[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: More on succession and styles of address

[Shaun Hately]

On 1 Nov 2003 at 20:00, grannybat84112 wrote:

> My word. The intricacies of royal titles and inheritance are 
> positively Slytherin.
> 
> > The ruling sovereign is always adressed "Your Majesty" 
> 
> Are "ma'am" and "sir" acceptable fallbacks according to protocol? 
> I've seen news footage of celebrities chatting with Queen Elizabeth 
> and addressing her as "ma'am." 

Protocol generally is that you use their full title the first time you speak to them, 
and from then on, you can use the general honourific such as 'Sir' or 'Ma'am' - it's 
too cumbersome to use the full title all the time.

Protocol is also coming to accept that fewer and fewer people know all the 
intricacies involved, and so general politeness is considered 'enough'. The Queen 
is not going to be offended if a normal member of the public calls her Ma'am or 
Madam, and doesn't call her 'Your Majesty', because it's clear in that case, that 
the person is being perfectly polite - they just may not know the rules.

In actual fact, if you're likely  to be meeting the Queen, someone will probably 
have told you the rules shortly before you do - but that's less likely the further you 
go down the totem pole.

I've met (in the sense that I spoke to them, but they are very unlikely to remember 
me (-8 ), the Prince and Princess of Wales, and the Princess Royal, and in each 
case, I was reminded of what I was supposed to say and do about five minutes 
before I met them.
  
> > A Prince Consort, as well as children of ruling sovereigns...
> > are normally entitled to be adressed "Your Royal Highness", and 
> > referred to as "His/Her Royal Highness" - in the case of male 
> > children, their spouses will be afforded the same accolade; ... 
> > In the case of divorce, a 
> > spouse granted the style of "Royal Highness" will tend to loose it, 
> > but not all the styles and titles associated - see the reversion 
> > from "HRH the Princess of Wales" to "Diana, Princess of Wales"
> 
> Is there some particular privilege that comes with the title "His/Her 
> Royal Highness?" A British friend of mine mentioned that there was a 
> lot of public anger on your side of the pond when  Diana wasn't 
> allowed to retain the HRH after the divorce. 

Well, the privilege is that the person *is* royal. Her Royal Highness, The Princess 
of Wales was a member of the royal family. Diana, Princess of Wales, was not. 
The distinction was moderately important because if Diana hadn't died, eventually 
a situation could have arisen where she was a member of the King's (William) 
immediate family, without being a member of the royal family.

Diana was treated in the same way any peeress is treated (clearest example - 
Prince Andrew's former wife, is now Sarah, Duchess of York - she is not referred 
to as 'Her Grace, the Duchess of York' or 'Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of 
York'  - in fact, she can't even be properly referred to as The Duchess of York, 
only as Sarah, Duchess of York).

Most of the anger relating to Diana's case was to do with the symbolism of the 
situation - some people felt she was being badly treated, and losing HRH was part 
of that.

It's complicated, though, because there's no incredibly rigid rules on the use of 
these titles - there are rules in place, but the Monarch can change them in 
individual cases (for example, HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, 
*shouldn't* be called Princess according to the published rules - but she is).



Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia