[Idriel]

Originally Posted by Ellie2

The whole Camilla/Charles news has revived allot of question directed at monarchists that have been left unanswered.

Well I had also asked one question to republican that has been left unanswered: What improvement do you expect exactly from a Republic? Do you expect more freedom? More prestige? A sudden leap into the 'Modern World' (whatever that means)? I really don't get that republican optimism, could you please answer that?

Tony Blair said it is important that the people of Iraq have a direct choice over who governs them, but he failed to state that in Britain we do not have a constitution, which protects our liberty.

But you have a constitution. The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy so obviously you have a constitution. The fact that it is unwritten does not mean it does not exist. I think Warren told it is made of precedent and common law, and also several texts like the Act of Settlement or texts written by constitutional experts. As for your liberties, you're being unjust IMO. With the Habeas Corpus, the UK has been a precursor in human right. And you invented (I think you were the one, correct me if I'm wrong) the constitutional monarchy, which was genius. Your country has been clearly a model in term of political liberty and stability and human rights, I think. Much more than we (French) ever did with our Revolution.

Let me clarify prince William cannot marry a catholic girl because of an outdated law which breaches the Geneva Convention on Human Rights.

That's a very interesting point you make here. Because, as many constitutional experts underlined, it was that very convention that made it possible for Charles to marry Camz. Maybe, if William were to fall in love and wanted to marry a catholic, he could successfully appeal to that very law too. But anyway I agree the discriminatory law is appalling.

The Charles/Camilla scenario has uncovered our lack of power, are we British Citizens or are we subjects? We are supposedly citizens (Primarily because they are a reigning monarchy as apposed to a ruling monarchy ala Jordan or Saudi Arabia) yet our only freedom of expression in our potential queen/consulate is via television and newspaper opinion polls and not a referendum.

Well it is also the case with the present government. Republics don't have the habit to call a referendum every two months. When was the last referendum in the UK? I don't know the answer but I don't think it happens very often. As a matter of fact, polls are today the major political indicator (it's true everywhere in Europe).

Some of you might also argue that a monarchy costs less than maintain a president, but at least a president is ultimately ruled by the will of the people.

Well I think this is one of the biggest republican illusion. Electing a president don't guarantee that it will follow the people's will. First of all, there's nothing like a people's will. People think differently and there will always have a large part of the population which is not happy with the government. Secondly, politicians, when they access the power, universally become aloof and ore concern with interest 'biggest' than the people's interest. Aznar, Blair and Berlusconi, all elected leaders, did not listen to the people's voice (or at least the majority of people) when they decided to go on war. And you will agree that going on war is the biggest and most critical decision a government could make. Well, they did not bother consulting the people on that matter, did they? I am not saying that it is always a bad thing, like for example when Mitterrand decided to axe the death penalty in France when most people were opposed to it; I'm just saying that it's not because you elect your head of state that he/she will listen to you.

There are so many contradiction in the concept of liberty and monarchy, we have over the years attempted to ratify the situation by extracting the monarchy of their power of rule, yet what we are left with is an empty symbolic and nostalgic concept void of logic and full of paradoxe

Half of Europe is a Monarchy, and among them those who are praised as the most liberal states in the world. I don't see any contradiction.
As for being a empty symbol, that's a case of personal sensibility. I know monarchy is still a powerful symbol for a lot of your fellows Britons :) .

Originally Posted by Tzu An

The reason Monarchy is being questioned is because the young royals are beginning to live like regular rich kids. They want to marry whom they please and then behave like regular people, without the stresses that normal people have to deal with.

Totally agree with you. I think this careless attitude is the biggest danger for monarchies. the 'bad' marriages issue is one of the reason I support the fact that Princes must have the authorisation of the monarch to marry (but nowadays they can't really object). I think if it had been only up to her, E II would have never let Charles marry Camz for example.

I think that is what triggered the French revolution. Rather than socialize with the courtiers (who could have helped her in her time of need) and stand on ceremony she preferred to keep herself among a small group of people and tried to give her kids a "normal life". The French paid for a Dauphine (French Crown Princess) and Queen, not a regular rich housewife.

I can assure you that this is not the case at all :) .
The French revolution was triggered by a bunch of intellectual bourgeois, not by the people. As a matter of fact, Louis XVI was a hugely popular king (even though he was silly as a sheep). I would make a parallel with the people who masterminded the french revolution and the Bolshevik: a minority of revolutionary minds, anti-religious, ambitious, gifted for manipulation and taking advantage of any tension (in the French case, a food penury in Paris) and ready to use any form of violence to obtain what they want. But, and it has to be said one for all, the revolution was not wanted by the people (the 'working class') and they did not gain anything out of it anyway.

PS: I apologize if any part (or all) of my post seems aggressive or arrogant. It is not m intention to be so, and I'm always happy to be corrected if I'm wrong and to hear other opinions :) .