Comments by "Helen Trope" (@heliotropezzz333) on "The New Tourist" channel.

  1. Because before 1963 Nigeria was part of the British Empire so technically he was her subject.
    9
  2. Because she was the Queen of the British Empire of which Nigeria was a part before 1963. So before then, technically he was her subject but I understand the gesture of refusing to bow was striking a blow for independence.
    5
  3. She was a Head of State and representing both her country and the British Empire of which Nigeria was a part until 1963. There are always protocols when the representatives of countries are involved and before 1963, technically she was his overlord.
    5
  4. If this was before 1963, Nigeria was part of the British Empire so technically, as Head of the British Empire she was his overlord.
    4
  5. A King is not always above a Queen 'by definition', he is only above a Queen who is a Queen by marriage but not above a Queen who is Queen in her own right as was Elizabeth II. They would be equals in this case, under normal circumstances. However if this was before 1963, Nigeria was part of the British Empire so technically she was the overlord then, but refusing to bow to her is a meaningful gesture against colonialism and towards independence.
    3
  6. Because Nigeria before 1963 was a part of the British Empire so technically she was his overlord.
    3
  7. Racism and sexism in one? No I doubt that was his reason, or not his primary one. I think he wanted to strike a blow for independence from the British Empire, I guess. Before 1963 Nigeria was part of the British Empire so technically she was his overlord before 1963.
    2
  8.  @esetravels  Yes you are right. It's 1960. My search engine provided me with the date that it became a Republic rather than its independence date, though I had searched with the question 'When did Nigeria achieve independence?'
    2
  9.  @thomasscott1570  Not if I wanted to make a protest for independence. I understand why he would not do it. I'm not justifying bowing, just explaining why it would be the protocol in that situation
    2
  10.  @townseydroidborleyboy8024  No I didn't but children are not always aware of the implications of what adults teach them to do.
    2
  11.  @aimee-lynndonovan6077  They are heads of state and there are always protocols when representatives of countries are involved. Moreover if this was before 1963, Nigeria was still part of the British Empire so technically she was his overlord.
    1
  12.  @townseydroidborleyboy8024  She has German ancestry but she and her ancestors for quite a way back were born in England so she's British by nationality.
    1
  13.  @kingkarlo9587  Head of the British Empire which Nigeria was part of until 1963. He was technically her subject before 1963.
    1
  14.  @townseydroidborleyboy8024  What does it matter anyway, but for the record, George I, her German ancestor, was a descendant of James I, the King who succeeded Elizabeth I and James I was a descendant of Henry VII via Henry VIII's sister Margaret.
    1
  15.  @townseydroidborleyboy8024  Children are not responsible for their relatives.
    1
  16.  @townseydroidborleyboy8024  No she's not as bad. She would not have known what he was up to at the time.
    1
  17.  @isamuhimura8951  No. It's because she was Head of the Empire that Nigeria was part of, so technically she ranked higher than him.
    1
  18.  @DrFatmaKhanPanAfrikan  This was in Nigeria, I understand in West Africa but Nigeria was at the time, part of the British Empire unless this was after 1960.
    1
  19. Richard was French by bloodline. @townseydroidborleyboy8024 
    1
  20.  @nicolagrant5450  It's not about you. It's about protocol and tradition.
    1
  21.  @henrygreene7274  It makes sense in historical and protocol terms. These are not private citizens but representatives of their countries.
    1