First of all, nobody forced these people to bow or curtsy--or did they?  Was it a requirement for the opportunity to meet Her Majesty?  But give her credit for the long days on her 81-year-old feet, the multiple wardrobe changes, making small talk with so many people.  And think of all that hand shaking!  She did it all with grace and smiles for everyone.  Her visit, and I only saw her on TV, was a much needed break from the Iraq war, George Bush,political corruptioins, the gun violence throughout this country, and other depressing and distressing news. 

First of all, nobody forced these people to bow or curtsy--or did they?  Was it a requirement for the opportunity to meet Her Majesty?  But give her credit for the long days on her 81-year-old feet, the multiple wardrobe changes, making small talk with so many people.  And think of all that hand shaking!  She did it all with grace and smiles for everyone.  Her visit, and I only saw her on TV, was a much needed break from the Iraq war, George Bush, political corruption, gun violence throughout this country, and other depressing and distressing news.  I suspect she would have been much happier on one of her country estates with her horses.

If you visit Fark you know that it reports the news, but with snarky sub-headlines.  Such as this one today:

Queen Elizabeth attends Kentucky Derby wearing festive hat. Prince Phillip overheard asking "Which one of these horses is married to my son?"

Myth, symbol and pomp are behind a lot of what we celebrate.  People like parades and heroes.  Take Jamestown.  According to historian James Loewen, who posed the query why we heavily celebrate the Massachusetts colony but not Virginia:

Virginia, according to T.H. Breen, "ill served later historians in search of the mythic origins of American culture." *** [T]he British in Virginia took Indian prisoners and forced them to teach colonists how to farm.  In 1623 [after negotiating a treaty with the Indians]***the British offered a toast "symbolizing eternal friendship" whereupon the chief, his family, advisers, and two hundred followers dropped dead of poison.  Besides the early Virginians engaged in *** cannibalism. They spent their early days digging random holes in the ground, haplessly looking for gold instead of planting crops.  Soon they were starving and digging up putrid Indian corpses to eat. . ."

Just remember the adage.  If a man kills one or a handful, he is sent to prison or executed.  If he kills thousands, a monument is built to him.

She demonstrated more vim and vigor than most her junior. Sounds like Marc drank a jug of vinegar for breakfast. I understand his point about Democracy vs Monarchy. In the US we have no kings (or queens) but cannot deny the "aura" of the Queens stature.

Virginia received international press coverage during the Queen's visit and it was a welcomed relief from the previous weeks tragedy in Blacksburg. A little pomp, circumstance,
and millinery display will not convert the U.S. into monarchists. Its Sunday...time to enjoy some baseball (not cricket !)

 

If you like the Queen, well then that's just fine.  No problems.  But you don't "bow" to her.  Americans, and Viriginians in particular, don't bow to monarchs.

I think Marc Fisher was making something out of nothing.  First, no one was made to bow or do anything of the sort, and that was made perfectly clear.  If anyone did that, they either didn't get the word or they did it out of their own free will because they wanted to do it. 

Second, the queen is more than a celebrity; she's an ambassador of good will for her country, and has traveled the world in that role.  If the British want to keep their monarchy to use in such a role, then that's the business of the British, not our business. 

And third, for me and for many others, the queen's visit was a reminder that in our modern society where acts of unkindness and crudeness abound on a daily basis, good manners are indeed the backbone of civilization. 

To your questions about whether we as a nation are one thing or another or whether we should gravitate one way or another, I think the answers are neither to all.  Not much in life is ever so binary, though Republicans would love us to believe that to be the case.  I must admit that seeing the world in extremes is sometime comforting when I am feeling particularly fearful of the unknown.  But mostly I am awed by the complexity and subtle nuances of the world around us. 

I don't think people should be obsessed with a person nor should they be devoid of emotional expression.  Nor do I think moderating America's fascination with celebrities means adopting Victorian etiquette.  As far as what our culture should reflect, that is a deeply complex question that I am unsure we can boil down to emulating a British Royal.  Elizabeth Windsor and Diana Mountbatten-Windsor are/were just people and are/were both complex individuals (as, I think, we all are).  So when you ask whether our culture should reflect them, well what about them in particular? 

I personally don't see anything so great about either.  They both were born into wealth.  They did nothing to achieve their titles (the Queen born into it, the Princess married into it).  Neither have made (or made) any personal extraordinary sacrifices.  They have lived nothing but a life of luxury and leisure. 

To help you ponder the appeal of the Queen, I offer the following speculative points:
1.  People long for a savior and that manifests itself in religion, politics, romantic concepts, and general idolatry. 
2.  People identify with an individual that they project certain attributes on to.  Whether or not the target possesses those attributes is irrelevant, the perceiver sees them and is attracted to the projection.
3.  People have certain desires; some are unfulfilled like a life a luxury or great wealth.  This may lead to idolization of those individuals who have filled those desires (again unimportant if the target shares those desires). 

Before the queen's visit, I spoke to some of the delegates who were supposed to meet her.  They had been given a little booklet that described the etiquette and it said specifically that they were not to bow or curtsy to the queen.  They were simply supposed to wait for her to extend her hand first and then shake it.  They also were supposed to not speak unless she spoke to them first.

If anybody in the crowd bowed or curtsied as she passed them, it was because they didn't know better. But those who were supposed to actually meet her did not have to bow to her.

Furthermore, she probably doesn't think she's entitled to rule in modern England, as Fisher suggested.  The royals are figureheads and the real head of the government is the prime minister.  England is actually a parliamentary democracy.  And it retains a very limited monarchy that has little real power.

The reason people are fascinated by royalty probably has much to do with its celebrity and also with the myths and legends.  Royalty retains a certain glamor left over from fairy tales.  What enthralls some of us is simply the romance of kings, queens and princesses.  Maybe my mother read me Cinderella once too often but I'm just not offended that people are excited by seeing a real queen. 

Personally, while I don't think we need royalty in America I also don't think we need dour puritans like Marc Fisher to spoil our fun either.

As a self titled historian and one who took time out of the Webb campaign to volunteer for Discovery(the name of the ship) at Freedom Park in Alexandria, I gotta say, people need to get a grip. Both Lowell and Marc Fisher. It is true that our nation was born in 1776, of course the Revolution came about largely due to the French and Indian War. The French and Indian War is just as important as the Revolution because England was broke and needed to raise money so they taxed the 13 colonies. This led to the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre ,our Declaration of Independence. In other words Queen Elizabeth's arrival reenforces the idea that our nation really began at Jamestown.  There is Jamestown, first, then Plymouth. Jamestown gave the nation the merchantile system, Plymouth gave us our religious heritage. I really think Lowell gave us his worst. Raising Kaine is a muckraker site, Lowell's post was more of taking potshots at a historic occasion.  So what if people bow? How is that newsworthy?  Lowell and Marc Fisher should know that the Queen's coming represents her nation honoring Jamestown for the 400 anniversary. On similair notes, Virginia has given the nation a sincere regret for slavery, to coincide with the occassion. On top of that, Virginia is recognizing its Indian tribes, to coincide with this historic occassion. Its historic occassion within historic occassion.  So what if Virginia calls a state holiday at the expence of taxpayers dollars, I think that's a good way to waste tax dollars. Our Federal Government swindled us into a war that dwarf's the Queen's holiday in the trillions.  Our fighting men and women could be doing something else. That money on the Iraq war could be going somewhere else. At least Kaine was honest in his intensions. 

The Queen favors Republicans (visits to Eisenhower, Ford, Bush I & II) and comes at the end of things. Her Highness seems to favor the Scots of the South rather than the pesky Irish here in the North. But some historians say it was not the monarchy which came to dominate the colonies but the rising commerce class in London which came to dominate the crown and parliment when Elizabeth I was influenced to grant charter to "200 billionaires" of the East India Company. Just as industry and oil here today have come to dominate Congress and the Presidency. Renegade Southern historians Grady McWhiney and Forest McDonald ("Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South") suggest that if the South had it's own Queen she would be more immune today from these "Hamiltonian" (Wall St.) influences and be more Jeffersonian (but Jefferson was most fiercely anti-monarchy - Adams had tendencies). I tend to like her because she looks a little like my mother and like everybody's mother. And I saw here once riding in a car with Frank Rizzo in Philadelphia and she kindly waved at us all, drunk and sober alike. Anyway, it seems to be over for all that: Elizabeth I & II are book ends, Victoria the book.