> ..but you're talking about, shall we call them, since I don't know what else, the "principals" here, who get to perform the actual ceremony.** The Members of Parliment, who witness the ceremony, are already seated and waiting for them to arrive, yes?
>
> ...so it still follows (in the big picture) the format of subordinates (MP) in first, superiors (HRH) in last. (Although no, I don't suppose she actually holds the door open for the other principals and closes it behind them ;-)
>
> **Speaking of doors and Parliment, I was hoping a RinkBrit would respond (thank you) and possibly explain the door shutting thing with the House of Commons. Is that what you meant by the Black Rod "granting authority"? I thought it was fascinating.

MPs are *not* subject to the authority of the monarch (not since 1649, anyway). It's somewhat complicated, but without this running to several hours research on the details and a 5-page post I'll try to explain as best as I can:

The Queen, like all members of the nobility that have not been elected to Parliament, is forbidden from entering the House of Commons. In order to open Parliament, she needs to get permission from the House, which means that the Members need to be present to grant her that authority - it's quite plausible that she might have to wait outside untill there were enough Members present to grant that authority.

Black Rod then announces her presence to those inside by banging on the door three times with a ceremonial mace that only leaves the Tower of London for this one ceremony. I imagine that Parliament has the option of refusing her entry, but I have no idea what might happen in this instance. Once permission has been granted she enters the house behind Black Rod, and ahead of the rest of her entourage.

This is a complex example, mostly because there are two different and overlapping authorities here: The monarch, for example, must invest a newly-elected Prime Minister with the powers and duties of that office, but does not have the right to refuse to invest them (well, it happened in the 1920's, causing a constitutional crisis, and that right was removed from the monarch).

Essentially, the Queen is performing a service for the Members of Parliament, who (especially in this instance) have to be considered her superiors, as she does not actually hold *any* power (beyond the symbolic) over Parliament.

> Yes, I think security plays and played a part in the custom of subordinates entering first--whether the Viking theory is true or not, it *could* be. :-) Regardless of gender, it makes sense to send the more expendable in first to check things out, don't you think?

I once heard "recconoiter" defined as "the act of getting your head blown off so the rest of your unit knows where the enemy is", if that's the kind of thing you're thinking of...

> > winter"I still see holding a door for someone as an act of politeness"mute
>
> Well, I do too. The question originally asked was (more or less) "what ARE these huffy women thinking?!" --and my reply was more meant to offer insight into that mindset, not necessarily to defend it. Like a lot of extreme viewpoints, there is often a little kernel of truth there, however blown out of proportion it eventually becomes.

Of course. It took me two days to decide to respond because it certainly does sound like it has a grounding in fact, and I didn't intend for my reply to be taken as an attack (which it seems not to have been :) *

winter"Hope that helps"mute

* When you have a smiley at the end of a parenthical, should you close the parenthises after it or not? Doing so looks clumsy to me, but not doing so makes it difficult to tell if the parenthical has actually ended? Does anyone have any advice? Does anyone else care?