Etiquette, Kings and Crowns

Would the British government propose to forbid the presentation of “Hamlet,” on the ground that it is exceedingly disrespectful to the Danish monarchy?

In the line of international courtesies nothing quite so queer has recently broken loose as the decree of the British Lord Chamberlain, excluding Gilbert and Sullivan's “Mikado” from the London stage. 

At the top notch of this scale of obeisance to the powers that foreign be, we admire or wonder at this ridiculous British nobleman and censor, while at the bottom of the grade one remembers with almost equal amusement the free and easy and wholly unterrified fashion in which the late Mr. Paul Neumann — beloved of Bohemians — personally conducted King Kalakaua and steered his royal and sometimes uncertain footsteps among the pitfalls of California etiquette in the roaring eighties. His Royal Highness simply could not go wrong while Mr. Neumann headed the procession and made way for his Majesty among the thronging curious like a herald without his tabard, and gayly calling, “This way; king!”

It is a far cry from San Francisco to London, and it seems as if our ideas and those that rule the British stage are quite as wide apart. To be sure, the Lord Chamberlain's ideas are by no means of universal acceptance among his countrymen, but the British have to stand for those ideas, just the same. An irreverent Irish member of parliament has been amusing himself by pursuing to their logical conclusion the noble censor's ideas. He inquires, for example, whether the government proposes to forbid the presentation of “Hamlet,” on the ground that it is exceedingly disrespectful to the Danish monarchy.

At the bottom of the whole fuss there is, of course, an inarticulate sense that a modern King is a spectacle under the most favorable circumstances. The Kings of today are ashamed to wear their crowns even on state occasions and have them borne on a cushion. Edward VII has a crown that weighs twelve pounds, and he has too much sense to wear it if it can be avoided. — San Francisco Call, 1907

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia 

Historic Etiquette Breach

British politician, Joseph Chamberlain — In the 1880s, when Irish demands for an autonomous parliament (Home Rule) and land reform, increasingly bedeviled British politics and caused a deep rift in the Liberal Party. Chamberlain favoured Irish reform, especially at the local level, and stood with Gladstone in opposition to the use of repressive force in quashing Irish agitation. Disgraceful behaviour followed...

They Apologize 

The overgrown schoolboys who in a moment of passion took to fisticuffs and bruising in the House of Commons have now made amends for their disgraceful conduct by apologies and explanations— not, perhaps, very contrite, but sufficient to restore the equilibrium of decorum. There was no apology from Mr. Chamberlain, whose distempered gall was exuded in his comparison of Mr. Gladstone to Herod, the fate of whom he was metaphorically to suffer. 

The cankered leader of the Liberal Unionists never withdraws any phrase that rankles or kindles angry feeling, and yet he is supersensitive to any stringing thrust that touches his own delicate nature. Harold Frederic sagaciously hints that every movement this bitterly personal statesman takes up results in demoralization. As a renegade Liberal, he hates the party that nursed him into prominence, and for the Irish representatives he has nothing but the blind rage of a disappointed and balked man. 

The very Tories whom he now counsels distrust and detest him, for they at least have their ancient principles of immovability, and he is a quicksand in shiftiness, thinking less of a cause than himself.  The rank and file on both sides are doubtless anxious to forget their ungentlemanly irruption, but it is not likely soon to pass out of memory. It will always be quoted against John Bull’s Parliament when lectures on breaches of etiquette are given for the benefit of other legislative bodies prone to boil over in wrath. — San Francisco Call, 1893

🍽Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia 

Etiquette and House Rules

“Those that deal with etiquette and decorum have not been officially recorded anywhere...” — The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created in 1801, by the merger of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland under the Acts of Union. 

"How can I learn the rules of the House?" asked a newly elected Irish member of the late Mr. Parnell. "By breaking them," was the prompt reply of the Irish leader, who, as is well known, spoke from experience on the point. But few members would care to adopt that heroic method of obtaining the desired knowledge, and their task in mastering the rules is rendered all the more difficult by the curious fact that many of these regulations are unwritten. 

Some will be found in the standing orders, or permanent rules, passed from time to time by the House to regulate its own procedure, but those that deal with etiquette and decorum have not been officially recorded anywhere, save in a few quaint and obsolete regulations to be found in the old issues of the journals of the House, or in the minutes of proceedings during the session.  

For instance, a strange rule for the guidance of the Speaker is set down under the 15th of February, 1620: "The Speaker is not to move his hat until the third congee." Propriety of carriage in leaving the chamber is thus enforced: "Those who go out of the House in a confused manner before the Speaker to forfeit 10s." This rule is dated tne 12th of November, 1640. Again we find that on the 23d of March, 1693. it was ordered: "No member to take tobacco into the gallery, or to the table, sitting at committees." — A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days, 1886

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor of the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia