>>99>Even this was still better than theocratic feudalism under an absolute monarchy.
pretty sure the Bourbons were a much slower meat grinder. If casualties per annum is a positive measurement of worse/better, then all right; other than that, you've just stated that something is "better". You have every right to find something better or worse, but you've provided no objective, or even subjective, measure of "better" along with this claim.
>but at least modern France is far more democratic than - for example - the United Kingdom.
And, if so, it results in what, exactly?
How are things being more or less "democratic" of any concern to the people? Do you disagree that democracy is simply another myth legitimizing the government? Do you believe that being forced into the military by an elected leader is somehow better than being forced by an unelected leader?
That might be an entirely different discussion that you do not wish to take part in in this context, but you seem to be operating on an assumption that there is some sort of consensus that things being democratic is a value in and of itself. I see no value in being coerced in the name of collective over being coerced in the name of the individual. Actually, to me, the collective historically seems even more merciless, blood-thirsty and trigger-happy due to its impunity in lack of personal responsibility, but that is hard to assess one way or the other, so I will leave that as an unbacked, personal opinion.
>The UK still doesn't have any sort of true constitution to guarantee rights to citizens
which results in what, exactly?
I know that the difference between that and what we're doing is only in degrees, but isn't attributing the state of modern France and Britain, which is arguably any different, directly to the existence of a monarchy in deep atrophy, or lack thereof, a bit of a stretch?
How does Sweden or the Netherlands compare to France?