Scandalous reverence breach by HRH Mette-Marit

  • Thread starter Thread starter arildno
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the actions of HRH Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway, and her gesture of reverence towards the Duchess of Cornwall, raising questions about royal etiquette and the implications of such actions. Participants explore the significance of titles and roles within the British royal family, as well as broader reflections on the concept of royalty in contemporary society.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express shock and humiliation over Mette-Marit's curtsy to the Duchess of Cornwall, viewing it as a breach of royal etiquette.
  • Others suggest that the gesture could be interpreted as sympathetic, particularly towards an older woman.
  • Questions are raised about the title "Duchess of Cornwall," including its meaning, the involvement of the Duchess in civic affairs, and whether she collects rent from citizens of Cornwall.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the titles and roles of various members of the royal family, including the distinction between dukes and princes.
  • Some participants express confusion about the relationships and titles within the royal family, leading to further discussion about who is married to whom.
  • There are humorous remarks about the absurdity of royal customs and the relevance of royalty in modern times.
  • Discussions touch on the historical context of monarchy and its acceptance or rejection by the populace, with references to public support for royal families in Europe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement, particularly regarding the appropriateness of Mette-Marit's actions and the relevance of royal titles. The discussion remains unresolved on several points, including the broader implications of royalty in contemporary society.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the historical and political context of monarchy, leading to varying interpretations of royal customs and their significance today.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in royal etiquette, the roles of modern monarchies, and the cultural significance of titles may find this discussion engaging.

arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
10,165
Reaction score
138
Scandalous reverence breach by HRH Mette-Marit!

Norway is in utter shock and deep humiliation when our consort to the Crown Prince, Mette Marit, made reverence towards the Duchess of Cornwall, a woman as common born as herself, and of no higher royal rank herself.

Some try to salvage this breach on royal etiquette by pointing out that Camilla Parker-Bowles (now, Duchess) by saying it was "sympathetic" of Mette-Marit to make reverence towards an older woman.
But that won't do at all, we need a revolution!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


The Natteravnene should hold a candle light vigil outside the palace.
 


If it's any help, I'm utterly shocked and deeply humiliated whenever anyone bows to royalty. - H.R.H. an Amerian Citizen.
 
Last edited:


Jimmy Snyder said:
If it's any help, I'm utterly shocked and deeply humiliated whenever anyone bows to royalty. - H.R.H. an Amerian Citizen.
Good Lord, she didn't bow. That would have given me a heart attack.
But, she DID curtsy, and that is bad enough.
 


What exactly does the title "Duchess of Cornwall" actually mean? Is Cornwall her royal fief? Is she involved in the civic affairs of Cornwall? Does she speak Cornish? Does she like Cornish food? Do the good citizens of Cornwall have anything to say about her being their Duchess? Does she collect rent from the good citizens of Cornwall?. If she is the Duchess, then her husband must be the Duke of Cornwall. However, he (William) will presumably become Prince of Wales. Can he be a duke and a prince at the same time? In fact, I think he is already a prince of some sort.

I consider these to be very important questions for which I require answers for my peace of mind.
 


SW VandeCarr said:
Does she collect rent from the good citizens of Cornwall?. If she is the Duchess, then her husband must be the Duke of Cornwall.
Indeed he is (like every heir to the throne has been since 1337). Though confusingly, much of the Duchy of Cornwall is not actually IN Cornwall.
However, he (William) will presumably become Prince of Wales.
I think you are confusing Prince William with his father Prince Charles.
 


AlephZero said:
Indeed he is (like every heir to the throne has been since 1337). Though confusingly, much of the Duchy of Cornwall is not actually IN Cornwall.

Why am I not surprised? Where is it? New Jersey?
I think you are confusing Prince William with his father Prince Charles.

Isn't Charles the current Prince of Wales? I meant that William would become Prince of Wales when Charles becomes king (if that ever happens). I think the Queen will live to be 100 like her mother.
 
Last edited:


No, Wales is a principality, not a duchy.
However, the Prince of Wales is ALSO the duke of Cornwall.
Wales has no princess.

The Duke of Cornwall exacted, in 2007, 16.3 million pound sterling in profit from the ducal holdings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall
 
Last edited:


arildno said:
No, Wales is a princedom, not a duchy.
However, the Prince of Wales is ALSO the duke of Cornwall.
Wales has no princess.

Yes. Corrected that. In English we call it a principality. But if Cornwall (duchy) is mostly not in Cornwall (county), is Wales (principality) mostly not in Wales? BTW, if Cornwall is a county, shouldn't it have a count?

The Duke of Cornwall exacted, in 2007, 16.3 million pound sterling in profit from the ducal holdings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

And the people of the Duchy of Cornwall (where ever it is) should be proud to pay it so that they can say they have a duke of their very own.
 
  • #10


They should have curtsied to one another (as opposed to a fish-slap dance).
 
  • #11


turbo said:
They should have curtsied to one another (as opposed to a fish-slap dance).

No, that ugly British cow-witch should have fled in shame when beholding the resplendent beauty&regality of our Crown Princess! :approve:
 
  • #12


I am slightly confused by the thread??
 
  • #13


phoenix:\\ said:
I am slightly confused by the thread??

Plebeian uncertainties..
 
  • #14


SW VandeCarr said:
Isn't Charles the current Prince of Wales? I meant that William would become Prince of Wales when Charles becomes king (if that ever happens). I think the Queen will live to be 100 like her mother.

Correct, but from your first post you seemed confused about who was married to whom.

Charles and Camilla (Duke and Duchess of Cornwall).
William and Kate (who is Duchess of Cambridge, not Cornwall).
 
  • #15


AlephZero said:
Correct, but from your first post you seemed confused about who was married to whom.

Charles and Camilla (Duke and Duchess of Cornwall).
William and Kate (who is Duchess of Cambridge, not Cornwall).
William is Duchess of Cambridge,too??

I only knew that William is the current Baron Carrickfergus, but now I know better! :smile:
 
  • #16


Does the Duchess of Cornwall have to schedule Cornish Game-Hens for dinner a specified number of times each week? Dem little birds should mount a counter-offensive.
 
  • #17


I'm not quite sure whether this thread is meant as a joke or not... Royalty? In 2012? :rolleyes:
 
  • #18


Hobin said:
I'm not quite sure whether this thread is meant as a joke or not... Royalty? In 2012? :rolleyes:
Off with their heads.
 
  • #19


Hobin said:
I'm not quite sure whether this thread is meant as a joke or not... Royalty? In 2012? :rolleyes:
What makes royalty acceptable/unacceptable and when did this change? 1854?

arildno said:
No, that ugly British cow-witch should have fled in shame when beholding the resplendent beauty&regality of our Crown Princess! :approve:

We have the hottest princess: Princess Catherine. Nuff said.
 
  • #20


nobahar said:
what makes royalty acceptable/unacceptable and when did this change? 1854?
1776.
 
  • #21


Jimmy Snyder said:
1776.

Actually Congress offered George Washington a crown, but he refused it and stepped down after two terms as president although he wasn't required to do so.

EDIT: Sorry, The crown part is apparently a myth. However Washington was not constitutionally limited to two terms. America's only king was Elvis l.
 
Last edited:
  • #22


Jimmy Snyder said:
1776.
You mean wealthy elites ruling in their own interest? Same thing, different name, isn't it?

Edit: SW VandeCarr: I believe they did entertain the idea of a royal family.
 
  • #23


nobahar said:
You mean wealthy elites ruling in their own interest? Same thing, different name, isn't it?
No, it's a different thing.
 
  • #24


Jimmy Snyder said:
No, it's a different thing.

Yeah, some are just filthy mnoey-grubbers, others are divinely ordained to care for the realm and its many subjects.
:smile:
 
  • #25


arildno said:
Yeah, some are just filthy mnoey-grubbers, others are divinely ordained to care for the realm and its many subjects.
:smile:
Similarities don't add up to same.
 
  • #26


Jimmy Snyder said:
Similarities don't add up to same.

In fact the European monarchies that still exist have no real political power and could be deposed at any time by their elected parliaments. However, at least in the UK, the landed aristocracy does control a lot of wealth. The Duke of Kensington is one the world's richest people and collects rent on prime land in central London which he owns. At least Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs and others did something to earn their wealth. Westminster could destroy the Royal Family and the peerage (as such) through taxation and other legal means if the political will to do so existed. The fact is, European monarchies exist because the citizens of their respective countries want them to exist and are willing to pay for it.
 
Last edited:
  • #27


SW VandeCarr said:
The fact is, European monarchies exist because the citizens of their respective countries want them to exist and are willing to pay for it.

The Norwegian royal family consistently has about 80% of the population in support of continued monarchy.
Slightly less than 60% of Norwegians eligible for voting in 1905, voted for monarchy, rather than republic.

So, our royalty has immense democratic support.
 
  • #28


Hobin said:
I'm not quite sure whether this thread is meant as a joke or not... Royalty? In 2012? :rolleyes:

Yes, royalty in 2012. According to your public profile, you live in The Netherlands. Ever heard of Queen Beatrix?
 
  • #29


SW VandeCarr said:
Actually Congress offered George Washington a crown, but he refused it and stepped down after two terms as president although he wasn't required to do so.

EDIT: Sorry, The crown part is apparently a myth. However Washington was not constitutionally limited to two terms. America's only king was Elvis l.

Bah, I'm going to believe it anyway!

Thank you, George. You rock. Better than Elvis, even.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQaFByfwCvBcFQVOTOySnorOo_snUPFz0FOTtbjnCDhOtZKNGvVs_pePRWN.jpg
 
  • #30


lisab said:
Bah, I'm going to believe it anyway!

Thank you, George. You rock. Better than Elvis, even.

Better than Elvis!? Anyway, I think there was talk about crowning George, but it never got to the point where Congress formally offered him a crown. I think George put a stop to such talk.

EDIT: I'm still waiting to hear if Hobin knows The Netherlands has a reigning Queen. I know the royals keep a lower profile in The Netherlands than in the UK, but c'mon.
 
Last edited: