compare the function of royals today with royals today (mainly PR driven with charitable arims, or entertainment for the masses, eg prince charles) to the function of the royals from say pre-1800s, or even medieval era where kings and princes went to war at te head of an army.
why the change hmmm? i mean i'd respect a king more if he acted like a king ie like king henry V or the black prince.
on that note, i msut say that personally i was a bit peeved the royals wouldnt let prince harry go to iraq; the kid probably feels so stifled and iraq'd be a great place for him to hang out with his mates and have relative 'freedom' from the expectations of the royals; not to mention he'd earn my respect as a possible claimant to the throne.
if he went to iraq and served, i would become a wholehearted monarchist in support of the windosrs, instead of an apathetic colonial