Actually under normal protocol a queen-dowager/mother (every queen-mother is a queen-dowager) is styled “Her Majesty Queen N”. However since Elizabeth II chose to reign under first given name (the was some speculation she’d reign as Mary III) Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon chose to include the actual words “queen-mother” in her title. A queen-consort keeps the title queen and other privileges (like exemption from coveture) after her king dies. Henry VIII’s last wife survived him and even remarried, but remained a queen.
Deference, I think, is the word you are looking for.
So, all that is said in this thread makes me wonder (and I may start a new thread…).
What are the remaining powers of the Reigning British Monarch?
I was under the impression that only the King or Queen could actually declare the UK at a state of war.
Actually, the word I was looking for was “protocol”, which I just read in another post.
Thank you.
I probably shouldn’t have posted here antway. I missed the OP’s point.
Well, my operating principle in this instance — and whether it’s Southern, I don’t know — is that if you’re going to make a commitment to something, you ought to produce with your life what you’re proclaiming with your mouth. He pledged his service to the throne. He did so voluntarily and willfully. By my libertarian sensibilities, it smacks of deception to make a pledge and reneg. The Queen rightfully expects his loyalty. If that means bowing, then he should bow. But I suppose that the point has been made that bowing is no longer required.
Now, what *may * be Southern to some extent is an appreciation of gentility, tradition, and fidelity. For as long as I’ve been here, I’ve made no secret that my personal preference, if I had my own choice, would be a libertarian monarchy. (Remember that any system of government is libertarian so long as all are volunteers.)
:smack: In retrospect, I cannot believe I said that Charles might have to change his name to Elizabeth. It must have been a bizarre mental moment.
He might not even become Charles III, he could choose to reign as George VII.
He can pick whatever name he likes when he becomes King, indeed many think he may choose to be George VII rather than Charles III . King Elizabeth I would certainly be a novel departure!
He named himself Hercules? What a riot!
okay, let’s take it one bit at a time.
once upon a time there was a king, (his majesty THE king) a queen, (her majesty queen elizabeth,), and a dowager queen (her majesty queen mary). THE king and his wife (q.e.) had two lovely daughters (their royal highness, princess elizabeth and princess margaret). queen mary and queen elizabeth were never called “THE queen”.
sadly THE king died youngish and his daughter, her majesty THE queen took over. when THE king died his mother (her majesty queen mary) and his wife (her majesty queen elizabeth) survived him. two dowager queens.
to avoid confusion with the reigning monarch, and other dowager (for those who did not pay attention to the fellow announcing people at events) her majesty queen elizabeth went along with the queen mum thing. she wouldn’t be called queen mum when speaking to her. although, i’m sure there were a few confused souls who did and she would just go along, so as not to addle them further.
when introducing the three queens at an event they were attending, they would be announced thusly (and in this order):
her majesty queen mary!!!
her majesty queen elizabeth!!!
her majesty THE queen!!! (cue her theme song)
when refering to her mum THE queen would ask such things as: “is her majesty queen elizabeth about?” she would not call her “her majesty queen mum”. that just made it easier for people and news items to know which elizabeth you are dealing with. sometimes people miss the very, very, important “THE” in titles.
now, THE queen and her husband have 4 children, one of whom is THE prince of wales. THE prince of wales and diana, princess of wales (who lost THE in the divorce) have 2 sons; prince william and prince henry of wales.
due to the divorce diana, princess of wales would (in official court thingies) have to curtsy to her sons. in non-official court thingies she could knock them upside the head if they needed it.
as it stands now, THE queen is bowed and curtsied to upon first intoduction (if you
belong to the uk or commonwealth) you don’t touch her unless she offers her hand. also it is very frowned upon to engulf any queen (THE or otherwise) in a big hug and kiss.
as far as princes wm. and harry, they have made it known that they don’t stand on ceremony in their daily life. i thought elton john did well in introducing them. his shoulder pat had a bit of a “courage, comfort” feel to it. something i’m sure prince harry was welcoming of since he was about to talk in front of millions on his mum’s birthday. note that the older william did not get a shoulder pat.
a pat on the po-po would only be appropiate during a rugby game during a brilliant play. i don’t believe elton john would be in a position to do such.
Apparently it’s not directly after the mythical strongman, but rather the horse in the old British sitcom Steptoe and Son.
He named himself after a HORSE?!?
Wow. That is a very good explanation and answer to my questions, Rocking Chair. I’m not usually tolerant of text-message posts, but yours was sufficiently readable, and I’m glad I took the time to read it. It actually makes sense to me. 
It’s not like Reg suddenly became a Peer of the Realm. It’s only a K, pretty low on the totem pole; they dish them out by the dozen to senior civil servants and time-serving MPs and useless Jodrell Bankers like Paul McCartney who can’t even write a line of music down . Everyone knows the Queen has very little say in who gets one and who doesn’t, it’s the Prime Minister’s Office which puts them up for it. [See ‘Cash For Honours’ for the recent changes to the selection process in this area, though]. There’s a place for Court formality, and it’s not at a pop concert. Arguably Prince William and Prince Henry are signalling their personal style with this approach (a generation ago you wouldn’t have heard any prince described by the ‘Harry’ diminutive) but that’s probably reading too much into it.
This quote is all over the internet
and it appears to be sourced from a reference work called “Rock Stars do the Funniest Things”.
to forstall further musings…
if diana, princess of wales out lived charles, and one of her sons became THE king, he could (and i’m sure would) give her back her title, or give another title to her, if THE princess of wales was unavailable. she would still curtsy to her son the king, and his queen, but not her grandchildren (unless they gained the throne before her death).
she would or could if she so wanted, to be called “the king('s) mum” in the way queen elizabeth was the queen('s) mum. as she would not be a consort queen, she would not have queen in any title.
as dowager, queen mary would curtsy to her son THE king, but was on an equal footing with his wife queen elizabeth. the same also held for queen elizabeth when her daughter became THE queen. diana would not be on an equal footing with a daughter-in-law when her son becomes THE king due to the divorce.
this was a major bone of the divorce settlement. THE queen would not budge on the matter and diana lost “hrh” and “THE” in the settlement. the divorce of andrew and sarah earlier did play a hand in this.
From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’!
Nitpick: 'twas Edward VIII.
Another thread that may be of interest: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=410562&page=1
For the record, acsenray’s strange theories of political science to one side, that person who acts in official capacity in behalf of the nation-state as a corporate entity, embodying it for purposes in which it needs to act with a single hand and voice, is the head of state. It can be a total figurehead sovereign (e.g., the King of Sweden no longer has any personal prerogative powers whatsoever), a president in a parliamentary republic (e.g., Italy), a president in a presidential republic (e.g., U.S.), the presiding officer of a real or figrehead multiperson body, such as Gosp. Kalenin, President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet during World War II, and thus the figurehead head of state of the U.S.S.R., even though Stalin was dictator. Heads of state embody the continuity of governance when individual governments can fall, as in a parliamentary vote of no confidence, they formally receive ambassadors in the name of the nation, they carry many formal functions (e.g., officially signing a bill into law). They may have no, a limited amount, a shared amount, or the overwhelming majority, of the power and authority for day-to-day governance, and the same spread of authority in crisis. Hitler, for example, received authority to rule by decree from Hindenburg in the latter’s capacity as head of state able to grant that authority in time of crisis – an example of when the power can be abused. Mr. Bush like all American Presidents has been head of state and head of government. In parliamentary republics, the premier is head of government, but a president with reserve powers functions as head of state.
Elizabeth II (but not the rest of the Windsors) is head of state for the U.K. – which is why it’s the United Kingdom, not the United Something-or-Other. She has very limited and circumscribed powers, plus a bunch of prerogative powers formally vested in her but to be exercised only on the “advice” (=instructions) of her ministers. The rest of the Royal Family function as backup to her, in the ceremonial duties expected of her (Can Her Majesty dedicate the new wing of the hospital? Well, no, but Princess Alexandra will be free; will she do?)
As for titles, the style of the late king’s (or kings’) consort(s) is completely up to the monarch regnant, who will normally take their wishes into account. AFAIK, “Queen Dowager” is not a formal style for “the late king’s widow” but has been used for clarification purposes.
In the U.K., there can be only one “His Majesty” alive – the king regnant. In historical contexts, of course, it’s appropriate to use it to reference former kings now dead. There can be a multiplicity of “Her Majesties” – the Queen Regnant, if the incumbent monarch is of the female persuasion, the Queen Consort, if the incumbent monarch is a married man, and any living former Queen Consorts.
As far as I know, “His Highness” with no “Royal” infixed exists in British stylings only as the title for visiting or resident-exiled foreign figures of royal or principial status.
“His (or Her) Royal Highness” includes, by a 1917 ruling of George V, only the following:
[ol][li]Children of the monarch[/li][li]Children of sons of the monarch[/li][li]The eldest living son of the son of the heir apparent[/li][indent][indent]to which may be added, as surviving from preceding reigns
[li]Brothers and sisters of the monarch[/li][li]Aunts and uncles of the monarch, on the royal side[/li][li]First cousins of the monarch, on the royal side[/li][li]Children of the monarch’s brother(s)[/ol][/li]
I’m not positive that’s all inclusive – it would need to include everyone who might have been entitled to “HRH” under a previous reign who could reasonably be expected to have survived.
dowager is the titled version of widow. it is used to keep confusion to a minimum.
THE duke and duchess of polycarp have a son, polonius of polycarp. on the sad occasion of the death of his father, (THE duke), polonius of polycarp and his wife become THE duke and duchess of polycarp. THE duke’s mother, (after mourning her beloved duke), usually moves to the dowager house (a nice little place on the estate, or perhaps a townhouse in the city). her daughter in law is now THE duchess of polycarp. she is now THE dowager duchess of polycarp.
just as mrs john smith may become the widow smith when her husband dies, and her daughter in law is mrs. john smith (no longer jr.). usually this bit is not dealt with in the states; unless you move about in high society. then once again “THE” becomes important and signals who is the main heir to the fortune, and how others are related to “THE”.
I don’t think that this list is entirely accurate. For example, were we to go forward to the reign of King Charles III, his first cousin on the royal side (category 6.), Viscount Linley, won’t suddenly become entitled to the style HRH.
I’ve seen the list of those entitled to the style HRH given as:[ol][li]All the sons of a monarch e.g. Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Earl of Wessex[/li][li]The wives and widows of those in category 1. e.g. Countess of Wessex[/li][li]All the daughters of a monarch e.g. Princess Royal[/li][li]All the sons of a son of a monarch e.g. Prince William of Wales, Prince Harry of Wales, Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent[/li][li]The wives and widows of those in category 4. e.g. Duchess of Gloucester, Duchess of Kent, Princess Michael of Kent[/li][li]All the daughters of a son of a monarch e.g. Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie of York, Princess Louise of Wessex*, Princess Alexandra of Kent[/li][li]Any other person to whom the style has been granted by the monarch e.g. Duke of Edinburgh[/ol]And with extension to a male line great-grandson of a monarch, should he exist.[/li]
*Not everyone who is entitled to the HRH style necessarily uses it, of course. I think the Wessexes have eschewed the title for their daughter and will presumably do the same for their upcoming next child.