Before I feel the need to lock this thread because of the political content, I have a few things to say. Skip these next three paragraphs if you're not interested in political systems (ie you are an idiot): Firstly, you guys obviously don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the Constitutional Monarchy system of government. As an Australian, she's my Queen too, and it's the best darn democratic system around - republicanism is not cool. The main reason Constitutional Monarchy is such a good system is that it is so stable. Let's take Australia as an example. In our more than a hundred years of existence as a single nation, we've had only one major political crisis, which occurred in 1975. Now, I won't go into the details, but basically, the Opposition had a majority in the Senate, and was refusing to allow the government to pass its budget. Public opinion had turned against the Labor government, and by convention, the PM Gough Whitlam [i]should[/i] have called an election, however, he refused to, which was technically constitutionally sound. Anyway, with a major economic crisis looming as a real possibility, the Governor General (the Queen's Australian representative, don'tcha know, who's appointed by the parliament - NOT elected) stepped in and sacked the government. This was the first time anything like this had happened (and hasn't happened since) in the Australian federal government (but it had happened in the state of New South Wales in the 30s I think). There was at first a bit of an outcry that an [b]appointed[/b] official should dismiss a democratically elected government, but overall, most people came to agree that he'd made the right decision, and the Liberal opposition was overwhelmingly elected to government in the election that took place afterwards. Anyway, what the most important thing here is that the G-G was reluctant to use his executive power, only as a last resort, because he wasn't an elected official. If the G-G (or president, or whatever) was democratically elected in Australia, then he'd suddenly have a real mandate to use his powers, and thus wouldn't have any qualms about dismissing a government. This would in turn lead to instability, as there would be power struggles between the PM and the G-G/President. This is not good for a country. So anyway, maybe you should think before you start bagging Constitutional Monarchism. It's a damn good system. Now, on to Prince Harry and the -blam!- outfit. All I can say that he's obviously thicker than two short planks. To wear a -blam!- costume to a party indicates a frivolous disregard for and absolutely no understanding of the horrifying acts of the -blam!- party during the Holocaust. I'm not suggesting he's a -blam!- sympathiser, far from it. The point is that he obviously has no conception of what the holocaust was like, and the fact that most of you guys think that it's "OK" demonstrates that you too don't really understand what it all signifies. It shows that he's an insensitive prick who doesn't put any thought into any actions. He deserves all the condemnation the press can delliver, and then some. - Reiginko