Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble: "Royal Protocol"

[queentim]

Often in threads about the royal family, the issue of 'royal protocol' is discussed.

This thread is one where we can discuss (the ridiculousness of) protocol and how people have noticed how it has been used to control and abuse those (women) marrying into the family, and the double standards leveraged against members. If you feel that way of course. Views on the benefits of it would also be interesting if that's your take!

Discussions should be about how it has been used, why, etc., and not to attack the subjects themselves.

Both light-hearted and serious discussions will be welcomed here.

Long ago I read, probably in a magazine, and it could have been a sycophantic lie, that HMTLQE was very good at pushing food around her plate for a long time, chatting, while other people at the banquet fell to and scoffed.

How many people would have been the most at a royal banquet? If you were organising it, should there have been a precedent as to who should be served first? How would you work out how much time to allow for each course?

Even in a just above the ankle flowing dress which a lot of the Royals wear all the time? If they can't cross their legs without showing their arse, there's something wrong!

It is not 'common sense' to dictate how women sit.

What a lovely thing to do.

Manners have nothing to do with ‘protocol’
To quote the love/ hate figure ‘manners are universal ‘

’royal’ protocol is built on a lie . No one is ‘royal’ so ‘protocol ‘ was erected around the so called royals to create and further the illusion that these very ordinary people are somehow special .

I remember M being ripped to shreds for doing selfies as it broke ‘protocol’
Hmm now selfies are happening.
Of course Lizzie was right not to ‘allow’ selfies as she knew being distant helped maintain the grift that Windsors were special .

I wonder if they will keep to the protocol of walking into church in order of ‘importance’ - that one is good for a laugh

No ones dictating how women should sit, but it's good sense when you know you're going to be photographed from multiple angles to try to minimise the chance of an embarrassing photo.

When wearing a knee length skirt, it does "ride up" when you cross your legs.

If someone's happy to flash their thigh then good for them. If I'm somewhere in a professional capacity I'd rather that not be what people are looking at.

That's not dictating how I sit, that's me not risking being upskirted.

If I want to totally avoid the potential then I'd wear trousers.

Again @Novella4 you're confusing tabloid clickbait. Selfies only really became a thing from the early to mid 2010's and a few of the younger Royals had already done some pre-Meghan.

The Queen personally chose not to do them, but that's not "protocol" - the tabloids chose to spin that story. Doesn't make it true.

Came here to say this. Fairly sure much of these "protocols" were just stuff the Queen liked.

Although she wasn’t above a good photobomb 😂Here

@MrsFinkelstein
Sure

And it was one example - there are many.
Weren't trousers frowned upon too?

The point you are avoiding is it’s all utter nonsense and the more we see of them trying to be ‘modern’ the more their idiocy is revealed .
So hard to be ‘royal’ with all those phones about !
As proven when we hear the Windsors speaking without notes .

Who doesn't like a good photobomb!

Philip was partial to them too!

I think that most "protocol" comes down to manners and making arrangements easy, with a large side helping of keeping up ways of doing things that most of society has moved on from in day to day lives.

Hats, people used to wear hats in every day life and it's fairly obvious that the late Queen didn't change with the times as quickly as society does

How the women sit, as someone has pointed out, is how etiquette schools teach sitting, and it's probably good practise in a world where photographers try to upskirt women to get into the habit regardless of skirt length.

The order in which people arrive, that makes me think of weddings and funerals, which are probably the only formal events most of us attend these days. The royals just have more formal events and it must make organising things easier with a set order.

Hugging, I'm old enough to remember a time when society in general didn't hug. Plus of course it protects the individual from catching bugs and allows for those who aren't big huggers to avoid it without offense.

Of course there are also things that are personal monarch preference and I think nail varnish and selfies fall into that.

Generally I think the whole subject is interesting bit I wish it wasn't used as a stick to attack anyone with

Again @Novella4 you're falling for tabloid spin.

The Queen preferred not to wear trousers personally. The younger female Royals (and Princess Anne now, and Diana & Fergie before) wear/wore them fairly regularly.

A knee length skirt could well ride up if you allowed it to, but surely setting out how a woman should sit is beyond ridiculous. A woman does have a brain you know! I've been up on a stage in past work scenarios, I know how to sit depending on what I am wearing, and I'm not sure you lose your common sense and brain cells when you join the RF
Why would they be flashing their thighs? I am sure even members of the RF are capable of not doing that!

@MrsLeonFarrell agree totally.

As I said, the only real "Royal Protocol" is The Crown takes precedence, so that's where the order of arrival comes in. But that's universal in all Monarchies - and Republics. I'm reminded of (best) POTUS (ever) Jed Bartlett - "when the President stands, no one sits".

The only time I can remember Meghan being criticised about a hat was the 1st engagement with the Queen - and she spent the whole event with her hair being blown across her face and her with her hand up constantly trying to tuck it back . A hat and an updo would have been easier and looked better I suppose in that specific circumstance.

I remember that engagement, the Mail made a big thing claiming that Meghan had refused to wear a hat even though she was told the Queen was wearing one. From everything I've read about the Queen going out of her way to make others comfortable, I'm confident that "source" was actually just tabloid shit stirring.

As to it blowing around, both Catherine and Meghan have that problem at times. I'm jealous because I can't grow long hair and I've always wanted it!

Love that one, MrsDanvers [smile}
Yes he was a stoat in many ways, but what a thoughtful thing to do

HMQ and PP seemed to have a genuinely good relationship with the Obamas. BO said lovely things about HMQ when she died. The Obamas also seem to get along well with PW. I remember the picture of George meeting Obama in his bathrobe.
I think a lot of what people think is royal protocol is nonsense, particularly the nail varnish thing. Some things are just common sense like how to place your legs when sitting down.

No.
It is not ‘tabloid spin ‘

So called royal women were rarely seen in trousers at ‘events’

They are now .
What is the difference hmm?
You can call it Elizabeth’s ‘preferences’ if you like . Just as it was her ‘preference’ to have the family walk in to church in order of ‘importance ‘

The above was to @MrsFinkelstein

And as for trying to say the PR church walk is just like other heads of state ! What nonsense - do the brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews of a head of state ( US president is an incorrect comparator ) also walk in order of importance ?

Honestly I don’t know if you are royalist but if you are at least acknowledge the whole apparatus lol!

Re: "tabloid spin" - that's exactly the point.

None of us have the slightest idea what is and isn't royal protocol, the only way we can possibly know any of that is via what the press tell us. As the press (and maybe the occasional book) is our only source of information about these things.

I'm not talking about things like the order of succession or other things that are on the record. That's not protocol.

We only know what's allegedly protocol through the press, so if the press choose to pretend that someone has broken protocol in order to demonise someone, we have no way of knowing if that protocol exists or not, we can only use common sense ie looking if other royals do the same thing that's now being stated as being against protocol.

The tabloids claimed everything Meghan did was against some imaginary protocol that had never been mentioned before that was fine when other royals did it, and it whipped up a lot of froth and hatred against her. Soooooooo many threads here with posters saying they hated her because she was disrespectful, calling her a bitch and an arsehole and all kinds of nasty names, because they bought the idea that royal protocol exists.

Because we don't actually know, we only see what the newspapers want to tell us.

I agree with pps who've said that there's a very good reason for the 'only cross the ankles' protocol. Crossing your knees when wearing anything but a long dress lays women open to opportunistic press photographers - especially when they're sitting in an elevated position. I bet some of them just lie in wait for such a chance. All women in public life (MPs for eg) need to watch for this if they've chosen to wear a shorter hemline. There will usually be a flash of thigh, and don't the tabloids love it.

Also - it somehow doesn't look right with a long dress. Just my opinion, not a rule!

Bit off-topic, but I've been reminded (very depressingly) on this thread of some wonderful dignified women of the recent past. Michelle Obama, like her husband, seems like a dream of dignity, gravitas and statesman/woman-ship which we've lost. Also, Laura Bush, whom someone mentioned, was also a very dignified FLOTUS, and by all accounts, a nice, thoughtful woman.

Looking at world leaders today, it's incredibly depressing. With its huge population and vast wealth, can the US really only offer us the appalling Trump and the hopeless Biden?

Well... Jill Biden is a classy lady if we're continuing the subject of women

So called royal women were rarely seen in trousers at ‘events’

“Rarely”is not “never” though. And to be fair, it’s only fairly recently that trousers have been seen as acceptable on women in formal settings (however silly that is). Diana definitely wore trousers on occasion. She wore a double breasted tuxedo to an evening event for example.

I know what you mean. It's almost painful to talk about the Obamas when you look at the shit show that's going on now.

Agreed. It was protocol when it was used to bash someone and have so many parrot it everywhere, but now it's "just tabloid spin".

So either we (people) continue to believe royal reporters, who are connected to the palace as PR arms, and "royal experts" or we don't. If we don't then what's the point of them? But this picking and choosing when it's convenient is the problem