Children shouldn't be taught to curtsey for the queen at school

[Lemith]

Thankfully not mine, but my sisters DD is preparing for a visit from Liz and they have all been told to curtsey / bow before her.

I've nothing against the monarchy particularly, but I dont like all this wankery and would treat them just like any other stranger.

Liz once or twice a year gets in my way when she's had a road closed and caused massive inconvince to us commoners.

Aibu to think this should be the child's choice how they greet royals?

How old is your niece?

I don't like the royal family, but I think it would be very wrong to demand that your niece does not curtsy, if that's what everyone else will be doing. Those views are your own, not your niece's. You won't even be there to see it.

Suppose you had a strong view that children and teachers should always be on first name terms. Would you order your child to call teachers by their first names, if it was not the convention at the school? It would be very unfair to impose this on a child, merely because it was your view.

You might not like the "wankery" of curtsying to the Queen, but what would be more important to a child: the excitement of meeting the Queen, or her aunt's views, which would make her different from everybody else?

This was why I sometimes didn't tell my parents about things that happened at school, because I knew they would disapprove.

She could've at least worn a crown ffs.

I agree, it must have been very disappointing. I was very disappointed when I saw a real fox for the first time: it looked like a slightly pathetic dog, not the big fierce monsters in books that eat you all up.

There is a distinct difference between behaviour that is within the home and personal choice ( food and religious beliefs) and behaviour that impacts on other people in a social setting.
Manners cost nothing and although people may think it's unnecessary to curtsey, they should put their own feelings second and think of the person they are meeting.

I don't think curtseying once in primary school will turn the child into a monarchist for life. I think from a child's point of view the Queen's visit is a special and exciting occasion with arcane rituals that all they all get to participate in, in some small way, such as curtseying.

I don't think this will affect her political opinions as an adult at all.

I know the queen is not local gentry. I am merely pointing out that less than 100 years ago it was etiquette to curtsy to the upper classes. Now it is not. Etiquette can change. Back in Tudor times you would not merely curtsy to the monarch, but remain bowed down until the monarch passed or gave you permission to rise.

The fact that something is considered etiquette does not always mean it should be blindly followed.

I always wonder if the Queen is on Mumsnet. I mean she could be couldn't she? We're all anonymous on here.

Pink, food and religious belief both extend to school.

ipsos. Is that you, Liz? Double-bluffing us?

I wouldn't like it. But I am a staunch republican and so are the DC - my youngest (9) was horrified that we have to each pay 56p for he privilege of having them

Asheth could the curtseying not be seen as a "living history lesson" for the children? I wouldn't like to be bowing and scraping all day to minor gentry either, but as most of us will only see the Queen once in our lives if at all, it's hardly a great inconvenience. Can't the OP just a take a laid back approach, look at it as all part of the fun and excitement and let her DD participate without a fuss?

"I agree, it must have been very disappointing. I was very disappointed when I saw a real fox for the first time: it looked like a slightly pathetic dog, not the big fierce monsters in books that eat you all up."

Isn't that wolves?

pinkfrocks - once again, a person who is confusing 'manners' with 'bowing down' to someone. People are perfectly adept to showing manners, without having to bend the knee. No one should have to leave their own country because they don't see themselves as something below the ones born into privilage. Goodness me, if everyone 'left' every time something in this country didn't agree with their lifestyle, there wouldn't be anyone left!

iamaboveandBeyond - this thread reminds me very much about the 'Chrisitanity in schools' one that's running at the moment. It seems the consenus on there that some parts of British culture (especially in schools) ar outdated and should be kept seperate to personal home views - however, this apparently doesn't apply to the monarchy? We should just put up or shut up (or even move!).

Christ, this thread is depressing. I'm not sure whether the poorly-reasoned 'kowtow because it's etiquette/tradition, innit?' line of thought is more or less depressing than the 'fuck off to a republic if you don't like it', with its implicitly anti-immigrant 'abide by even our dopiest ways' stance.

I'm an immigrant and a republican. While the continued existence of the monarchy baffles me, I have no intention of relocating to France because the kowtowing brigade disapprove of me not swallowing the monarchy's gigantic, anachronistic confidence trick. Should a royal show up at my English-born son's school, he will certainly not be bowing or presenting bouquets.

HeighHogh I think it's unlikely that my DC will ever meet the Queen. But I would not present it as a living history lesson. My DC are probably of an age where they can decide for themselves what they would do. I know they do not agree with a monarchy, so it wouldn't surprise me if they chose to shake hands and be polite, but not bow.

Did this thread just go weird for anyone else?!
Liz is on to us!!!!!

YANBU.

I agree with the posters pointing out that what matters is behaving with good manners - greeting someone politely, shaking hands, etc. - not behaving according to some outmoded notion of unquestioning deference disguised as 'etiquette'.

And hahahahaha at the suggestions of emigration if you don't agree with curtseying to the queen! Are you people serious?

I see Gruntfuttock has got there first - but I was coming on to say that I was sure you didn't have to bow/curtsey to the Queen any more.

Back in Tudor times you would not merely curtsy to the monarch, but remain bowed down until the monarch passed or gave you permission to rise.

People also had very different ideas about propriety. For instance, a monarch would only disrobe in front of those s/he favoured highly, so Liz 1 flashing your her norks was a sign a great royal favour. Can't see Liz 2 doing that these days, really.

Yes, it did,iamaboveandBeyond. I'm glad I can post on it again because it seems I need to repost that there IS no "requirement" to curtsy to the Queen at all. I have frequently seen (on TV) the Queen greeting numerous people and not all of them bow or curtsy. She appears not to notice and smiles and talks to them just the same.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/11123074/Bowing-and-curtsying-to-the-Queen-not-necessary.html

www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/GreetingtheQueen/Overview.aspx

All the people getting annoyed that it is something demanded from them are misinformed. Nothing will happen if you meet the Queen and don't bow or curtsy. It's a simple choice.

It would have to a rather chilly day in hell before I'd curtsey to anyone.

If Debrett's have a problem with that well too bloody bad!

If you don't like the monarchy, relocate to a republic.

What an idiot you sound.

Ilovesooty, the Queen's Speech in May.

I am loving people frothing even though it's not true that "you must curtsy". Some people choose to, which is their prerogative, albeit odd, in my personal opinion.

I don't think the Queen actually chooses the subject matter of the Queen's Speech. She has to convey appropriate political content.