This makes the Saudi monarchy quite distinct from Western monarchies, which usually feature large, clearly defined royal families and orders of succession.

A representative Saudi government will never peacefully come into existence so long as there is a Saudi monarchy with vested interests in the existing system.

But when Saddam, Secularist and Ba'athist dictator of neighboring Iraq attacked Saudi Arabia (his enemy in the war), western troops came to protect Saudi monarchy.

They think the U.S. has convinced the Saudi monarchy to round up all their spiritual leaders and put them on trial.

Given how firmly embedded the Saudi monarchy is in our arms industry, I'd be surprised if they won't be offering Cameron suggestions on UK policy, not the other way around.

So I would ask Prince Alwaleed: In the wake of the attack, should America re-examine its policy of supporting and defending the repressive Saudi monarchy?

Its opponents generally refer to the Saudi monarchy as totalitarians or dictators.

Translation: Dad cuddled up to the corrupt Saudi monarchy and other Middle East dictators and let Saddam stay in power and was tough on Israel.

Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait.

It is likely that the radicalized Sunnis in the center of Iraq and the Shiites in the south might wish the same goal: toppling the Saudi monarchy.