Well, now I’m going to have to ask for cites from both of you.
In a common-law country such as the UK, doesn’t custom have the force of law unless otherwise legislated? Is there any statute that decriminalizes improper honorifics? Or is the argument that custom does not currently (or perhaps never did) require specific honorifics?
If someone addressed the queen as “Ms Windsor”, would the crown prosecute?
I think Christopher Guest gets quite annoyed if you call him “The Right Honourable The Lord Haden-Guest, 5th Baron Haden-Guest”.
Perhaps this will satisfy you?
(bolding mine)
From the official web site of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace.
Although I’m not sure you’ve got the right idea of how common law works here, but as IANAL I’ll leave that for someone else.
In Scotland there was a common law offence known as leasing-making (presumable a crazy cognate of Lèse-majesté) that was only abolished in 2010. No-one had been prosecuted for it since 1715 however, so it was really just a tidying-up exercise.
For England, the Sedition Act 1661 covered disrepecting the Monarch with the sanction being losing the ability to hold public, military or ecclesiastical office.
Of course not.
The Monarchy is allowed to exist by the people because it amuses us. They have no power. They are the regimental goat mascot all shiny horns and painted hooves.
Any attempt to prosecute a UK citizen because they didn’t address the Queen properly would bring about a formal republic in about five seconds flat.
I recall a big flap when Michelle Obama put her arm around the Queen. But it really was just the news making the fuss. I doubt the Queen reacted at all or even said anything to Michelle.
The UK posters are appreciated and very helpful.
We get so much misinformation from books and movies. There’s no substitute for actually hearing directly from people in other countries.
They also made a fuss over Obama bowing to the Saudis.
Newspapers must sell instant outrage.
If I remember rightly, Her Maj reacted by reciprocating.
The Obamas and the Windsors seem to get on well. The last time they visited the UK (not even a formal state visit, so the expectation would normally be that the visit is focused on the PM) the Secret Service let the 94-year-old Prince Philip drive Mr and Mrs Obama from Marine One to Windsor Castle - and that kind of thing can’t happen all that often with a sitting President. After meeting the PM during the next day, the following evening they had a private dinner with William, Kate and Harry.
Thing is, the Royal family plays a long game. Barack and Michelle are both still young, and are clearly going to be involved in international causes for many years. So are the William, Kate and Harry…
Yes, she is. Except that the current term, technically speaking, is not “UK citizen”; it’s “British citizen”.
By British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 s. 1, every person “born within his Majesty’s dominions and allegiance” was deemed to be a natural-born British subject.
That law was still in force when the present Queen, then but a humble princess, was born in London in 1926, and so she became a British subject from birth.
By British Nationality Act 1948 s.12(1)(a), every British subject who had been born in the territory of the UK - a class which again includes the present Queen - became, from 1 January 1949, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. (There were other groups also given CUKC status by this Act, but we are not concerned with them here.)
By the Immigration Act 1971 all CUKCs who had been born in the territory of the UK were given a right of abode in the UK. Again, this includes the Queen.
And by the British Nationality Act 1981, all CUKCs with right of abode in the UK became British Citizens. (CUKCs without right of abode became either British Dependent Territories Citizens or British Overseas Citizens but, again, we are not concerned with them here. CUKC status was abolished.)
So, yes, the present Queen of the UK is a British citizen.
Every citizen of a member state is a citizen of the Union, and that’s the only way anyone can be a citizen of the Union. The Queen is an EU citizen, but only because she is a British citizen.
Yes. Members of her staff.
We have a similar system where I work: if people want my attention, they are required to address me by name. If they don’t address me by my name, I ignore them.
Dear me, no. Common law has the force of law unless and until overridden by statute, but not every custom represents common law. The custom of addressing the monarch as “your majesty” has no more legal force than the custom of addressing a gentleman as “sir”.
I think the forms of address for judges, during court sittings, are prescribed by law - specifically, by the Rules of Court - but it’s not a criminal provision; no penalty is prescribed for breach; and you couldn’t be prosecuted for ignoring it. And there might be one or two other contexts in which there is legal provision for forms of address, but I very much doubt if any of them are criminal provisions. In all other contexts, forms of address are entirely a matter of social custom and convention.
Keep in mind in the 40s/50s the last of the great manor houses with large servant staffs, owned by a hereditary lord were just finally dying off. Servants are trained hospitality staff of a bygone era, and would be extremely careful to follow all forms of “proper etiquette” to a Lord, primarily because Lords of that era, particularly the hereditary lords, were pretty stuffy people and they were signing these people’s paychecks so they had good reason to be accommodated in their ways.
Joe on the street hasn’t had any meaningful reason to be overly obsequious to a noble in Britain for a long time, and since many lords now are “life peers” who are just people of varying accomplishments given an honorarium, they’re a lot less attached to the hereditary mannerisms of a basically extinct etiquette/social system. There are certainly still socioeconomic classes in Britain (as there are in the United States), but the etiquette and stuff relating to the nobility just isn’t there anymore.
It’s like in the United States, you’d probably show Bill Gates some modicum of respect if you ran into him, but you wouldn’t bow and scrape.
For my point, the legal details of British citizenship were comprehensively provided above, but I think the two seemingly contradictory quotes you identified were actually addressing different points. While the monarch is the monarch, they are customarily or legally (I can’t be bothered to check) exempted from various obligations imposed on the general mass of citizens, but as individual persons would, if not monarch, be UK citizens like everyone else.
Hardly, or we would all be prosecuting each other over whether to put the milk in before or after the tea.
Unless the point has been covered by various law reforms that did a comprehensive sweep of ancient laws fallen into desuetude, I doubt if there is any relevant law one way or the other.
I get the impression US legislators are more inclined to use formal legislation to micromanage all sorts of areas where our laws would, at most, state general principles and leave it up to the courts or administrators (as appropriate) to apply them in specific circumstances. I could, for example, imagine particularly intemperate or abusive forms of “address” to HMQ that might, if used at a big public ceremony, fall foul of assorted public order laws. But overfamiliarity on a walkabout would probably be politely ignored, or if on a direct introduction might receive The Look.
I think the Queen’s tax status is a giant red herring. Tax liability in the UK (and most other countries) doesn’t really depend on citizenship. I’m not a British citizen but I were to move to the UK and work there (or to have other sources of income there) I’d pay exactly the same taxes as the person in the next cubicle who was a UK citizen. Citizenship, except in some very specific cases, is basically irrelevant to tax liability and, while the monarch’s tax treatment may be anomalous, it’s not an anomaly that has any implications for her status as a citizen.
As an update Britain is currently reeling today from the astounding news from her ex-footman, later butler to the even later Princess Diana that some of the staff in the Royal employ were and are gay. There is open amazement in the streets and much flagon pounding and shouting in the typical English pubs.
This would be like America finding out an actor on Frasier was gay.
Right. I said the queen isn’t “really” a citizen, because she doesn’t have all the obligations and privileges of citizenry. But she’s certainly not a citizen of anyplace else. She’s sui generis (so long as she remains the monarch).
But she’s not a subject; the term by its very definition excludes the monarch. From the OED:
You’re welcome!
If you’d like to see how servants used to address the nobility in England a century or so ago then I can recommend:
Indeed, but she was already converted from a “subject” to a “citizen” by the 1948 Act (before she became monarch). So the notion of “subject” is irrelevant anyway.
As already pointed out, many of the exceptions which apply to the Queen have nothing to do with citizenship. Her tax status, for example, may be anomalous but it’s not an anomaly that qualified her citizenship in any way. It’s her residence, not her citizenship, that would make her liable to UK income tax, were she not the queen.
When the present Queen was born in 1926 she wasn’t the monarch; her grandfather George V was. She was, from her birth, a subject under the legislation already quoted. (And, if that legislation had never been passed, she would have been a subject anyway at common law.)
When the British Nationality Act 1948 conferred “Citizen of the UK and Colonies” status on a class of British subjects , Betty still wasn’t the monarch; her father George VI was. (She didn’t succeed until 1952.) She was a subject, a member of the class identified by the 1948 Act, and therefore she became a CUKC.
Had she still been a subject in 1952, you could argue that on accession to the throne she would have ceased to be a subject. But she had been made a CUKC by the operation of the 1948 Act, and there’s nothing either in the the concept of “citizen” or in the legislation creating and delimiting the CUKC status that she held (or the British Citizen status that she holds today) to exclude monarchs.
It’s true to say that the Queen isn’t a subject but, then, no British citizen is a subject. Since 1981, “British subject” has been a status held by a (small, closed and declining) class of people who have historic links with the UK but who don’t hold the citizenship of any Commonwealth country. The UK is a Commonwealth country; British citizens are therefore not British subjects.
Not an in person address but in song lyrics, you can have your song banned from play on the BBC, have the entry in the published charts of hits left blank, and have some stores refuse to carry your song. Of course that was in 1977 so they might be more open minded now. It’s not like they sent the Sex Pistols to the Tower of London.
I think referring to the Queen as the inhuman head of a fascist regime counts. 