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.

All societies, groups, nations have protocols. Written and unwritten. Just think about schools and their protocols around behaviour and uniform. I once did supply teaching at a private school where the pupils all wore what they wanted and addressed the teachers by their first names. But pupils were required to queue in an orderly manner on certain occasions etc,

Best legs ever!

This is where weighted corners come into things.

A.n other royal wife got a whole heap of tutting for not wearing them to prevent unseemly breezes like the one Princess Lovely of Lovelyshire just had there

https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/fashion-news/kate-middleton-meghan-markle-skirt-trick-612010

The Queen did this.

They tend to knee length skirts though, so a full cross leg can be a bit of a squished thigh vision - especially on stage above an audience. It’s not v elegant which is why it’s just standard etiquette not to.

I think she might have had an idea that she was in this pic. 😀

What I usually do with royal beat stories is take anything that requires an anonymous royal source, or is speculative about things like protocol or ‘feelings’ of royal individuals with a huge pinch of salt. They are the gossipy clickbait they have always been - made worse that now that it’s really easy to monitor what gets eyeballs on digital stories.

Newspapers used to be able to tell that certain great front page images sold more papers which is why they put poor Diana on there for years after she’d died.

But now they can see how many more thousands of individual people click on every single story they publish online.

Newspaper editors weren’t out to demonize Meghan, Kate or any of the royal wives - they are out to make as much money from them as possible.

If they can see that adding Meghan’s name to the headline a bland story about the impact of avocados on the environment and get 500,000 more views they will.

It’s why they persist in calling Catherine Kate Middleton in almost every article about her because it’s a vastly more popular keyword for internet SEO than any of her titles.

Reporters who have been given a specific ‘beat’ on editorial teams have to meet quotas to keep their jobs - if there is no event to cover because the Wales are on school holidays or Meghan and Harry are having a privacy break then they still have to produce their weekly/daily content so that’s when they start creating angles on using old stuff.

The tabloids are exploiting people like Meghan but it’s the public that is driving the types and tones of the stories - the tabloids just give them more of what they like.

And business is so tough for the broadsheets now that they have started doing it as well.

And individuals have started doing it on YouTube - people like Lady C or that body language guy have channels dedicated to ‘exposing’ or criticizing Meghan Markle - certainly for the body language guy he’s only doing it because it makes him money. He used to have just a quirky channel about body language using all sorts of famous people as examples.

He wouldn’t be putting all that time and energy to just focusing on Meghan and the royals if it wasn’t making him a lot of money because he’s getting YouTube views.

Do you mean the body language guy who has a hispanic accent? He's slightly unhinged. I do like the Behaviour panel though. They've done a few things on H and M, as well as other famous people. It's amazing the things they notice.

I think that people confuse protocol (which is bound in with diplomacy and governmental relations, and does include things like precedence)

And royal habits/traditions, which are more subject to fashion

It’s far more than “good manners” - protocol is designed to make sure they make us feel lesser. It’s not a meeting of equals.

Yes him - I think doing the Royal stuff has made him unhinged - or possibly it’s an act because it’s making him popular on YouTube.

He’s basically unwatchable to me now - he was quite funny before he jumped on the Meghan and Harry money train.

@wordler yes I find him unwarranted too. I do love the Behaviour Panel as they are so analytical. I haven't watched them for a while though. They did something analysing the body language of the partner of the poor woman who drowned walking her dog and I felt really uncomfortable with that.

Yes, I was going to say the same. I've seen pictures of both Margaret and Anne in trouser suits years ago.

Unwarranted? I meant unhinged!

Meghan’s been accused by tabloids and on social media of breaking ‘protocol’ for shutting a car door. And for walking in front of Harry - ‘breaking protocol’ and also being ‘pushy.’

It’s another form of trying to control the populace and hierarchy, especially control of women - ‘know your place’ etc..

Also, as to clothing, I saw recently that when BritishPM Johnson’s wife received a note from one of the BP offices on the official letterhead telling them what colour dress the Queen would be wearing to an official dinner they were invited to. So it seems there is some expectation re the colour of the clothing the women wear. Or there was, when QE2was alive.

Exactly

look at the nonsense around the conanation - it was all designed to build a mystique . Unfortunately for the Windsors we know far too much about them - and they just looked foolish

Look up Norman Bakers book on the monarchy. His first pages describe elderly people not ‘allowed’ to sit down . Selfies weren’t allowed because you aren’t allowed to ‘turn your back’ on Windsors

Of course they will say they are trying to get rid of all that now… no more backing out of rooms ? Lol
And as for trying to say all organisations have ‘protocol’ - the word just means a way of doing things - add the adjective ‘royal’ and it’s just their way of ‘doing things’ to make others appear lesser and themselves greater . They really need it .

Another relic that doesn’t work anymore

And business is so tough for the broadsheets now that they have started doing it as well.

I agree. I’ve noticed it in my own country. The broadsheets printing articles of a type, about Meghan for example, that they never would have before.

Media generally don’t print stories that the readers aren’t interested in, but I think they also, often, go some way to creating the interest, creating the market.

I thought Meghan and the car door was about her opening it (not closing one)

And the reason that's bad form isn't "protocol" it's so that your close protection team are out and suitable positioned before principle emerges.

This is my whole point. People on here call it common sense, but it is rules and protocol.

If it were common sense, why can't they ditch the protocol and use their common sense, or don't they have any?!

I understand about who walks in front or behind who into church or some sort of royal procession but apart from that....

It's mostly made up nonsense.
Like "recycling" when you wear something more than once or indicating that Kate/Meghan is channeling Diana by wearing green, or a big hat.

“You see, Meghan Markle closed her car door herself.”

Meghan was criticised in the British tabloids for doing this.( I’m not linking to tabloids anymore, if I can help it).

Meghan Markle closes a car door

Half of it is made up by the press, and probably a large chunk of the other half is designed to prevent the press from finding a gossip opportunity, thereby protecting members of the royal family, where possible. Nail colours, leg positions and so on will be advisable if someone is looking to criticise or get a salacious photo. Hierarchical walks to church etc will be to prevent the gossip that someone is in front or someone else and looking for attention.
The rest is probably just common sense, etiquette and good manners. I really don’t see a problem with any of it on those reasons.

Weren’t the bots released to give ‘protocol ‘ as Willy’s excuse for not attending the football final ?
Make it up as you go along protocol invoked

@gluenotsoup No one cares much about the dress ‘protocol’ ( though we notice how it is applied in a one sided way)

It’s the ‘how to address their majesties ‘ nonsense , walking in order of invented importance nonsense etc . It’s 2023 not 923 . We can see the strings