Does Camilla have to curtsey to Charles?

[Pinkrosesbloom]

...and Kate to William?

saw this in the news, and it seems protocol requires girlfriends to curtsey to royals.

“When I was researching my biography of King Charles, I discovered his female staff were running a competition to see who could perform the deepest curtsey without falling over.

A former girlfriend of his also confided that protocol demanded she curtsey to him, leading one evening to a clash of heads when he mistimed an attempt to kiss her.”

did Camilla and Kate curtsey to Charles/William when they were dating?

And does it stop after they marry?

and what about the children, do they need to curtsey to their royal father? Or are they exempt because they are born royal?

does anyone know the protocols?

@teezletangler - I will ask you as you seem to know these things!

Camilla will be Queen because she is married to a King right?

But why was the Duke of Ed not a King by dint of being married to a Queen?

I think it just becomes a habit, and not a big deal. One school I was at we all had to stand up if a teacher or visitor entered the room. It just became an automatic response, no thinking required. Was a hard habit to breach when I changed school…

Was a hard habit to breach when I changed school…

😂😂

It's about rank. A King is historically higher than a Queen. So for example blood Royal Queen Elizabeth II would be out ranked by non-blood royal if PP were King, hence the title Consort.

With KC and Camilla it doesn't matter because he will always outrank her.

It harks back to the days when women were chattels and were passed over for male siblings.

So - if the DoE was aking he would have out ranked QE11?

So why make such a fuss of bloodline then?

The whole thing confuses me!

I'm not sure that's right.
There can only be one monarch.

Prince Phillip never outranked the Queen as he was not a king.
Camilla doesn't outrank Charles as she's not a queen.

That poster is incorrect.

It does depend on the bloodline.

Camilla isn't Queen. She's Queen consort.

Thats why they loved Sir Jimmy Savile so much because he cut through all this protocol bollocks. 😂

I've not watched the documentary and I'm not particularly interested in Harry and Meghan, but it's very hard to not have an opinion. I've seen and read a few snippets from the papers and TV, but my two cents on them boils down to this.

I think most British people realise the Monarchy is an odd institution with bizarre rules. However, I certainly believe (as I guess many do) that if you're going to have a monarchy, you need these weird ceremonies, titles and customs to create some "magic". Bagehot famously wrote that this mystery is essential to their function (no doubt it was the same for Chinese Emperors and Russian Tsars).

In a democracy, there's going to be a constant battle between the press who want to peer into that world and the royals who want to maintain this mystery. At best, there's often an uneasy truth. I agree that Harry and Meghan have had a tough time from the press over the years and in the few years since they met. Some of the press coverage has been racist. They've every right not to want part of the system.

The problem came (and this is a completely unoriginal thought) was that they were prepared to take the funny titles (Duke and Duchess of Sussex), the cottage on the grounds at Windsor Castle, and the fairytale wedding with all the pageantry and trimmings.

Harry knew the institution is odd. He knew that members of the family get attacked by the press, especially women and outsiders, and yet they went ahead and accepted the titles, the cottage and the wedding.

If they'd said no thanks to that at the start, I know I would be more understanding of their supposed desire for privacy and a "normal" life, or at least the normal life of wealthy celebrities.

Historically, in the vast majority of countries that were monarchies, women could not inherit the throne. So Kings were always ruling in their own right and women with the title Queen had it because they were married to a King. So the principal arose that a King was always someone ruling in his own right, but Queen meant a woman who had her title by marriage.

In the few countries where women could be monarch they had the title Queen, but it was often thought inappropriate for their husbands to be called King because that had the connotation of being a monarch in his own right. So a lesser title of Prince has usually been used.

There have been exceptions though. Philip of Spain was called King of England and co-ruler with Mary I, but his title did not survive Mary. The husband of Mary Queen of Scots was given the courtesy title King of Scots, but he was a consort and not a co-ruler.

William of Orange was co-ruler with Mary II, and his title survived her. He was also a monarch in his own right, even though her claim to the throne was stronger than his at the time of their accession.

Camilla isn't Queen. She's Queen consort

Camilla is the Queen. There are two kinds of queens: queens regnant and queens consort. She is the latter kind.

The fact that a woman has to bend her knees and a man only has to bend at the waist is more outdated than the fact they have to do it at all. A unisex head nod should suffice in this day and age. If needed at all.

I prefer the Republican middle finger followed by a slight head tip to represent an understanding but ultimate rejection of royalist foibles inflicted upon "the people".

I laughed reading this. My DH said I should do it for him. I slapped him. I think I can't see this ever happening behind closed doors.

Non-binary nodding 🤣

Shows how little I know- I always thought there would be 2 heads on everything when there was a king and queen 🤣

I suspect it’s to do with with historical clothing. It would have been pretty difficult to bow in some of the trussed up, huge skirted dresses that were worn back in the day.

Actually, a bow is fine for everyone.

The curtsey is an additional option for women (just as it is for performers at curtain call)

In terms of royalty (and certain others, such as the Pope or other heads of state) then the traditional gesture is made, but only the first time you see them that day. Same as how the king is "your majesty" in first greeting and "sir" thereafter

So we never see consort bowing or curtseying to the regnant, because they would have seen each other behind closed doors before the public does

And the terms by which one spouse goes down in front of the other when in private is, I think, best kept private

My explanation for laughing at @KirstenBlest's words were that I found them comical as a joke, nothing more complicated than that, the kind of remark I might hear on a comedy programme.
I know the names of some regular posters and so I have a fairly good idea of the tenor of what they are likely to say about any subject, but I don't know your or Kirsten's posts well enough to put either of you in that category. I was having a laugh at what I saw as a joke.

So we never see consort bowing or curtseying to the regnant, because they would have seen each other behind closed doors before the public does

No one ever sees it because it doesn't happen.

No Philip never outranked the Queen, but the reason he was never named a king is because a king would outrank a Queen. Which in their case would be wrong because the bloodline is Elizabeth's, not Philips.

It's not wrong, you just didn't understand it.

Camilla will be queen consort.

Yes, she's queen consort, she's still a queen.

Okay well, that's rude, but you will find that I'm not incorrect. The title of King is always senior to a queen. Where the queen is of royal blood (regnant) there can be no king, therefore a queen regnants husband is titled a prince.