WASHINGTON IS ALL IN A dither over the forthcoming visit of King George and Queen Elizabeth. It will not be the first visit of royalty to Washington, for the capital has entertained several kings and queens. But it will be the first visit of a British reigning sovereign to the American capital, and the diplomats and social authorities are going over the rules with a fine-tooth comb, so that all the right things may be done, and none of the wrong ones. It is gratifying to learn that notwithstanding the centuries of precedent with which they are familiar, the British authorities also are anxious that no slips be made. They want their young king and queen to make a good impression, and they are studying the Washington atmosphere and the Washington customs in the hope that the royal guests will be able to acquit themselves creditably in an environment with which they are not familiar. It is quite possible that their majesties are now being quietly coached in the details of behavior in an American capital.    I HAVE READ, AND Probably have told the story of the manner in which a western mountain guide adjusted himself to his first contact with royalty. It was during the visit of the late King Albert of Belgium to the United States that a guide named Bill was assigned to escort the king through a picturesque mountain section. He had been carefully instructed in advance on the etiquette to be observed. He was told particularly that he must always address the king as ""your Majesty."" Bill sized up his charge during his first few hours of service and decided that the king was a real person. As they rested before their first camp fire he said:  ""They've been telling me a lot about how I should act with you and what I should call you, but I can't make much of it. So, if it's all the same to you I'll just call you King and you can call me Bill. That struck Albert as a good idea, and the two got along splendidly on that basis.    E. V. KNOX, EDITOR OF London's great comic paper Punch, was asked some questions concerning his paper and the different standards of British and American humor. Basically he thinks that there is not a great deal of difference, and that essentially what makes people laugh on one side of the Atlantic will have a like effect on the other. He points out that joke on cricket in the United States would be about as unintelligible here as one on baseball in England. The situations might be alike, and equally funny, but the point would be missed because of unfamiliarity with the game.    HE POINTS OUT, ALSO, THAT the conditions under which Punch is published are quite different from those affecting the American humorous publication. Punch has been published for a century for the entertainment of the upper and middle classes, and it has behind it 100 years of tradition. Its constituency is distinctively a conservative one, suspicious of change, and rather inclined to be resentful toward it. That group is accustomed to be entertained in a particular way, and it is no part of the paper's business to shock its readers by innovations in matter or form. Therefore Punch changes slowly when it changes at all.  I AM NOT SURE THAT THERE is not among American entertainers a similar reverence for tradition   which    rather    cramps   their style. Several of the standard radio programs seem to support that belief.  Some  of the  programs  are full of jokes that were familiar on the  vaudeville  stage  a generation ago.  I  understand  that  the  radio vaudevillian has a difficult job as compared  with  that  of  his   stage predecessor.     The    latter    played each night before a few hundred people.   Traveling   from   place   to place he  could make one  bag of tricks  last  him an  entire  season. The radio man talks to the same people night after night, and is not expected  to  repeat himself.   Some scientific  students  of  the  subject tell us  that there are  only about so   many   possible   jokes.   Perhaps they have all been used up and we must work them over again.