (her husband is a bigot).
You seem to think that a Head of State who isn’t a mass murderer deserves ‘deference’.
Would you bow to Elizabeth?
Would you wait to speak until she does?
Would you back out the room so as not to turn your back on her?
If hosting a visit, would you accept paying to have the toilet completely refurbished in case she decides to use it?
I am going to depart from the usual carefully moderated, debatesy tone I try to strike here.
What the hell??
“Hello, Mrs. Windsor?”
We have protocols for a reason. I’m always amazed at the people that feel their forty-six tattoos shouldn’t matter when it comes to getting that stockbroker job. It DOES matter. So, too, does the willingness to follow appropriate protocol when meeting with the freakin’ Queen of England!
We have rules, social conventions, and social and diplomatic protocol for good and solid reasons. Deciding to reject those in favor of your personal idea that everyone is the same is not rugged individualism – it’s the act of a social misfit.
This isn’t a big deal in reality because the vast majority of you espousing this view will never (thankfully) meet the Queen. But I think it bespeaks of a certain quixiotic view of the world that is not remotely grounded in good social practice.
- sets up camp in Bricker’s corner *
Can’t add to that. Nicely summarized, sir.
Please to tell how it matters. Would a modern, respectable, head of state order a flogging for a non-subject who didn’t show the proper reverence? Would US-British relations collapse if a random peasant was unimpressed with her imperial majesticness? Would she even notice if one out of hundreds made what could well sound like a slip of the tongue?
On the other side of the coin, who gives a flying rats tushy if a British commoner didn’t called Dubya “Mr. President”? He isn’t their president and she’s not my queen. I didn’t vote for either of them and don’t particularly care to suck up to them. Yet they’ve not personally insulted me, so they’ll still get a ma’am or sir (as appropriate) until/unless they do. Neither are “better” than any of us, any more than some Hollywood star. They have highly visible jobs that keep them in the public eye, and nothing else.
Right, so we know our place and don’t get above our station. If the ordinary politeness of a Westerner isn’t good enough, that’s just a damn shame, but it’s all I got.
I’m pretty darn sure that someone, sometime, has met British Royalty and not used the proper honorific, yet the world didn’t fall from the heavens nor did the queen die in horror.
Okay, I’m listening. Tell us those reasons, please.
glee, I think any woman who could have quietly sat out WWII wearing furs and jewels and playing with her corgis and instead trained to become a mechanic and actually worked on military vehicles day-to-day has earned my respect. Queen or housewife, those Rosies* changed the western world for their daughters and granddaughters (as well as their sons and grandsons), and they all have my respect. That’s one thing she’s done apart from “being a figurehead at official events,” and it’s actually the thing I most admire her for.
*Rosie the Riveter - was she just a US icon?
Undoubtedly true. But since I’m not claiming that death or celestial untangling is a likely consequence of this omission, this would be a strawman.
What I am claiming is that social protocol and convention is of value to us humans. I am no expert on the Amish, but I suspect that there’s no written book of Amish fashion that specifically prohibits orange polka-dot vests.
If an Amish man dons an orange polka-dot vest, you might say that it makes no difference, that the color of his clothing serves no functional purpose and is therefore irrelevant. But this is a reaction blind to social norms and conventions. When our Amish friend puts that vest on, he is making a statement placing himself outside the rest of Amish society. He is rejecting societal norms, and arrogating a special appearance to himself that sets himself apart from his Amish cousins.
Now, this is not a binary analysis. Foolish rhetors might read these words and attempt a reductio ad absurdio argument; they might claim I support lock-step conformity with society, discriminating against racial minorities and enforcing outdated gender roles merely because it’s a societal convention.
Fortunately, there are none of that ilk present here. Savvy readers will quickly grasp that I am in favor of a balancing test – weighing the imposition created by the compliance with the protocol against the the benefit. Courtesy – even extended, deferential courtesy – costs the extender nothing.