There's a lot that can be said about this, and this is not the place to do it, but I thought I'd pass on some of my experience.
In a country with over a thousand years of history, traditions arise that persist, even when the original circumstances no longer exist. Some of those traditions take the form of words which, in and of themselves, are effectively "code phrases." They should not be interpreted literally, but instead, they must be regarded as idioms within the context.
Taking these sorts of things out of context and trying to interpret them literally leads to mistakes and misunderstandings. This is why lawyers exist, to help take what you want to say, and to say it in a way that is correct in the context of a court.
In effect, the same thing is happening here. This form of words is a formula that is used. Without it the petition fails on a technicality, as it were.
I don't know what country you are from, or where you grew up, or where you are now, so I can't even try to give examples that might make more sense to you, but cross-cultural context shifts are an absolute minefield.
As a simple example, I recently went to an event where the invitation read "Black Tie". This doesn't mean that you should wear a black tie, it means you should wear a dinner suit (UK/Australia) or tuxedo (USA). Similarly, another invitation read "Business Dress". That was a code phrase for "Collar and tie," but was interpreted by some as meaning "What you usually wear for your day job" and they came in jeans and a T-shirt.
You can probably think of some idiomatic code-phrases of your own which, when interpreted literally, would be totally mis-understood by others not of you cultural context. Being aware of this can really, really help.
Finally, having Aspergers is a bit like having the entire rest of the world full of code phrases like this that other people seem magically to understand. Treating this as a puzzle.problem to solve can help a lot in getting along with people.
I didn't feel that when writing to The Queen asking her to give someone a knighthood that it would be appropriate for me to use the following language:
"Yo, Liz. No love for AMT? Dude deserves a KCMG. Peace out, John"
It is a standard form, adhered to for centuries when writing to a British monarch.
Protocols, especially royal protocols, have evolved to ensure that people know what is expected of them and can behave in a way so as not to cause embarrassment or offence. In some ways they really are very similar to computer protocols. They are there to help people communicate effectively without distraction. Many computer protocols seems overly verbose, and they often deal with the potential for things that can no longer happen.
So it is with social protocols. At least with computer protocols and royal protocols they are pretty explicit. Often when in a social context your really don't know how you're expected to behave, and hence become anxious, and there is the potential for huge gaffes.
Again, don't underestimate the cruft that collects over thousands of years. Most people never have to deal with it.
I have to admit that I like the idea that as an American I could walk up to President Obama, address him as "Mr. President", and then hold an intelligent conversation as fellow citizens. That's pretty cool.
I think you'd have trouble getting close enough to do that without first being vetted in some way.
Similarly, I've been introduced to the Queen (twice), addressed her as "Your Majesty" followed thereafter as "Ma'am" (to rhyme with "jam", not "arm"), and held an intelligent conversation. Again, no way that would've happened without first being vetted.
Random people in the USA don't get simply to walk up to the President, random people in the UK don't get simply to walk up to the Queen.
If you're lucky, you might catch him on the campaign trail and have a chat without being vetted. But you can write him a letter without declaring yourself his loyal and obedient subject.
I'm halfway convinced the only reason anyone still puts up with this shit is that Elizabeth in particular seems to be pretty cool. Once Prince Chuckles takes over there might be a considerable uptick in republican sentiments.
Similarly if you catch the Queen on one of her visits to schools, community centres, etc., you might very well be able to have a chat without being vetted.
It's only comparatively recently that letters, especially from a man to a woman, ceased to be signed "Your obedient servant." To this day business letters are signed "Yours faithfully". If you write that, do you really mean it? If you don't write that, you'll be considered an ignorant oik.
> I'm halfway convinced the only reason anyone still puts up with this shit is that Elizabeth in particular seems to be pretty cool.
Maybe, maybe not. It seems that you and most others are unaware that this is simply one miniscule example in an entire ocean of formal diplomatic and social protocol. Recently when giving a talk at one of the Livery companies in London there were similar forms to which one adhered.
In short, I think that the people who are pointing and laughing and saying it's stupid are those who don't actually know how it works and what it does. I'm not defending it or saying it's rational, I'm merely saying that looking in from the outside, you and others are speaking from a position of well-reasoned ignorance. I grew up in an informal country, similarly thinking that all this diplomatic protocol crap was an insult and a waste of time.
I was wrong.
Personally, I'm largely convinced that it's an unwillingness even to try to understand the historical and cultural reasons for this sort of "shit" that makes so many people in Europe so dismissive of so many Americans. I've lived in three different cultures and seen this in action. One culture looks at another not only with incomprehension, but an unwillingness to try to understand. The Europeans have a multitude of cultures on their doorstep, and many of them travel, so the situation isn't as bad. In the US there are cultural differences across the states, but nothing like the differences across the borders in Europe. As a consequence, it seems, people from the USA seem much less able to see, understand, and adapt to cultural differences.
Not all, of course, and perhaps not you. But think about it.
Hackers are historically reknowned for not accepting anything on faith, and thereby ensuring that while they manage to invent things no one else has thought of, they are equally constantly reinventing the wheel. That's changed a lot lately, but there is still an air of "If it's not done the way I think it should, then it's wrong." If you can accept that what someone else does actually works and has some benefits, even if you wouldn't do it like that, then you've taken a big step.
This is no longer Hacker News, but cultural differences exist in hacking, and understanding is always worth striving for.
It seems to me that Britain has quite a bit more of this type of protocol than the USA, for the simple historical reason that the USA abolished the aristocracy and established a republic while Britain never did.
The historical and cultural reasons are clear to me: Britain has an unelected, hereditary monarchy that historically held final authority and had people killed if they weren't subservient enough. (To be fair, England's experiment with republicanism was no less tyrannical.) Over time, more and more checks grew against royal authority until eventually they grew powerless in reality. There even seem to be a few practical benefits from having the same titular head of state for decades, since most sources agree that the Queen provides intelligent and thoughtful advice to her Prime Ministers. It's a role that most parliamentary republics have replicated, albeit in an elected role.
But there was a time when addressing a monarch by the phrase "I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty’s humble and obedient subject" actually meant what it sounds like. In practical terms, maybe royal protocol isn't a real problem. Maybe people tend to create their own royalties and aristocracies without the presence of a real one. But no, I wouldn't do it like that, though I understand and appreciate that it seems to work for Britain.
"I have to admit that I like the idea that as an American I could walk up to President Obama, address him as "Mr. President", and then hold an intelligent conversation as fellow citizens. That's pretty cool."
I couldn't help but think of this Ronald Reagan joke.
"I told him the joke about the American and the Russian who were arguing about how much freedom they had. And the American finally said to the Russian, ``Look,'' he said, ``I can walk into the Oval Office. I can pound the President's desk, and I can say, `Mr. President, I don't like the way you're running our country.''' And the Russian said, ``I can do that.'' And the American said, ``You can?'' He says, ``I can go into the Kremlin. I can walk into the General Secretary's office. I can pound the desk and say, `Mr. General Secretary, I don't like the way President Reagan's running his country.'''"
RiderOfGiraffes is absolutely right here. It is just a code phrase, but being respectful to the Queen of England does require you to be subservient. British citizens are her subjects.
It's part of the 'form' of a petition to the Queen.
If you ask for a knighthood and an apology from the royal family then that's what you do. I think knighthoods are pretty silly (and what with Roger Moore and others of little achievement receiving such knighthoods their value is questionable anyway).
I smiled when I read it -- a charming throwback to 18th century England. JGC appears to be a Brit; my guess is that he's using this language to signal that he's not some wild-eyed radical bomb-thrower.
I think it serves a purpose very similar to "I am a member of your constituency" when writing to a congressperson in the US - basically saying "you should consider what I say because my relationship to you is _____".
