Sir Elton and Diana after the divorce were fairly close friends, and he’s known the Princes since they were quite young. I’m quite sure if invited to William’s investiture as Prince of Wales he’d accede to all proper ceremonial – but this was a concert commemorating their mother/his good friend, not a ceremonial occasion, and he treated them as the lifelong friends as children now grown up that they are to him.
No. The English Civil War established the primacy of Parliament over the Monarch.
You capitalized the first word of every sentence. Also the words “Catholics”, “Latin”, “Britain”, and “Queen”. But using “God” as a proper name — possessive no less — you did not. I think that might betray a bias that tarnishes your objectivity. After all, I believe the “souvenir plate” still invited the new Prime Minister to form her government.
(Thanks to all who gave factual answers. And Priceguy, see ATMB. :))
No, he’s not. Sir Elton is a knight, not a peer. He’s still considered a commoner (under the strictest definitions so are William and Harry). My WAG is that the princes asked him not to bow. Both of them are known for their dislike of excessive royal protocol.
Out of interest, what kind of bias would mean someone capitalised “Catholics” and not “God”?
Yeah, because we let her. They don’t rule us by right, they rule us because we allow them to. If you think for a split second that had she not invited Brown to form a government that we wouldn’t remove that power from her legally, you don’t understand the position the Royal Family play in modern Britain. They rule in name only.
I think Liberal is saying that if we don’t even bother to maintain the pretence that they are our superiors any more, how come the whole charade doesn’t fall apart?
My answer would be that it is falling apart, gradually. It’s turning into something like what the Queen derisively calls the “bicycling monarchies” of Scandinavia and the low countries, where in some cases they don’t even have any theoretical reserve powers.
Factually speaking, the Queen is Head of State. The Head of State may or may not have any political powers. It may be a purely symbolic role as “the spirit of the nation” as de Gaulle called it. You are factually quite confused to assume any other role for the Queen.
This also answers your other comment:
As Head of State, the Queen and her position - and her age - mandates some show of dignity. This does not carry over to the Queen’s family, as it does not to the family of our Head of State, such as the president’s children, grandchildren, or siblings. There is no formal or protocol reason to treat the Queen’s grandchildren as special human beings. Especially if, as alphaboi867 suggests, they are technically commoners. (I’m not sure what this means, so I’d like some explanation.)
And I also thought that you did not consider god to be a person, but more of a concept. Why then your insistence that I capitalize a concept? Notice that I didn’t capitalize president either, which has long been true as a modern style directive.
You are of course entitled to your opinions about what I write, but not to the facts which I use to make my case.
My apologies. I misunderstood your comment. Though this made me once again wish that more people used actual locations.
What facts? You haven’t stated any facts that I haven’t already stated. The question was why didn’t Sir Elton bow. Your first “contribution” was “Nothing” and “This is a joke, no?”. The rest went downhill from there. You made up a metaphor about religion for the sole purpose of deriding both it and the monarchy so you could express your *opinion * of those. The only “case” I can discern you making is that the monarchy is politically powerless — something which is of absolutely no interest to this topic. A person doesn’t bow to the government; he bows to the state — that which she is the head of. As to children, republics don’t have heirs but monarchies do. If there’s something you’d like to debate, I wish you’d open a GD thread. If you’d like to insult my intelligence and my faith, I wish you’d open a Pit thread. If you’d like to answer my question, I wish you would.
The Queen remains head of state through the good-humored toleration of the British public, based partly on an awareness that an elected President doesn’t add much to public life.
The Queen is “the nation’s favourite Granny”, however much she might wish to be taken more seriously, and if the Monarchy attempted to exercise any real political power we’d have a republlic sooner than you can say “off with their heads”.
As for Sir Elton and the Princes, if you watch the after-show reception footage you’ll see the Princes mixing with performers and press in a very relaxed and informal manner.
These are lads who spend most weekends getting blitzed in London nightclubs with the rest of the proles - and their mother was the “People’s Princess”, you can’t pretend to be one of the people and then expect the public to fling themselves to their knees everytime you enter a room.
I don’t think Elton went that far; the handshakes were probably sufficient.
Amazing how many people don’t understand the point to the OP. :rolleyes: Ursam appears to be the only person who “got” it. Exapno Mapcase quite thoroughly didn’t.
Lib, in answer to your question, the monarchy in Britain is undergoing a change, primarily, in my opinion, brought about by the absolutely absurd behavior of many of its members, who have failed to adhere to the standards that the public would expect of them if they were to expect the public to treat them as anything “special.” One can argue that this goes back to the Edward VII issue; when a king can up and just quit so he can marry someone he likes, how special can being monarch be? But the antics of Margaret, Charles, Andrew, et alia have truly tarnished the whole notion.
It may also have to do with the fact that the Anglo-American generation that grew up in the 60s and 70s has a pronounced “screw the establishment and their traditions” bias. Many of my friends here are equally disdainful of any vestige of “traditional” behavior, though admittedly there is very little in this country of completely similar nature.
Since we’re going on about protocol, might as well note that he’s not “Sir Elton John”; he’s Sir Reginald Dwight. (And there’s never been a “Princess Diana” in British history. There was a Lady Diana, Princess of Wales.)
I’ve always thought that Elizabeth II and her children had struck a pretty good compromise (at least as well as we can see publicly) when they meet people one-on-one – dignified but not too ceremonious.
He legally changed his name to Elton Hercules John (jpg of certificate), so isn’t he really Sir Elton?
As a person who has the Queen as the head of state, I would have to say WHAT?! The Queen is the Queen, out of a sense of removed loyalty I would always respect her but bow, not so much.
But a question please. If people don’t bow to the govt why is the US pres afforded so much pomp and glory, bowing and scraping?
I think my prime minister (NZ) would die of shock if she got half the “respect” the US president is afforded. She (or her position) is far more of the people for the people…yet we still give the Queen a place on our money…much better then a bow 
I was under the impression that only the heir-apparent was “His Royal Highness”. Thus
Should it not have been “His Royal Highness Prince William and His Highness Prince Harry!”
Regards,
Shodan
In general the rank of Prince/Princess in the UK denotes His/Her Royal Highness. There are some exceptions to this, indicating some discretion on the part of the parents and/or monarch as detailed in the wiki article. In any case, Prince Harry is HRH.
He serves as both head of government **and ** head of state.
==================
DSYoungEsq, thanks for that response, which does make sense. Maybe we are witnessing the unraveling of the institution. If so, it’s a terrible shame. Like Joni Mitchell said, “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”
Nah-It’s not unravelling at all. It will remain (albeit in slightly modified form) because it pays. Sure it’s expensive to have a monarch, but in terms of tourism alone–Royals are a goldmine. I realize that British subjects (are you all still called subjects?) have to suffer through many millions of people who consider their home a playland, but it does help pay the bills, no?
I think that Elton is a family friend and that the princes probably asked him to not slow things down with protocol.
Thanks.
Runs off to create a new batch of address labels.
Regards,
Shodan
Not since 1983, when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force. There are a small number of “British subjects without citizenship” left, but the status is not inheritable, and I’ve never understood the circumstances giving rise it.