[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Okay, I’m listening. Tell us those reasons, please.
[/QUOTE]
They provide structure, format, and order to social, political, and diplomatic interaction. They are, metaphorically, the grease for the wheel of social and political interaction.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
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?
[/QUOTE]
I completely agree with you on this. One thing I think is interesting about her is that being Queen was kind of thrust upon her. I mean, it’s true that no one actually chooses it, but in her case, her father never really should have been King, and the actions of his brother thrust it upon him, and not having any brothers to ascend the throne was I think in her mind more unfortunate than fortunate. What young woman, after all, doesn’t want to live her own life? I understand that her father was miserable as King, but did what he thought was his duty, as she did also. Of course, neither of them had to be the monarch in order to enjoy a privileged life…they have tons of their own money, and life probably would have been a lot more pleasant if they simply could have been pampered aristocrats with no obligations, but she has done her job for the last 60 years, well and devotedly. She did indeed participate in the war effort when she clearly did not have to. She’s 80 some years old and still carries on her duties every day. People here may thing she doesn’t do much, but as I said earlier, a lot of it is probably pretty boring and repetitive, and she does it because the people want her to. I think that’s pretty respectable.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You opened the batting with a dismissive “Lizzie”, I bowled a somewhat tongue-in-cheek “Mrs Windsor”. Ah well…
But you know what? You’re right, I have absolutely no need to, nor intention of meeting a King or a Queen or a President or any head of state. I can imagine nothing worse. I would prefer to spend that time in the company of ordinary, down to earth human beings who face the same day to day challenges I do.
If that makes me a social misfit, so be it.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt an Amish person would expect me to dress in their fashion just because I am in their presence, just as I would not expect them to don an orange polka-dot vest in mine. Social protocol may indeed be valuable, to a point. Perhaps I just draw the line… point at a different place. For instance, I fail to see how kowtowing to public servants is of value to humanity any more than fawning over movie stars is.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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.
[/QUOTE]
But that courtesy must go both ways or it is no longer beneficial, nor even courteous. If one group is required to treat someone as a superior, that’s not courtesy. But to treat each individual with the same level of respect and dignity regardless of background or social status, is. Courtesy is speaking to a street whore as if she were a Lady.
Of course I ain’t Miss Manners, this is just my feelings on the matter.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Brenda, she also answers to Brenda
::snicker::
[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
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.
[/QUOTE]
As queen she has no surname. She is of the house of Windsor and has declared that her children would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor on occassions that they needed a surname, but in general the royal family (those that have the title of prince/princess) does not have one.
Her personal name is simply, Elizabeth Alexandria Mary.
Or Brenda.
Brenda Mountbatten-Windsor - yeah, much easier on the tongue.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Are we talking about the same person?
Elizabeth came to the throne in 1953. What she did during the war was pleasant, but she wasn’t the Monarch.
In the last 55 years, with an annual income of millions, some amazing titles and people fawning all over her, she has done … nothing (apart from being a figurehead).
[QUOTE=glee]
Are we talking about the same person?
Elizabeth came to the throne in 1953. What she did during the war was pleasant, but she wasn’t the Monarch.
In the last 55 years, with an annual income of millions, some amazing titles and people fawning all over her, she has done … nothing (apart from being a figurehead).
[/QUOTE]
No, she wasn’t Queen during the war, but she was a princess, and did not have to serve in the manner she did. As WhyNot mentioned earlier, her father (the king) did not want her to go, but she insisted. What difference does it make if she was queen at the time, or not?
As far as having done nothing the past 60 years, I disagree with that. She may not do work that you consider useful, but she does work.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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!
[/quote]
I don’t have any tattoos. I would wear a suit to an interview and be punctual. But if I met my interviewer down the pub later, I wouldn’t call him ‘Sir’. Because now it’s just two blokes having a drink.
However there is no such switch-off with the Monarchy. You stand up whenever she enters the room. You don’t call her by her name under any circumstances.
There’s a difference between being respectful of a representative and assuming that someone is always your superior by birth, even in private.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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.
[/quote]
You’re a lawyer. You behave according to protocol in court. Fine - the law is serious. But can you relax outside the courtroom? You certainly can’t ever relax with the Queen.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Courtesy – even extended, deferential courtesy – costs the extender nothing.
[/QUOTE]
How will the Queen be treating me? Will she be courteous and respectful of my status as a free citizen of a democracy? Or will she demand a level of deference that is inappropriate from someone who is not one of her subjects? I’m willing to meet her halfway on this one.
[QUOTE=glee]
You’re a lawyer. You behave according to protocol in court. Fine - the law is serious. But can you relax outside the courtroom? You certainly can’t ever relax with the Queen.
[/QUOTE]
Nor can she ever relax with you, beyond the confines of what protocol requires of her. The constraints go both ways, in terms of her interactions with the public, whether exalted or humble.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
How will the Queen be treating me? Will she be courteous and respectful of my status as a free citizen of a democracy? Or will she demand a level of deference that is inappropriate from someone who is not one of her subjects? I’m willing to meet her halfway on this one.
[/QUOTE]
From all accounts she is a very gracious woman who would not call for your execution for breach of UK royal protocol or try to make you uncomfortable in her presence. One example of how she treats people is the following account as told by Paul Burrell, her former footman and also Princess Diana’s former butler.
Let me just clarify that in my view, Bricker’s Option A does not imply “feel free to treat her rudely.”
Option A states, “treat her like anyone else.” The queen is a human being and should be accorded the kind of treatment that any human being is due.
Given that, I’m in option A.
I particularly object to the idea that any person holding a position of public trust deserves “deferential respect.” People in such positions are our employees, our subordinates. If anything, they owe the rest of us deferential respect.
We’ve had several similar threads, IIRC, but in any event it’s Option B for me.
I’m proud to be a citizen of this great republic, and am quite glad we’ve had no king or queen of our own since 1776. Still, the Queen is head of state of a great nation which has long been a close ally of ours, and has a sense of duty and personal dignity that appeals to me. She’s done a difficult and at times mind-numbingly boring job for more than 50 years, and done it with class and style. I would not bow to her, as I don’t think a citizen of the United States should bow to anyone, but I would treat her with perhaps a bit more solicitude than some random 80-year-old woman I met on the bus. I’m polite to everyone, but the Queen deserves particular respect, I’d say.
Given his shabby treatment of his late wife, I probably won’t feel quite the same about the Queen’s eldest son when and if he ascends the throne.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
I particularly object to the idea that any person holding a position of public trust deserves “deferential respect.” People in such positions are our employees, our subordinates. If anything, they owe the rest of us deferential respect.
[/QUOTE]
You might make that argument fly about the President of the United States. Even then, I’d disagree, but you’d have a point.
It’s not true when applied to the Queen. She wasn’t elected. She embodies the sovereign state. She IS the Crown. She is NOT subordinate to the commoner.
Who died and made her Queen?
She AIN’T my superior. If some people want to pretend that she’s superior to them, then whatever. But she’s just an old woman with a fancy hat. She may be superior to commoners in her little club, but that means nothing to me, any more than someone being a 32nd degree Mason means that I should bow and scrape. If someone wants to belong to that club and bow and scrape to someone because they are a 1st degree mason and the other guy is a 32nd degree Mason, well, they can knock themselves out.
But that has nothing to do with ME. I’m a free man, not a “commoner”. If I went 'round saying I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away. So no, she’s nobody special. That doesn’t give me the right to be rude to her, any more than I have the right to be rude to the lady pushing the shopping cart full of aluminum cans.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Who died and made her Queen?
[/QUOTE]
That would be her father, King George VI. 
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
She may be superior to commoners in her little club, but that means nothing to me, any more than someone being a 32nd degree Mason means that I should bow and scrape. If someone wants to belong to that club and bow and scrape to someone because they are a 1st degree mason and the other guy is a 32nd degree Mason, well, they can knock themselves out.
[/QUOTE]
As a 32nd degree Mason, I can assure you that no Entered Apprentice is expected to bow or scrape to me, nor do I request that anyone honor my title as Master of the Royal Secret, nor my various knighthoods.
I might after reading this thread, though -
Bow down before Sir Bobo, Knight of Kadosh and Master of the Royal Secret!