Not sure if it belongs on /his/ or not, but I certainly can't post this on /pol/ ("lol gtfo liberal nigger"). How would you guys react to meeting a modern day royal? Throughout history, common people have been forced to bow, not speak unless spoken to, say "your majesty", etc. Would you follow royal protocol, or would you disregard it and treat them like a normal human being? Personally I would detest calling another human being "your highness". Thoughts?
You can literally test this. Just go before any judge and address them as anything other than "your honor."
In my country (Norway) the royalty is looked upon as celebreties, and not "higher" than the commoners. You can speak unformal to them, and it will go just fine. I think that's because Norway has been semi-socialist to socialist for about 70 years. Also "Janteloven": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante.
I think it's different in Britain though, were there still is a huge class divide.
The Danish queen, objected when a reporter spoke to her unformally, so I guess the royals are "above" the commoners over there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TITQCQuzJdQ
>>915463
I just shook Queen Lizzies hand and gave her a nod when I met her. I'm not sure how I would have addressed her if I had more of a chance to make conversation but I wouldn't have used "your highness".
>>915463
Monarchies appeared because the 1st monarch(s) earned the loyalty of their to-be subjects legitimally. As time went on, all dynasties became more and more washed up because there was no actual reason that some people held the power and were incredibly privileged at the expense of commoners, it just was.
Then revolutions happened, and authoritarian rulers were (legitimaly) diabolised to the point that most people that were born in "democracit states" want nothing to do with absolute let alone authoritarian rulers (or governments).
As a result, loyalty to individuals straight up disappeared as well as loyalty/devotion to one's cause/nation, unfortunatelly.
>>915501
How did it go? Did she look slightly annoyed but just acted like it was cool so she didn't look bad in public? Genuinely curious.
>>915497
That seems like the way it probably should be. I know that royals technically have no use today, but I'm definitely not in favor of abolishing them. However the video of the Danish Queen irks me, as you can just tell she is to good for those rabble that share the room with her.
>>915463
TODAY IS St. CRISPY CHICKEN DAY YAY!!!
Gonna sound edgy as fuck but I would refuse to show them any respect beyond that which I would show anyone else.
>>915659
The monarch in a constitutional monarchy is pretty much a mascot for the country, so I would imagine I would act differently if I met a royal, compared to a normal person. I would look at them as superior though.
I'm an amerifat so I've had a hatred of kings instilled in me ever since childhood.
>>915702
Why? The revolution was over taxes, not hurrr durrr git dem monarchists.
>>915659
See that's what I would do too, but I just didn't want to come off as "His Royal Edgelord Sperg IV". Monarchies have huge historical importance, and no one is denying that, certainly not myself. I just don't like the idea that another human being is innately "better" than me because their ancestor fucked his cousin. I wouldn't show disrespect at all, because I wouldn't do so to anyone, regardless of their lineage. It just seems kind of wrong to say that someone must bow to you, or call you "your highness", or "your majesty", etc. I know if I was a royal, I wouldn't feel comfortable with other people doing that to me. Pic unrelated.
>>915735
>Le inbred meme
Everybody fucked their cousins back then
>>915747
I have a few fuckable cousins now t b h
Depends on the country. In Thailand you can be jailed for insulting the king, in I don't know, Sweden I doubt anyone would give a fuck.
>>915786
I wasn't criticizing your point, just the popular opinion that the european monarchs were drastically more inbred than the commoners.
On your point: I kinda agree with you, they aren't better than us, but we also treat celebreties different than "normal" people, some even treat them as demi-gods. Monarchs are in 2016 celebrities, and while in some countries they are regarded as "superior", they generally aren't in countries like Norway and Sweden.
Monarchies just feel romantic to me, I guess in Europe it's different. If I met a royal I'd call them with their title because I like the sound of it, but since I was born and raised in a democracy I wouldn't like to live under monarchical rule, unless it's the washed down kind like England has. I don't know how I would address my country's royal family though, they are still around but they were stripped of their title and exiled for decades. They're "normal" citizens now, and I kinda feel bad for them
>>915826
Ah I see. It's completely fine if we treat them differently, I guess it's all the pomp and circumstance that gets to me. I understand why we treat celebrities differently, it's because they've actually done something (excluding people like Kim K and Paris Hilton). I know it's very amerifat and edgy of me, but... what modern monarchs don't do anything. It's totally cool the way its done in Norway, the video of the Danish Queen just kind of bugs me I guess. I mean come on, at least the Norwegian royalty and probably the Swedish royalty realize that they are relics; essentially walking pieces of history that are just kind of fun to look and go "hmm, neat". Maybe the modern royalty system in the UK is just triggering me because like this guy >>915702. Idk, just wanted some input from others I guess.
>>915463
Canadian here
If it were the Queen I'd probably be near tears, but yeah I'd follow royal protocol, same with any other monarch. I've seen Prince Charles irl but unfortunately never got a chance to speak to him or anything
I got seriously obsessed with the French Revolution as a kid and went full Jacobin edgelord. I've mellowed out since then but I still have this reflexive hatred for royalty and nobility I can't get rid of.
>>915735
You respect the office even if you don't respect the person.
I saw Queen Elizabeth II once as she drove past, she surprised me so much I literally jumped up in shock even more hilarious is the fact it made her chuckle.
>>915463
I would just call them by "your highness" or whatever they prefer. It's just basic manners. I don't have to get all self righteous and try to show my disdain through some petty little informality. I call most men sir, most ladies miss/es, judges "your honor", police "officer" etc because it's just respectful.
I know royalty is just a bunch of stupid-clothes wearing nepotistic fags but it's just more comfortable to show respect where it's expected. It's one thing if its just some monarch/officer/judge you get to meet, but if it was someone who personally wronged me or I had an actual problem with, then I wouldn't be respectful.
>>915924
I respect the office for its historical and cultural value, I am in no way suggesting that we hate monarchs or that we should remove them either. I also have respect for them as people, and I said that multiple times. No one chooses the circumstances of their birth, otherwise we'd all be kings and queens. The only thing I dislike is the idea that SOME people believe that royals are better than normal people, when in fact they are just different (albeit VERY different).
i.e. I'm personally fine with modern monarchies as long as they aren't actual rulers and as long as we can just treat them like any other human while still maintaining a certain respect for their position from a historical and cultural standpoint
>>915711
But that's not what they teach us for years as children
Case in point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-9pDZMRCpQ
>>915970
>as long as they aren't actual rulers
Really? There are plenty of fine absolute monarchies and constitutional monarchies where the monarch has actual executive power. Why the bias?
>>916020
I think I've heard somewhere that they actually had representation and that the whole "taxation without representation" was propaganda. What's true?
>>916051
Somewhat. Their taxes were lower than those back in Britain, and it's not like they gave too much of a shit anyway considering they just bought illegal Dutch tea. The revolution never would have taken off without liberal elites stoking the flames.
>>915954
She seems to like surprising people with her queen-icity.
>>916082
>tfw she was dick-worthy back in the day
>>916024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia
I am somewhat inclined to agree with you, but then my common sense kicks in and I realize being ruled by an absolute monarchy would be terrible. You are thinking of a benevolent despot, which in theory is great, but what happens when the benevolent despot dies and his son, the tyrant takes over? gg no re
>Personally I would detest calling another human being "your highness"
Truly well spoken sir. I tip my hat to thee. Honour and decency is for the brutish and unsophisticated.
>>916098
that's a very flattering picture, she was comely but not really beautiful.
I respect the symbolism but not the implementation.
Brit here, if I got to meet the Queen I'd have to try to stop fucking smiling ear to ear like a maniac. I'd bow and say whatever I'm supposed. It's the fucking Queen!
>>916221
What happens when the majority of people fall for the charismatic leader's bullshit and he enacts some terrible law? gg no re
>>916272
>muh honur and tradishuns
[x] Genuflect
>>916272
Wow I must give you a 10/10 on being blind/retarded. If that's really all you took away from everything I said, then you must have made a significant effort to cherrypick that out and misinterpret it.
