XPost: aus.legal, misc.legal, uk.legal   
   From: not@this.address.com   
      
   Janitor of Lunacy wrote:   
   > We all seem to be missing the point here in that all Commonwealth   
   > jurisdiction of courts derives from the Crown, and the judges and   
   > magistrates are there in a representative capacity; hence it is *not*   
   > respect for the individual, but for the Crown.   
      
   Ancient history.   
      
   > It is customary that   
   > all subjects of the reigning monarch come to, and remain, standing in   
   > the presence of the monarch until she/he takes her/his seat.   
   >   
   > That's why it happens; if you want to change that, please feel free to   
   > become a republic. The Canadians have voted against it, as have the   
   > Australians, despite strenuous campaigning.   
      
   Australians have not voted against a republic.  They voted against the   
   manner of appointing the head of state.  It was a cynical local political   
   exercise at the time, designed to ensure that nothing changed.   
      
   If Australians had a simple choice of a republic or a monarchy, they would   
   overwhelmingly vote for a republic.  Australia already have a de facto   
   republic, as do the Canadians.  Not that it's a burning issue.   
      
   > Those nations may feel   
   > less tied to formalities as do the Brits, but the fact remains that   
   > they are what they are, and I don't see that changing in the   
   > foreseeable future.   
      
   Get your eyes tested.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)