DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Listening to afternoon NPR story on the mixed blessings of Oil Deposits.

**QWNPdpr5** · 09-24-2009, 07:05 PM

Because killing a member of a royal family is an attack on the government, and an attack on the government is an act of terrorism.

In a monarchy, the head of state (king, queen, emperor, sultan or whatever) is the physical embodiment of the state (hence, Louis XIV comment, "l'etat, c'est moi."). Therefore, logically, all members of the royal family who are in line for the throne -no matter how distantly- are also physical embodiments of the state.

This is why the assassination of the Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand was able to touch off WWI, even though he wasn't heir to the throne: an attack on him was an attack on the state.

And also keep in mind that the Saudi conception of royalty is in line with that of England in the 1100's (pre-Magna Carta) and it all makes a lot more sense.

I agree with you; it just struck me as a very feudalistic, Un-American (in the foreign sense) concept. Especially when you consider that American assassins- Oswald, Hinckley, and that woman who just came up for parole for bringing the gun to meet Gerald Ford- are usually painted as mentally imbalanced and/or called by what they are: Assassins.

Interesting comparison with the other monarchical lines...

09-24-2009, 07:05 PM	#3
QWNPdpr5 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 468 Senior Member	Because killing a member of a royal family is an attack on the government, and an attack on the government is an act of terrorism. In a monarchy, the head of state (king, queen, emperor, sultan or whatever) is the physical embodiment of the state (hence, Louis XIV comment, "l'etat, c'est moi."). Therefore, logically, all members of the royal family who are in line for the throne -no matter how distantly- are also physical embodiments of the state. This is why the assassination of the Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand was able to touch off WWI, even though he wasn't heir to the throne: an attack on him was an attack on the state. And also keep in mind that the Saudi conception of royalty is in line with that of England in the 1100's (pre-Magna Carta) and it all makes a lot more sense. I agree with you; it just struck me as a very feudalistic, Un-American (in the foreign sense) concept. Especially when you consider that American assassins- Oswald, Hinckley, and that woman who just came up for parole for bringing the gun to meet Gerald Ford- are usually painted as mentally imbalanced and/or called by what they are: Assassins. Interesting comparison with the other monarchical lines...
	Quote