The factual answer to the question “What differentiates them [William and Harry] from just plain ordinary celebrities?” is “nothing.”
Sorry you don’t like that answer. It remains true, as the many British posters in this thread have confirmed.
BTW, since your OP was answered in the very first response, perhaps this thread should be moved out of GQ.
I actually believe that the Royal Family is kept on only because it is a tourist attraction. However, as such, it requires upgrading now and again, just like Disneyland or Coney Island. This has signally failed to happen. For a start, they keep on using the same old people. I’d like to see some fresh faces in there for God’s sake. Let’s get Sylvester Stallone in to replace Charles, and I’m sure Leonardo Di Caprio could do a much better job than William.
While I’m here, does Mount Rushmore still have the same old presidents on it?
Ah, but Diana did drag the monarchy into the 20th century, just as the rest of the world was prepping to enter the 21st. I think that Charles will not reign (serve?) long and then we’ll have William (with the whole choose the spouse thing, the wedding, the babies etc).
People magazine has no worries. 
Why make such a distinction? Why should someone bow to the state anyway? It’s an abstraction, best represented by its people. If one owes such display to the state, then we should all be bowing to everyone.
No. God, don’t they teach ANYTHING in civics any more???
In a true monarchy, the state IS the monarch (“L’Etat c’est moi”). In a republic, the state is the people. In the bastardization that is the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the state is de jure the monarch, but de facto the people. The Queen, however, remains the titular Head of State.
In the United States, the President is the Head of State.
The point Lib was making is that you bow to the Queen because she is the (Head of) State; you don’t bow to the Prime Minister, despite the fact he actually exercises the power. In the U.S., you would show deference to the President, NOT because he is the head of the Executive per se, but because he is our titular Head of State. Of course, Mr. Washington, wanting none of the trappings of monarchy, dispensed with such silliness as bowing and kneeling and such.
In England, I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the monarchy is becoming more and more just a quaint custom, and less a true idea. In a way, it is sad, given the extensive history of the monarchy. But, perhaps, it is inevitable. 
I wanted to come back to this. This statement is, I believe, incorrect. Charles II ruled not by grant of Parliament, but by right of inheritance.
It was not until 1689 that Parliament obtained the power to decide who should or should not be monarch, and, thus, established its “primacy.” The first monarch ruling by right of Parliamentary selection was William III (not, you will notice, his wife, Mary II, who ruled by right of inheritance, the claimants with priority having been considered to have abandoned their claims).
If it isn’t clear to you, my intent is to dispute the notion of “state” as propounded by simple-minded civics classes. In my view, the notion that a “state” either has any “head” or requires any symbolic head is an outdated and anti-democratic notion. We require government officials and heads of government. We, the people, require no heads of state. Off with the head!
It seems to me that Louis XIV’s claim was considered so notable because it was at odds with general notions of what the state is. So “L’Etat c’est moi” is less a key to understanding what a “state” is and more a signal of Louis XIV’s radical understanding of his place in French society.
And my point was that this distinction is no longer useful to us. We are the state; thus, we need not bow to the state. The government is our employee; thus, we need not bow to the employee. There is only the government and us.
The president is my employee. I won’t show him deference. We are the state; thus, the president show show us deference.
That explains the font. Now it only remains to explain why you complain about people not bowing to hereditary oppressors of personal liberties…
Increasingly clear? How has this not been true since before you were born?
Nor is it in the tiniest bit sad. It is one of the few true progressive acts in the history of the world. It is to be celebrated every day.
The amount of deference due the head of state is similar, though of a lesser character. Heads of state have purely symbolic roles today in most western countries. Notably, only dictators insist on fealty and deference. Elsewhere, idolatry of symbols is a notion that has also mostly passed into history. This is an indisputable part of cultural history. It is more true in the U.S. than in other nations, since we deliberately eliminated the worship of our head of state. Note, though, that we kept the positions of head of state and head of government in one person as was the norm then. It is only later that countries found it useful to separate the positions. It is exactly the separation of these positions that is the issue needing to be examined in this thread.
Might I suggest therefore, it is you, not I, who didn’t “get” the point of the OP. There are no true monarchies in western nations. Representative governments prevail almost everywhere and even dictators stage elections, although they are nothing but empty propaganda exercises. Monarchies are indeed quaint customs. No deference is due them. Period. Perhaps rather than quoting Louis XIV you should spend more time studying the French Revolution. The monarchy in France proved hard to kill, but its decline was inevitable once the automatic notion of identification of king and state was broken.
Again, deference due the Queen as head of state is a different issue. Whatever the proper respect for her position, however, it does not extend to her grandchildren. This is true for all heads of state everywhere. Britain is no exception.
The sons of the Prince of Wales hold no titles in their own right; thus, they are commoners. They are called “prince” as a courtesy merely because of their relationship to the monarch.
Well, flags.
The strictest defination of a commoner is one who is neither the Sovereign or a peer. Although they both have real, not courtesy, titles William and Harry aren’t peers (yet). This defination isn’t normally used. Peers used to have several privileges like automatically sitting in the House of Lords and only the House of Lords could try them (the Sovereign cannot be tried at all, by anyone). The latter privileges extends to the wives of peers (often refered to as peeresses). If the Queen follows her own customs she’ll create William and Harry Dukes on their respective wedding days (past monarchs did so upon majority).
Well, I’m not. I’m wondering (not complaining) about paying to do something and then not doing it. They royals are paid. (I think. Maybe)
I’ll probably get this all screwed up, but as I understand it, Elizabeth is a majesty but her mother became a highness when the daughter took over. Is that right? And if so, is that because the younger one with the same name takes the majesty title? And if so, does that mean Charles will never be a majesty unless he changes his name to Elizabeth? (Is there anyone who actually keeps up with all this?)
I pay for royals, but I don’t like it, so I won’t bow either. Doesn’t explain Elton John (I believe he’s quite fond of the royals) though.
What?
“Majesty” is the monarch. If Charles becomes the monarch, he’ll be a “majesty.”
Queen mum was “majesty” only because she was the monarch’s consort. When she stopped being the monarch’s consort, she stopped being “majesty.”
Liberal, I have a side, but closely related, question:
I’ve heard that royalty, or the idea of royalty, is quite popular in the old south. Possibly an offshoot of a plantation society, where the culture was very stratified.
You seem somewhat disappointed in John’s lack of royal respect*.
Is that true?
*Dang. I cant remember that word. It refers to the “proper” relatiobship between people of different rank and social status. 
mangeorge
Actually the Queen Mum remained Her Majesty. For the first few months of QEII’s reign her grandmother Queen Mary was still alive and there were three Her Maj’s.
The proper title was ‘Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother’, to distinguish readily between the two people with the same name. Queens don’t stop being a queen because the King has died. Arguably she should have been styled the Queen Dowager, if she hadn’t had the same name, but royalty tends to make its own rules.
So I guess Queen Mary was Queen Dowager?