I admit not to know a lot about the day to day happenings of the government in the UK, but I thought one of the reasons they were aboloshing the House of Lords was because those were inherited positions and not elected officials. Would the House of Lords then be on the same level as the royalty?

The House of Lords is being abolished publically for those very reasons. One only has to look at Sir Mark Thatcher who has inherited a title because of his father's deeds (the hereditary title is not from his mother).
Privately, Blair sees that the Lords that fill the house are traditionally Conservative in their politics - hence why he's created Lords out of people like David Puttnam and Melvyn Bragg to "balance" things out a bit.
There is still no real information as to what the make up of the Lords replacement House would be but would no doubt be filled with the likes of Lords Bragg, Puttnam and Attenborough rather than the more traditional hereditary Lord we see today.
Whatever - it would still be a second house to ratify the Commons motions.

Only peripherally related here, but there is an hysterically funny piece in the current New Yorker, under the title: ROYAL WEDDING DAY SCHEDULE FOR HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH

http://newyorker.com/shouts/content/...50314sh_shouts

Amidst the humor, some of the bits seem to imply that marrying Camilla might keep Charles from being king. I know she can't be queen, but is there any reason why he couldn't be king, except dying before his mum?

I do think that the sovereign's right to rule comes from God. God has been punishing the world for the past 100 or so years with horrible wars, weapons of mass destruction, Walmart, and reality TV shows because so many peoples got rid of their God-ordained rulers.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...s&n=507846

Anyone interested in this topic MUST read "Royal Babylon", one of the most hilarious, gossipy "historical" books I have ever read. Highly recommended: You will never view "royalty" in quite the same way again.

Hi all, being an American I do not have a take on royalty. I could care less.

I am just glad I am not Queen Elizabeth. Geez, talk about a disfunctional family, she sure has one.
The poor dear.

Actually, your take on royalty is that you could[n't] care less. So you DO have one.

So there.

BTilke: People in the UK are technically not citizens but subjects of the Crown.

I suppose I'm being very American in my opinion that the whole royal/aristocratic thing is absurd. And I never understood why American players at Wimbledon would bow/curtsey to people in the Royal Box.

For goodness sake, not that old subject thing again.

I quote from the
Pledge given when one becomes a British citizen (note the word)

"I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen"

Americans swear allegiance to a piece of coloured cloth which symbolises their nation. Britons swear allegiance to a little old lady.

Ah, Billy Goat, thanks for the info. And I only pledged allegiance to the piece of cloth when forced to in school. I'm not a fan of the American fetish for the flag.

If an overseas player did not curtsey or bow then it would be considered as a slight on the traditions of a nation. When in Rome etc.
I know someone who started working for a Japanese company in the UK. In his first week a high ranking board member came over from Japan and he was introduced to my acquaintance. He was given the Japanese man's business card to which he stuffed in his back trouser pocket. He was almost sacked on the spot as this is considered the height of bad manners in Japan (even though they were in the UK). Apparently, you should accept the card with both hands, read it and bow. You just have to consider what is polite to do in any situation. I'm sure that if a British Journalist went to interview the US President and called him George rather than Mr President it would be considered a slight. It is just the way the world is.

Maybe it's just me, but while it wouldn't bother me to address a royal person the "correct" way, I just couldn't bring myself to bow to anyone! And I'm all about being polite, good manners, and acting in a way the acknowledges "the way the world works." :-)

<i><b>...and <u>to the republic</u> for which it stands...</b></i>

sera, I think you'll find that you're about 50-60 years out of date on the technical point about 'subject' rather than 'citizen'. I forget exactly which law it was, but I believe it was around 1949 - I hope flanneruk has the exact reference at his fingertips. In any case, it's a distinction without a difference because of the purely symbolic function of the monarchy, and it hung around simply because it sidestepped the problem of defining exact territorial citizenship status for people who travelled around the Empire a lot (a similar sidestep, incidentally, has always allowed citizens of Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland the right to vote in British elections). Once citizenship became a question of territorial attachment, there were no end of individual problems (five generations of births in Ireland, India and all around the Empire because papa was in the Army turned out not to qualify some people for a British passport, for example).

ira, I admit to being guilty of a painting with a broad brush and there are in fact aspects of the US system that I'd adopt if I had my druthers - not least a written bill of rights. However, the general view is that there's no reason to throw out the (Westminster system) baby with the (royalty) bathwater.

The republican system that Australia will adopt isn't in question - the present office of Governor-General (the Queen's representative) will translate into that of a Head of State with limited executive powers. What's in question, and what led in part to the defeat of a referendum a few years ago, is whether the president should be elected by popular vote or by a 2/3 majority of Parliament. The ins and outs of this issue would be even more tedious for you to read than for me to set down.

The opposition of our monarchist Prime Minister didn't help, but he won't be around forever, and both his likely successor and the Opposition are pro-republic, as are most opinion polls, so it's just a matter of time.

As long as my taxes don't pay for their up keep, I don't care.

Don't ever go to Japan then sera

my , my!!!!
how we all love to chat about any subject whatsoever!!!Royals?They're good for business , they're somehow part of every british or commonwealth household , either as the hated cousins or loved ones , they wear things we'd never dare to , tabloids would be empty without them , they're quite harmless as far as politics are concerned , they're the local Dallas-Dinasty live show.....So what's so bad about it?
Both Monaco and U.K. hold the best ones!
Up in Northern Europe or Spain , these people live regular lives , work , cook , and their subjects probably appreciate them a lot more , but as a foreigner , I must admit I like the regular good old scandals way better !
ps:I must say that People's Republic of China has embaumed former leader MAO TSE TOUNG , so the link between God , religion and politics is not a Royalty specialty!
To Robespierre:you must know in early Medieval times that Europe was very much into a tribal system , more or less.The first political power was Catholic Church.
So when the Franc king Clovis decided to become really powerful and instore a dinasty of his own , he turned into a Christian , was baptised , and was the first king designated by divine right instead of being elected like they used to do before him.That's one of the reasons why France was always considered &quot;the Eldest daughter of Church&quot; .
Now does anyone still believes in such things?I'm not sure , but back in 496 , maybe they did!

Bowing in Japan wouldn't bother me at all, since it seems to be an practice that shows mutual respect. But bowing to someone as a show of deference...not for me!

Bien s&ucirc;r, Sophie!

My wife has traced the genealogy of her family back to Charlemagne, so I get regular doses of medieval history!