Royal family rules dictate that one must bow to the queen, especially during ceremonies and big events like a royal wedding. Prince William and Kate Middleton did not forget their place and collectively bowed and curtsied to the queen inside Westminster Abbey on their wedding day in 2011. A video of Kate Middleton curtsying to Queen Elizabeth II on her wedding day, April 29, 2011, at Westminster Abbey is going viral.
Meanwhile, Meghan Markle did make a curtsy to Queen Elizabeth after the national anthem at her 2018 wedding, though viewers of the official TV coverage may have been quick to miss it. Kate Middleton could be seen kissing Charles and Camilla on both cheeks before bobbing into a curtsy as the monarch and his wife arrived at the Abbey.
The custom has been observed by all modern royal brides, including Princess Diana, Kate, and Meghan. The clip, showing Kate’s curtsy to Queen Elizabeth II and the monarch’s smiling reaction, has received almost 8,000 likes and numerous comments, many of which have praised the princess gesture.
In conclusion, the royal family has a tradition of bowing to the queen, and Kate Middleton and Prince Harry have been seen making this gesture at their weddings. This tradition has been observed by all modern royal brides, including Princess Diana, Kate, and Meghan.
📹 Did Kate Middleton curtsy to the Queen at her wedding?
Curtsying is a big deal in the royal family, and Kate Middleton never misses an opportunity to show her respect to the queen.
Did Meghan Markle curtsy the Queen at her wedding?
In the video, Meghan bows her head as Harry bows his. It would have been unusual for Meghan not to curtsy to Queen Elizabeth on her wedding day. No clear footage of the gesture from another angle has been released. Some TikTok users say Meghan curtsied, while others say she didn’t.
Meghan did, show it! One user wrote, “Bias again.”
Did Princess Margaret curtsey to the Queen?
Princess Margaret curtsies to her sister, Queen Elizabeth II, at her wedding to Antony Armstrong-Jones. Princess Anne curtsies to her mother, Queen Elizabeth, on her wedding day to Captain Mark Phillips. On her wedding day, Princess Diana curtsied deeply before Queen Elizabeth while Prince Charles bowed.
Does Prince William bow to Camila?
All royals bow or curtsy to King Charles and Queen Camilla. Since he became king, Prince William and Princess Kate have bowed and curtsied to the monarch many times. Charles and Camilla also greet their family with a hug and a kiss on the cheek. They did this when they arrived at the Royal Carol concert last December. On their wedding day, royals bow or curtsy to the monarch. Princess Diana, Prince Charles, Prince William, Princess Kate, and Prince Harry all bowed or curtsied to Queen Elizabeth while walking down the aisle.
When HRH titles are involved, the rules for bows and curtsies change. If you have a title like “His Royal Highness,” you don’t have to bow to someone with the same title.
Is Meghan supposed to curtsy to Kate?
The comments come before Prince Harry returns to the UK to mark the Queen’s death anniversary. Royal Highnesses bow and curtsy only to the Queen, so Meghan Markle would only have to do so to Kate Middleton once the princess becomes Queen. Read more: After Princess Diana’s death, King Charles did this. In his autobiography, Prince Harry wrote about Meghan and Kate’s feud. At the time, Kate was pregnant with Prince Louis. She said Meghan owed her an apology for calling Kate “suffering from baby brain.” Prince Harry said the fight between Kate and Meghan over Princess Charlotte’s bridesmaid dress made Meghan cry.
Does Meghan have to curtsy to Kate?
The comments come before Prince Harry returns to the UK to mark the Queen’s death anniversary. Royal Highnesses bow and curtsy only to the Queen, so Meghan Markle would only have to do so to Kate Middleton once the princess becomes Queen. Read more: After Princess Diana’s death, King Charles did this. In his autobiography, Prince Harry wrote about Meghan and Kate’s feud. At the time, Kate was pregnant with Prince Louis. She said Meghan owed her an apology for calling Kate “suffering from baby brain.” Prince Harry said the fight between Kate and Meghan over Princess Charlotte’s bridesmaid dress made Meghan cry.
Does Kate Middleton have to curtsy to Princess Eugenie?
Kate was expected to curtsy to Anne, Beatrice, and Eugenie, but not with William. Even when Kate was with William, she still had to curtsy to Anne. The Princesses’ rank stayed the same. The same rules applied to Meghan Markle. The Duchess of Sussex had to curtsy to everyone when alone, but did not have to bow before Beatrice and Eugenie if she was with Prince Harry. She had to curtsy to Anne. A Telegraph source says curtsying is also required in private.
Does princess Charlotte have to curtsy?
The princess has been praised for her composure at important events. She has curtsied to Queen Elizabeth and King Charles on social media. One of the most recent examples is on TikTok by @mandzsky on November 25. It’s part of a compilation of the princess royal event highlights. The video opens with Charlotte curtsying to her late great-grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, at her state funeral on September 19, 2022.
Who has to curtsy to Princess Beatrice?
In 2012, Kate was put in the order after Prince William married her. Kate would have to curtsy to Princesses Anne, Beatrice, and Eugenie, but not if she was with her husband. If Kate and William were together, Kate would only have to curtsy to Princess Anne and Alexandra, not the York daughters. Her husband makes her above them. Meghan Markle might have found royal gatherings overwhelming. She wasn’t born royal, so she would have had to curtsy to almost everyone unless Harry was with her. Then she would have been above Beatrice and Eugenie, but still had to curtsy to Princess Anne, Alexandra, and her sister-in-law. Do they really bother with all this behind closed doors? Wouldn’t it be easier to ignore the rules and act normally? One mole says he’s seen them bowing to each other. “I don’t know what they do when no one’s around, but I think they curtsy.” “They all curtsied with the Queen.”
Does Princess Anne have to curtsy to Queen Camilla?
Everyone in the royal family must bow or curtsy to King Charles and Queen Camilla. Even the King’s children, Prince William and Prince Harry, should bow to their father. Sometimes, members of the royal family don’t bow or curtsy when greeting the King and Queen. They may kiss each other on the cheek. This is usually the case if they see each other later in the day.
Did Princess Charlotte bow to Camilla?
Charlotte didn’t curtsy to Camilla. Her step-grandmother reassured her with a pat on the shoulder. We are part of the Yahoo family of brands. When you use our sites and apps, we use cookies to: We use your data to provide our sites and apps, authenticate users, apply security measures, prevent spam and abuse, and measure your use of our sites and apps.
📹 Prince William and Kate Middleton Bow To The Queen
Prince William and Kate Middleton Showing Respect To The Queen of England on Their Wedding Day.
Kate has the gift of being a Princess/Queen. You could see the love and how proud her family has for her. You can just see how a genuinely real and kind person that she is. I just love her and wish her the best. Prince William is one lucky Prince!!! Prince William married into a good family and family values that Kate grew up with. They truly are blessed to have each other. I know Diana would have approved and been so proud. Queen looks so happy. You know she approved this wedding with no problems. God Bless Prince William, Kate, and their beautiful children and keep them safe.
Princess Kate is a REAL Princess just like Princess Diana!!! She participates in her Royal duties without a complaint, just like Princess Diana!!! Also, in my opinion, she does’nt use Prince William for material things like someone else we ALL know of whom also came between 2 close & loving brothers!!! 🙏✌❤
1. This ceremonial sign of respect is not just part of the ceremony and tradition, although that is just as important as anything. They are acknowledging their fealty as newly minted married Prince and Princess to the Supreme governor of the Church of England, the Queen of England, the Monarch who formally APPROVED their marriage, and their Grandmother. This is not only ANCIENT ENGLISH TRADITION, this is LOVE. .
This was my very first royal wedding that I saw live. I was 9 years old when Edward got married, but we didn’t watch it, because it was a lot more low key. I saw the weddings of Charles, Andrew and Edward on Youtube the week before, but I didn’t track down Anne’s until maybe 2 weeks ago! I’d have to say that hers was my favourite out of them all. I LOVED Anne’s curtsy to her mother before the recessional!
Just finished perusal another you tube website comment on Meghan and Harry’s wedding. They walked right past the queen. Neither one of them bowed or even looked at her. And to see the smile on Catherine’s face as she bowed to the queen was heart stopping. She smiled. You could see the queen smile back at her. Catherine’s face said to the queen how much she loved and respected the queen in that one fleeting moment.
hey let me tell you something. I’m American, and I love my country, but England far outstrips any other country in the world. They stick to ancient tradition and they’ve got a thousand years to back it up. Monarchies have worked for thousands of years. They’re not perfect, but I’m beginning to believe they are better than what we have in America.
Catherine and William are having the real fairy tale life we had all hope Diana and Charles would have had. The difference is that Catherine and William deey love each other and the family they created together. The are having the fairy tale his mother didn’t get. Diana must be smiling that her elder son has married so well.
@mousiekins860 The Queen seems absolutely happy and delighted with her grandson’s choice.She moved her head while smiling,took a look at Kate’s dress and then look again back to them.I don’t care William didn’t aske her approval,none does.William is 29,28 at the time of the engagent.He’s grown up,he makes his own choices and I like the fact that he cares for his relationship with Kate more than what the Queen and the people say,think and do.He is in love,so he proposed to the woman he loves.
PS: What are you trying to sell us? That’s simply not true. The Queen during the year is “in residence” at three grandiose public places that I know of (maybe more). She is always bopping back and forth between Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. And once a year at least, she’s in residence at Holyrood House in Edinburgh. (And please don’t spout some BS about one being a “palace,” one a “castle,” and one officially a “house.”) BTW, I didn’t include Balmoral which she privately owns.
@paulinesmith44 To be precise, Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the UK doesn’t actually appear in her official title. As far as protocol and precedent is concerned, the order of the constituent countries is: England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Wales doesn’t get a mention as it’s a Principality, not a Kingdom (Northern Irleand or Ulster is a Province of the former Kingdom of Ireland).
There’s a Wikipedia article about the royal loyalists during the revolutionary period. There was neither organized violence against them nor mandatory expulsion. It is estimated that no more than 2% of the colonial population (perhaps 1 in 5 of the loyalist population) left the country voluntarily after independence, mostly to Canada and Florida.Some random violence and loss of property probably occurred, but compare this with the rivers of blood that have flowed from dynastic wars in Britain.
@393edge Well,I liked her bow more than Sarah’s and Sophie’s,I wasn’t able to see well Diana’s bow.I loved the fact that she smiled.And I liked that the Queen moved her head like saying to them “I totally approve,go on”.And if she didn’t bow her head as a sign of changing protocol,then this is a perfect future Queen.
My point is that without a Constitution, it CAN happen.By 1940, royal assent of a bill approved by Parliament was automatic. In any event, it had only been a couple of years earlier that your King was a Nazi sympathizer. And it DID happen in Scotland.Neither the accident of royal succession, nor England’s collusion with traitorous Scottish Nobility would have resulted in the loss of Scottish independence, if a Scottish Constitution had blocked the action of the Scottish Parliament in 1707.
Parliament is supreme. There’s been some talk (chatter?) off late on the issue of a written constitution for the United Kingdom. Personally I can’t imagine anything new coming along for the simple reason the present system allows for evolution and change. A written constitution becomes a fixed point in time and is difficult to change. Parliament is much more dynamic than I get the impression you are allowing. Good old “FarmerGeorge” was one of our most popular and beloved kings.
@ApricotsMariska Of course she don’t make her self available to the tourists why would she. She is the Queen they come from america and around the world to see everything she is about people love it its special we have the most famous and prestigious royals in the world. If the Queen takes after her mother she could well out live charles once kate has a child that will ensure the royals for many years to come we will NEVER be a republic they are one of the last things that is great about us.
Now if I banged on about the Duponts, the Vanderbilts or the Rockefellers some American is going to come back at me and tell me that that’s the American way, capitalism, profits etc etc. On the issue of ‘luxurious’ accommodation. The Royal Family live in a suite of rooms at B.P. that were so out of date in 1953 that The duke of Edinburgh all but refused to move in. HM has Windsor as a wekend retreat – the Pope goes to Castel Gandolfo, you president has Camp David – what’s your problem?
Not lying chum – I leave that silliness to others. Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House are private properties belonging to the Queen as a private individual. All of the historic royal palaces (including Windsor Castle, the Tower of London and Hollyrood House) are state owned. Calling anyone a liar is silly – ‘mistaken’ maybe, but liar, never. You are frequently mistaken.
“Farmer George” was indeed quite gracious to the radical Boston lawyer Adams. The POINT of a constitution is that it defines the very nature of the state, and can only be amended with supermajority consent. In 1940, SENSIBLE Britons such as Lord Halifax felt that an accommodation must be reached with Hitler. Halifax might have become PM and ceded de facto sovereignty to Germany with a simple vote in Parliament. You had no Constitution to prevent it. Only the Anglo-American Churchill saved you.
Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House are the queen’s private property. They are maintained entirely from the queen’s private income. The historic royal palaces and Windsor Castle on the other hand are State owned. If you’re too thick to understand that distinction what’s the point in exchanging chat with you? Anyone can comment agreed – my point of view is as valid as yours so keep the personal insults to yourself
@paulinesmith44 If you check you will find that it is your leader that is stalling with the vote He has said that he (slamond wants to wait another 2 years before giving the people of Scotland the vote so it is NOT Englands cronies as you call them that are stalling but your leader.\r I agree with you on the cronies bit as far as I am concerned I wouldn’t piss on any of them if they were on fire .
How many US families with huge wealth would pass your ‘income/wealth’ test? The basic fact is the royal income is based on landholdings that two and half centuries ago were handed over to the State. Part of the income generated from that property is paid to the Queen. Perhaps you’d care to give us a breakdown of the income of the US president.
If you’ll review the postings, you’ll note that I was responding directly to a message in which YOU shouted. So apparetly you feel that only YOU get to shout? (By the way, I sometimes capitalize a word to suggest the emphasis that one uses in informal spoken conversation.) Is it not valid to point out that royal income, apart from the Civil List (paid by the taxpayers) and the Duchies, is based on inherited wealth which was gained from nefarious means (as viewed by modern standards)? …contd
contd: So I wasn’t wrong on the facts. As for whether it’s my business or not, this is a YouTube posting which allows comments, and up to a point, you were quite willing to debate the issue. But at a certain point, your “argument” became “shut up.” I would suggest that you could have pointed out that the Civil List income yields more money TO the exchequer than the royals receive OUT of the exchequer. (Since George III transferred his Crown Estate income to the government in 1760.) …contd:
Where have I written that Catholic exclusion is “OK” still less were have I written I don’t worry about it? I’d argue that many thousands of ordinary Americans are appaled at the influence of the ‘gun-lobby’ but being as it’s written into the constitution it cannot simply be removed by a simple majority vote.
In the case of the ‘bearing arms’ – what possible public does that reflect today? Hundreds have been killed and the wretched amendment is backed and supported by a powerful clique. I’ve noticed that in many US produced police series now seen in this country, killers are referred to as “the shooter” rarely now as “the gunman” demonstrating how far the gun-lobby has succeeded in distancing the gun from killing. Parliament is not a reed in the wind.
Not so! There must always be a mechanism by which a constitution is interpreted for the law of the day. (In the US, that system is “Judicial Review.”) And there is always a mechanism for amendment. (The US constitution has been amended 27 times.) For better or worse, the Second Amendment right to bear arms is popular.If there was sufficient popular support for guns in Britain, Parliament could pass a law tomorrow. There’s no constitution in Britain to constrain Parliament one way or the other.
Of course Catherine would curtesy to HM. She shows respect to the queen, follows protocol, listens to her advisors with PWs aid. This is the correct image at the royal wedding not as snarkle did with barely (none) motions of a curtesy. Again snarkle believes she is above protocol and probably ignored her advisors. She believes she is more important and sbove the RF, PH shouldto the queen and the firm. have made sure she curtesied to the queen. She probably believes she is more important than HM. But Harry doesn’t believe in controlling his wife and insisting that she follow protocol instead they throw tradition into the face of the RF. They are shameful and do not deserve any aid from the RF. The Cambridge’s always shows respect to the queen and the firm. They show what it means to be royal. Kudos to the Cambridges😀😁
…contd…. That Crown Estate argument does not alter the fact that the wealth of the royal family ultimately comes from ill gotten gain (historically), but at least it would have advanced the rational debate. Nevertheless, you preferred to simply tell me to shut up…..that I’m a foreigner…and it’s none of my business. Is this an example of that famous British politeness and courtesy that we Americans always hear about?
It’s beyond me why the British get pissy when we try to explain to explain to them about their form of government. As for the Commonwealth, Canada is another country that deserves an American-style republic. But they have a Governor General who is a Viceroy, the next thing to a King….bowing, curtseying, etc. Governors General have even created controversy by meddling in Canadian politics, and interfering with the separatist movement.
Hello Danny, Victorian antiquarians had a tendency to ‘over -egg’ the pudding. The image of savage hordes of Anglo Saxons butchering the indigenous Welsh was staple fare. More recent studies tend to reflect a more gradual settlement. This does not of course deny confrontations between the native and immigrant groups. The Anglican Church (HM is The Supreme Governor) is indeed the State Religion but it is an inherited situation. There is complete religous toleration here
I said that free ownership of guns based on the Second Amendment right to bear arms is supported by a large majority of Americans. That’s simply a fact. I share your distaste for the absolutist views on the issue, and for the political power of the National Rifle Association. But that’s also just a fact. In a frontier nation on the edge of a vast wilderness, the founders thought that owning a gun was a good idea. And historically, those guns were used against the British Army in the revolution.
I was referring to the INSTITUTIONS of royalty and aristocracy. I think that the royal family should be RETIRED. Even as figurehead, an hereditary head of state, living in regal grandeur at the expense of the people, is a bizarre idea in the 21st century. There were no killings of royalist sympathizers in America after the revolution. We are not the French after all. Although if the revolution had failed, I imagine King George had the gallows in mind for Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al.
Wikipedia is hardly a “US” source. And while revolutions are violent, feel free to compare the American revolution with the French….or the Russian…..or for that matter the Conquest of 1066. I think we shouldn’t confuse issues of modern governance with unrelated matters. There is no honor in the history of the treatment of the native Americans. But throughout all of history, native peoples have been displaced by stronger civilizations. It happened to the native peoples of Britain by the way.
Make up the government as we go along – allows for flexibility and the ability to change direction to meet new or unexpected circumstances. You appear to be overlooking the political dimension of 17th century Catholicism. A near modern equivalent would be something like the US ensuring no president could be a Marxist. The law of succession has been changed to allow a female first-born can succeed – the issue of religion is still too sensitive (vide Northern Ireland and Scottish Calvinism)
And I would have pointed that out were I interested enough to continue replying. From my point of view, the interest of many Americans is shallow and turns on a soap-opera atitude to our royal family – others take it upon themselves to “teach us how to be a democracy” ignoring the fact that this country is years ahead in political maturity and still others appear to be stuffed with anglophobic resentment.
Yeah, leave british monarchy! It is one of the oldest and the most traditional one all over the world. It is just the great franchise of british people. And in fact, it is cheaper than polish president (I’m from Poland, i have seen costs of our president office and it is about few millions more expensive)! Imagine, what would be UK without monarchy. United Republic, UR?
Do you not understand even the PRINCIPLE of Constitutional government?Doesn’t it occur to you, even a point of discussion, that fundamental aspects of the structure of government itself – such as the makeup of the legislative body – or the method of choosing the Head of State – are too important to leave to a simple majority vote of Parliament, which reflects only the most recent election returns?Is there no minority right that you would want to protect from a simple majority vote in Parliament?
Kibndly reove your ‘republican’ blinkers and take another look. The British royal palaces, in exactly the same way as The White House, are state owned. The Prince of Wales has a London address that is also state owned. Othe members of the royal family either have their own private property or rent accommodation in Kensington Palace – rent that is paid to the state. The majority of royal palaces are no longer lived in and are museums.
@paulinesmith44 Scotland does not take precedence over England. In any case, the Stuart dynasty was finally removed in 1714, the English having to invite the Elector of Hanover to become KIng in preference to the exiled James II and VII. In terms of British constitutional history, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I suggest you start reading authoritative sources on the topic, rather than displaying your ignorance on here.
You are constantly saying that parts of your system of governance may be anachronistic (the anti-Catholic parts for example), but that’s OK, and you don’t worry about it. Yet you are offended by our gun rights which mostly reflect historical realities in the past, and yet remain popular with the population today. A little bit of a double standard there don’t you think?
@jazzdrum100 I’m awfully sorry, but I cannot agree with your mode of thought! Royalty costs money! That’s true! So would a president! Certainly he/she would not cost less money! But I can’t see the compellent argument! Most of the royal properties were alienated to the state! That’s why they get money! But first of all, the Queen represents AND IS the ancestral nation! They’re not elected careerists! They are – just like we all are – FROM THE NATION! Money talk is simply abject and miserable!
The Americans dealt with the English in the only way they understand. Warfare! But most of the other pillaged lands and peoples entered the long sorry twilight of English tyranny…..the “Commonwealth.”Today, these lands have no real choice but to retain the English Monarch as Head of State, with the indignity of a royal Governor.The Australians, for example, yearn for an American style republic. But the political will cannot coalesce around a republican constitution. So English tyranny endures.
2. Were my grandmother alive today and I to marry, I would make my new husband bow with me to my own grandmother just as they did there out of love & respect for my matriarch, even before I saw this. And we’re just ignorant Americans. I watch this article over and over because I love tradition and respect, and this is all that. Fantastic couple. I can see Prince William wants to be a better husband than his father was….. *cough*.
Why are you concentrating your effort of attacking a monarchical system that disappeared at the end of the 17th century? The Consitutional Monarchy that emerged following the Bloodless Revolution of 1688 is a far cry from the sort of thing you’re going on about. George III was a Constitutional king and a great deal of the freedoms that you cherish as Americans had their origins in charters, Acts and settlements made by and with rulers in these islands.
amazing how close your post is to that posted by the fair(?) whatshername. Are you related? Ask her to let you read my reply to her latest nonsense – I don’t always read your stuff but common sense should have alerted you to what I meant to write. Not to worry, clowns with always hang onto the slightest error to build their case – bye for now, isn’t it time you were back at your work station?
The American taxpayer bears a terrible burden in maintaining the largest military establishment in the world. Armies on every continent and fleets on every ocean to maintain peace and stability in the world. And we get damn little thanks for it. If we hadn’t pulled Britain’s fat out of the fire in WWII, there’d be no royal family in Britain to talk about.
Toleration? Oh yea? When do you suppose that a Roman Catholic will be crowned King? Perhaps you’ll allow that we must doubt the seriousness of an “Unwritten Constitution” which can be accepted or ignored at will. I often hear the Brits say something like, for example,…”well yes, the institutional discrimination against Roman Catholics is unfortunate, but we don’t really take that State Religion thing seriously these days.” I swear that you people just make up government as you go along.
OK, I gather from your use of English that you’re in the US. Firstly using words like ‘regal splendour’ and ‘..at the expense of the people’ are meaningless. Palaces are ‘regal’ buildings and do not the US presidents ‘live at the expense of the people.’? There were no killings of royalist sympathisers – you sure? There were hundreds of American royalist refugees, properties were confiscated and families expelled from their land.
OK a left-wing journalist made a comment. Doesn’t alter the fact that both buildings are state owned. Imagine: Your dear old granny’s council house burns down – the local council come along and tell her she has to pay for all of the repairs – same thing, the queen does not own eith Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle.
In essence yes. Also because Catherine is being welcomed into the RF. But from the looks of it HM is not happy about it as she turns up her nose and looks away. But what do you expect when Kate has attacked the RF on numerous occasions and William only told HM about the proposal 2hrs before when he is supposed to wait until the Queen has approved the proposal at the Grand Council before the announcement. Meaning William snubbed the Queen and 1,000 years of history.
You are using US sources – hundreds were dispossessed and were left destitute. “Some random violence and loss of property probably occurred…”? No ‘probably’ about it. As for “rivers of blood” – ask the native Americans for their views on whether or not your claim that the US is innocent on that score.
The American president as Head of State is provided a residence and a salary (modest for his responsibilities). The White House is relatively small and plain as an executive “mansion” by world standards (compare it with France), and it would serve as little more than servants’ quarters for any of the Queen’s palaces. The President lives there with his wife and kids. The Queen and the entire “royal Family” are housed in sumptious palaces and residences across the length and breadth of Britain.
Please try to understand that I don’t give c**p about the big money American Oligarchs BECAUSE they are not our Heads of State and they are not supported by the public, and they don’t live in public housing. YOUR royal Oligarchs are your Head of State (and family) and receive taxpayer support and are maintained in regal splendor in palaces and castles. You are not stupid. You MUST understand the difference.
I DIDN’T SAY THE QUEEN OWNED THEM. THAT’S THE FREAKIN POINT. They belong to the people, and no human being on earth deserves accommodations like that, provided by hard working taxpayers. And you said that the other royals pay RENT. When they have no honest income, the incomes from their Duchies, plundered from the people, is not theirs in any ethical or moral sense. Once more, they are simply living on the work of the British taxpayer.
I take your point about indigenous peoples, but there was no genocide of the native Americans either…just poor treatment and displacement to reservations. Tribal identities were maintained, and today the tribes have sovereignty over tribal lands across the nation. The point about religion is not the brutality of the Reformation, or personal religious discrimination, it’s that your government DID and DOES dictate a State Religion, whereas the American Constitution expressly forbids it.