Paul Edwards/Reuters
Britain's Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (c.), Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (r.) and Sophie, Countess of Wessex (l.) attend the annual Order of the Garter Service last week at St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle in Windsor, southern England.

UK's thoroughly modern royals? Not exactly. Commoner Kate has to curtsy.

The British monarchy has raised eyebrows by updating a rulebook to include guidelines on how the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton, who has no royal blood, must acknowledge the "blood princesses."

News that the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton, the probable future queen of England, has been instructed to curtsy to her husband’s younger cousins has caused some surprise here, where she has quickly come to be regarded as one of the most senior members of the royal family.

Queen Elizabeth II has approved an update of the Order of Precedence in the Royal Household, a sort of manual of court rules, that has been amended to take into account the addition of Kate, who married Prince William last year.

The Order now states that Kate, who has no royal blood in her veins, must curtsy to the “blood princesses”: the Princess Royal, Anne; Princess Alexandra, the granddaughter of George V; and the daughters of the Duke of York, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie; when she is not accompanied by her husband.

When Kate is with William, she need not curtsy to the blood princesses, but even in his presence she must curtsy to the Queen and Prince Philip; her father-in-law Charles, the Prince of Wales; and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall.

It has come as a surprise to some that the royal family should spell out such an arcane piece of protocol at a time when it is seeking to project a more modern image. Kate, with her relaxed, easy manner, is considered to have been great asset in this endeavor.

The royal family is also attempting to pare itself down and present a more compact group of key family members at public events. During the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations earlier this month only Prince Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry joined the queen on the balcony of Buckingham Palace.

Ten years earlier, at the Golden Jubilee events, all the queen’s four children stood alongside her.

"It is quite apparent that the more distant royals are being phased out, in terms of their duties and privileges, although it will be done slowly,” says Liz Brewer, an expert on etiquette among the British upper classes. “But this is the form, this is how things are done, and there are certain rules that you follow. Once you start to say, let’s forget that one, the whole thing starts to fall apart.”

She cites as an example of this general rule the relaxation of protocol at Royal Ascot – an annual horse race attended by the queen, a racing fanatic – governing which people are invited into the royal enclosure.

“Once those rules were relaxed the dress code got more and more inappropriate until you had people with short dresses flying up and all that sort of thing,” says Ms. Brewer.

This year, the organizers sought to undo the damage with an exacting new dress code that specified skirts of knee-length or longer and hats “with a base of four inches or more.”

The order was last updated in 2005, following Prince Charles’s marriage to Camilla Parker-Bowles. That change clarified that neither Princess Anne nor Princess Alexandra would have to curtsy to Camilla when Prince Charles was not in the room.

One of the biggest questions surrounding the new update of the order is whether Kate Middleton is expected to curtsy to the younger princesses when the royal family is relaxing in private. If she is, it must come as a relief that Debretts, which has published a heavy “Peerage and Baronetage” tome since the 18th century, defines the curtsy as “just a short bob (not a full ground-sweeping dip).”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to UK's thoroughly modern royals? Not exactly. Commoner Kate has to curtsy.
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today