Is Great Britain, or anyplace with landed nobles, a democracy?

[Don Corleone]

I put this in the Backroom instead of the Monastery (where there's a thread about some of the legal issues of the UK). I'd rather this didn't get contentious, and I'm not trying to start trouble, but I am genuinely interested.

Countries such as Sweden, Netherlands, UK, Spain etc, that have a royalty, and in some cases even an aristocracy, vestigal though they are... can they be considered democracies? I mean, in that they uphold democratic ideals? If you're out to the pub, and you happen to live in Brighton and the Earl (or Duke, Baron, Count, what have you) of Brighton comes in, do you have to give him run of the place? Buy him a beer and surrender the dart board, interrupting your game of cricket? What if you were at school with the Prince of Spain and he was a thug & a bully... are you required to let him pound on you? Can you strike the Crown Prince back to defend yourself, or is that treason?

Again, let's try to keep it civil. I just have no idea how birthrights work, and what special priveleges they carry...

If 'Prima Nocta' is still a birthright, I'm selling everything I own, moving to England and dedicating myself to getting a (oh, what's the official word for title....) Just don't let Mrs. Corleone get wind of why we're moving. ~D

[sharrukin]

Well, I guess the question could be asked what exactly is the difference between the Kennedy clan, the Bush clan, and other eminent American families and landed nobility?

[Templar Knight]

I wouldn't say you have to give them run of the place, no way. If only most of them were like my friend Lord Glasgow - at our monthly meetings for local history I told him what to do, so no they don't (the ones I know) lord it over everyone. ~:)

[Ronin]

i´d say that britain isn´t a 100% democracy because of the house of lords situation....

in the other country´s that were mentioned i don´t think the royals have any actual power in the government...so i´d say that they are democracys

[Don Corleone]

Oh, GC, Sharrukin, you misunderstand me. Of course there's always people in positions of power, that are frequently the result of generational advances. That's not what I meant. I meant is there anything in British law, or Dutch or Spanish or so forth that actually recognizes the son of the Duke of Manchester as having more rights than the son of the janitor for the local zoo. Obviously, Beckham's kids (oh that's right, he doesn't play there anymore, but you get my drift) de-facto have more privelege than the janitor's kid, but there's nothing that legally makes it so...

[Red Harvest]

Well, I guess the question could be asked what exactly is the difference between the Kennedy clan, the Bush clan, and other eminent American families and landed nobility?

There are some parallels, but we do get tired of them after a time and they can be moved out eventually...aren't the Brits stuck with their hereditary Lords until each line dies out and is replaced?

2nd generation political power is fairly common, usually spent by the 3rd generation though. One thing is clear, they do BEHAVE as nobility far too frequently.

I would prefer something closer to meritocracy. The priviliged system doesn't work very well, but folks are suckers for names they already know.

[sharrukin]

Oh, GC, Sharrukin, you misunderstand me. Of course there's always people in positions of power, that are frequently the result of generational advances. That's not what I meant. I meant is there anything in British law, or Dutch or Spanish or so forth that actually recognizes the son of the Duke of Manchester as having more rights than the son of the janitor for the local zoo. Obviously, Beckham's kids (oh that's right, he doesn't play there anymore, but you get my drift) de-facto have more privelege than the janitor's kid, but there's nothing that legally makes it so...

Well, I live in Canada and we are subjects of Her Majesty The Queen, but AFAIK there is nothing like that in English law or by extention here. And to be honest even if there is it can't be that burdensome if we are not even sure it exists.

I personally have no problem with nobility as some families do tend to be more capable than others. There needs of course to be a mechanism by which they can fall from grace rather than using the state to prop up an establishment family that has lost its quality.

AFAIK the Magna Carta started the equality of all english subjects, though it took some time for trickle down rights to finally take effect.

[Ianofsmeg16]

Countries such as Sweden, Netherlands, UK, Spain etc, that have a royalty, and in some cases even an aristocracy, vestigal though they are... can they be considered democracies? I mean, in that they uphold democratic ideals? If you're out to the pub, and you happen to live in Brighton and the Earl (or Duke, Baron, Count, what have you) of Brighton comes in, do you have to give him run of the place? Buy him a beer and surrender the dart board, interrupting your game of cricket? What if you were at school with the Prince of Spain and he was a thug & a bully... are you required to let him pound on you? Can you strike the Crown Prince back to defend yourself, or is that treason?

Don't want to nitpick, well i do, but it wouldn't be the Earl or Duke, Baron, Count of Brighton it would be the Earl of Sussex.
Anyway if the Crown Prince of Spain came to say a bar in east london and picked a fight with one of them then he would be leaving that bar in a bodybag, wheras over on the isle of man (where we have no earls of barons, only the lordship of Mann which QE2 has kindly taken of my hands) if he picked a fight with a bloke in a bar the bloke would say, "calm down dear fellow and lets have a drink" ~D
We are a constitional Monarchy that allows a free election which votes for a leader of the major parties to be Prime minister for 4 years then the election is held again. The Prime minister can hold that seat until he/she dies if he keeps getting re-elected (e.g Maggie Thatcher held it for 12 years). The House of lords is Part Appointed-Part inherited, meaning you can earn a place in the house of lords. The Queen has little in power terms except control over the armed forces (which is a big thing) and she grants new laws to be passed, except in the Isle of Man where laws are passed by Tynwald. Austrailia and Canada both stil recognise the Queen as head of state. Also i heard a story that The Queen has the power to take any of the commonwealth countries wthout political outcry because she still(technically) owns them. ~D
Hope this helps Don, from the heir to the Lordship of Mann

[Pindar]

Democracy in its various guises refers to political power being vested in the citizenry. This is typically demonstrated through one man one vote. It is a political egalitarianism not an economic one. Constitutional Monarchies do not vest their aristocracy with more than one vote per man. Further, the entitlement the aristocracy has, is dependant upon the will of the people. The Queen receives remuneration, estates, etc. only at the pleasure of the people. If there were enough republicans about then theoretically she could be forced out on her bum and have to find a real job like everyone else.

Even so, the idea of an aristocracy or sovereign is a repugnancy and anathema to the spirit of democracy. All should be equal before the law and receive no special dispensation from it.

[Xiahou]

So, to rephrase, you're basically saying that since it's democracy that allows the Queen to reign at the voter's pleasure- it's still a democracy? ~D

[TheSilverKnight]

I put this in the Backroom instead of the Monastery (where there's a thread about some of the legal issues of the UK). I'd rather this didn't get contentious, and I'm not trying to start trouble, but I am genuinely interested.

Countries such as Sweden, Netherlands, UK, Spain etc, that have a royalty, and in some cases even an aristocracy, vestigal though they are... can they be considered democracies? I mean, in that they uphold democratic ideals? If you're out to the pub, and you happen to live in Brighton and the Earl (or Duke, Baron, Count, what have you) of Brighton comes in, do you have to give him run of the place? Buy him a beer and surrender the dart board, interrupting your game of cricket? What if you were at school with the Prince of Spain and he was a thug & a bully... are you required to let him pound on you? Can you strike the Crown Prince back to defend yourself, or is that treason?

Again, let's try to keep it civil. I just have no idea how birthrights work, and what special priveleges they carry...

If 'Prima Nocta' is still a birthright, I'm selling everything I own, moving to England and dedicating myself to getting a (oh, what's the official word for title....) Just don't let Mrs. Corleone get wind of why we're moving. ~D

Question 1 - Yes, they are considered democracies because we elect our representative government, I'm guessing it's the same with other constitutional monarchies (Swedes, Danes, Dutch, Spaniards...fill me in! ~:) )

Question 2 - The Prince of Spain is not a bully, I imagine you can hit him back so long as it isn't meaningful ~D

Question 3 - No, don't surrender your dartboard. It's your game of darts, but the Earl can join if he wants ~D

Question 4 - Prima Noctare is not a right anymore. It died like...long time ago. Get with the times ~;) ~D

Ciao

[Don Corleone]

Thank you for the attempt Ian, but actually, no it doesn't. Let me pose a couple of hypotheticals, that hopefully will make the point.

-Let's say Prince William is at the same pub as me in Soho. He's getting pretty snockered and he happens to be a mean drunk. He leans over and slaps me a couple of times. I turn around and hit him back, in self defense. Have I committed a crime? (Nothing against the guy, it's the title he holds. He seems like a decent enough fella).

-I was born and raised in Birmingham, UK. The local lord, (I have no idea who it would be, so I'll say) the Count of Birmingham's son also attends the school. We both try out for the same position on the local rugby team. Even though I'm better, is the club required to accept him?

-The Earl of Sussex is going through is finances and recognizes he's going to be in a heck of a jam, moneywise, for a little while. Can he levy a tax on the inhabitants of Brighton until his money woes are alleviated?

I guess, in short, is a title just that, a title and a title only, or is there some sort of legal status it confers on you?

[Steppe Merc]

Prima Nocta wasn't even around in Wallace's time. It was an invention to make those evil English even more evil. I think it was a Roman thing, though I'm not sure.

[TheSilverKnight]

Prima Nocta wasn't even around in Wallace's time. It was an invention to make those evil English even more evil. I think it was a Roman thing, though I'm not sure.

Prima Noctare was a real thing, but I'm not sure when it was discontinued, though I do believe it was before the Renaissance.

[Steppe Merc]

Well considering the fact that Mel Gibson himself said that he knew it was BS and just added it in in order to make the English look evil... ~;)

[Duke Malcolm]

The nobles (Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Lord-Barons, and Barons) have no special rights other than they can try and get a seat in the House of Lords. The House of Lords also has very little effective power, and hence is negligible. The United Kingdom is no more a democracy than the United States of America

[lars573]

Thank you for the attempt Ian, but actually, no it doesn't. Let me pose a couple of hypotheticals, that hopefully will make the point.

-Let's say Prince William is at the same pub as me in Soho. He's getting pretty snockered and he happens to be a mean drunk. He leans over and slaps me a couple of times. I turn around and hit him back, in self defense. Have I committed a crime? (Nothing against the guy, it's the title he holds. He seems like a decent enough fella).

-I was born and raised in Birmingham, UK. The local lord, (I have no idea who it would be, so I'll say) the Count of Birmingham's son also attends the school. We both try out for the same position on the local rugby team. Even though I'm better, is the club required to accept him?

-The Earl of Sussex is going through is finances and recognizes he's going to be in a heck of a jam, moneywise, for a little while. Can he levy a tax on the inhabitants of Brighton until his money woes are alleviated?

I guess, in short, is a title just that, a title and a title only, or is there some sort of legal status it confers on you?
Nope
Nope
and Nope

A title in England these days is just a title. In fact many Engliah nobles have been forced to sell their estates and castles over the years because they were broke. You still keep the title, that's yours no matter what. For example the last decendants of the Plantanegents (Richard the lion hearted's family) lost all their money and lands and moved to Austrailia. The family still has 2 titles of Earl in it. But they are just common Auzzies. The presenter of the show i saw him on, Tony Robinson, asked him directly. "Your a peer of the realm what the hell are you doing in Austrailia?" His answer was I love it here.

[Don Corleone]

The nobles (Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Lord-Barons, and Barons) have no special rights other than they can try and get a seat in the House of Lords. The House of Lords also has very little effective power, and hence is negligible. The United Kingdom is no more a democracy than the United States of America

The answer I was looking for. Thank you.

Okay, let me shift gears on you then. What is the difference between a Duke, an Earl, a Lord Baron, a Baron, a Count, a Viscount, or a Marquis?

[Al Khalifah]

-Let's say Prince William is at the same pub as me in Soho. He's getting pretty snockered and he happens to be a mean drunk. He leans over and slaps me a couple of times. I turn around and hit him back, in self defense. Have I committed a crime? (Nothing against the guy, it's the title he holds. He seems like a decent enough fella).
Possibly. You could be accused of assault depending on how measured your response was. Though it may seem a tired point, if you were drinking in a pub and the son of the President of the United States came in and abused you and you struck back, do you not think that the Secret Service goons would hammer you into the ground? If you hit Tom Cruise, would his bouncers not break you into unidentifiable pieces or his lawyers sue you for loss of earnings due to damage to his appearance? The law bends around those with power - it's sad but it's true. They can afford better lawyers and legal advice than you can.


-I was born and raised in Birmingham, UK. The local lord, (I have no idea who it would be, so I'll say) the Count of Birmingham's son also attends the school. We both try out for the same position on the local rugby team. Even though I'm better, is the club required to accept him?
Nope.


-The Earl of Sussex is going through is finances and recognizes he's going to be in a heck of a jam, moneywise, for a little while. Can he levy a tax on the inhabitants of Brighton until his money woes are alleviated?
Absolutely not. Tax is controlled by the Chancellor. The Earl of Sussex does not own the land the people of Sussex live on and so cannot tax them. Even if he did own their property, he would still have to give due notice and oblige existing contracts before raising expenses for use of his estate.


I guess, in short, is a title just that, a title and a title only, or is there some sort of legal status it confers on you?
It depends on the title.

[lars573]

The answer I was looking for. Thank you.

Okay, let me shift gears on you then. What is the difference between a Duke, an Earl, a Lord Baron, a Baron, a Count, a Viscount, or a Marquis?
Noble rank. Firstly Count isn't used in Britain as far as I know. Earl is the equivalent. If a woman gets a title of Earl (or marries one) she will be called Countess. It's all acedemic these days, Lords are all considered one class but the rank of Feudal titles goes.
Emperor
King
Prince (different nations regard this a having less rank, between Marquis and count)
Grand Duke
Duke
Margrave/Marquis (the title is the same but the first is the German/English spelling the second the French)
Count/Earl
Viscount
Baron
Baronet (you only find this in Britain)
Knight

Also there are still Dukes, Princes, Marquis, Counts, and Barons running around in France, Italy, and Germany. In fact Germany has a movement (however small) to restore the kings. I know what your next question is and the kings in question are of Wurtemburg, Saxony, Bavaria, and Hanover.

[TheSilverKnight]

Well considering the fact that Mel Gibson himself said that he knew it was BS and just added it in in order to make the English look evil... ~;)

...Mel Gibson LIED!! ~D

[sharrukin]

Democracy in its various guises refers to political power being vested in the citizenry. This is typically demonstrated through one man one vote. It is a political egalitarianism not an economic one. Constitutional Monarchies do not vest their aristocracy with more than one vote per man. Further, the entitlement the aristocracy has, is dependant upon the will of the people. The Queen receives remuneration, estates, etc. only at the pleasure of the people. If there were enough republicans about then theoretically she could be forced out on her bum and have to find a real job like everyone else.

Even so, the idea of an aristocracy or sovereign is a repugnancy and anathema to the spirit of democracy. All should be equal before the law and receive no special dispensation from it.


People who are free cannot be equal.
Freedom would mean the right to use your talents to further yourself and those you care for.
Talent is not distributed on an equal basis by whomever makes these decisions.
Is the political power of the office janitor and the company owner equal? Even if they are equally talented the answer is no.
Is their ability to influence people and outcomes equal?
Political power is not equally distributed in a democracy.
Money, media and organisational power make an enormous difference in any modern democractic state.

Political dynasties and patronage networks are a fact of life.
Equality of outcome would require restriction on liberty.
The state would need to take from some and give to others.

Equality of opportunity implies inequality of result.
There is nothing egalitarian about it.

Equality of opportunity, equality of votes and equality before the law are what the US attempts.
They tax the rich to subsidize the poor.
In many ways pre-reform China was more egalitarian than the US ever was.
What if there is nothing arbitrary about a class structure?
Individuals exist who are innately superior to other in a non-religious sense.
There are people out there that you or I haven't a prayer of matching on a level playing field.
Inequality of results is proof of equality of opportunity!

According to material egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal with respect to material possessions. Communists tried that, didn't work too well.

According to legal egalitarianism, everyone ought to be considered equal under the law. This is roughly possible. In practice much more difficult.

According to moral egalitarianism, each person is of equal moral worth. Wouldn't this imply that our conduct has no bearing on our moral worth? Does psycho-killer have the same moral worth as Cindy who works at the grocery store?

According to democratic egalitarianism, everyone ought to have an equal voice in public affairs. Yeah right! Bureaucrat mandarins, corporate officers, lobbyists, generals, Senators, millionaires, billionaires, University Presidents, hollywood superstars, church leaders, or the head of the NAACP all have the same political influence that Joe Six-Pack does?

According to political egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal in political power. Who can afford to give $50,000 to a political cause and would that have any meaning in regards to political power?

According to opportunity egalitarianism everyone ought to be equal in economic opportunity. People are born more intelligent, more athletic, taller, more handsome, into wealthy families, or into degenerate trailer trash whose goal in life is to make it onto the Gerry springer show. A child of equal talent but born into one or the other family will not have an equal opportunity in life.

Aristocratic titles are simply recognition of facts. Sometimes these facts are out of date as the family may have degenerated over time, but that applies to American dynasties as well. :rtwyes:

[Marcellus]

The House of Lords also has very little effective power, and hence is negligible.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Although the House of Commons is clearly much more powerful than the House of Lords, the House of Lords is not negligible. It has the power to block certain types of legislation and the debate between the two houses has to go on for quite some time before the Parliament Act can be invoked. An example of some of the House of Lord's power is the fairly recent anti-terror legislation, which the Lords blocked forcing the Government to make some comproises.

I just wish to clarify something here - heriditary peers no longer have the right to being in the House of Lords: the Labour Government has partially reformed the House of Lords so that only 92 heriditary peers remain (I think that they are voted for by the Lords). This is out of 731 members of the Lords. This 92 is actually a compromise, and the current labour Government wishes to remove all of them. They are also considering making the House of Lords partially or wholly elected.


No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.

[JAG]

Don - as to your original question, yes we are democracies, but only ones in reality, not in theory.

In reality we ignore much of the powers the royalty has in the UK, but the fact is they are still there and indeed they can be used by the PM himself without the authorisation of the democratic process - soemtimes this is still used, shamefully.

It would be wrong to state we - the UK - are not a democracy, however we will never be truly democratic until we get rid of the royal family and become a republic, reform the House of Lords and get rid of the royal perogative and other powers the PM can use like this.

[BDC]

They have no more power than anyone else, so it's democratic. And every country ends up with the landed gentry sooner or later, be they titled or just insanely rich and powerful.

[Xiahou]

I've asked this of people different times and never could get a clear answer.... What royal powers does the British Monarchy still have? I don't care whether or not they exercise them, I'm just curious how much they could do theoretically if they had a mind to.... anyone? ~D

[Pindar]

People who are free cannot be equal.


This is not correct. As I stated: democracy is based on a political egalitarianism: one man one vote is equal. Choosing to excercise that vote is a freedom.

[bmolsson]

All should be equal before the law and receive no special dispensation from it.

That is a dream and not a reality anywhere in the world today.

[lars573]

I've asked this of people different times and never could get a clear answer.... What royal powers does the British Monarchy still have? I don't care whether or not they exercise them, I'm just curious how much they could do theoretically if they had a mind to.... anyone? ~D
Dissolve parliment, can the PM and the rest of the ministers. Decalre martial law and take direct control of the military. Also the monarch can intervene in parliment to under the guise of acting in the peoples best interests. George V actaully did this in 1931 IIRC when he asked the Liberal, conservative and Labour parties to from a coalition.

Now with the exception of the G5 bit, I'm just guessing. But it has been alluded to in most of what I've read about the UK monarchy today is that Lizzy 2.0 has a bunch of shit-hit-the-fan emergency powers. So that in case the PM's office breaks down the Queen can step in and run things until it quites down.

[Ironside]

Don Corleone

About the laws, there's some special cases around our king. I know from the newspapers that the king cannot be charged with speeding tickets and that trowing cake on him is a much more serious crime (in theory) than trowing a cake on the statsminister (it's about equal to primeminister).

On the democratic issue, our left all got kicking out the king as a part of their party program and they have gotten the power most of the time, and we have never even voted on the issue. Why? Because the royalists would win. ~D

As one of my favorite quotes say (leader of the Greens youth-party, when getting the comment that the king is more popular than ever during a debate):
"Popularity has nothing to do with defending a undemocratic system"

Are here I thought that democracy was a big popularity contest. ~D

So how does it work when a undemocratic system is defended through democracy?

Edit:
The nobility has no power (since 1848 I think) in Sweden BTW. In case you wondered.

[Roark]

If you're out to the pub, and you happen to live in Brighton and the Earl (or Duke, Baron, Count, what have you) of Brighton comes in, do you have to give him run of the place? Buy him a beer and surrender the dart board, interrupting your game of cricket?

The only thing that interrupts a game of cricket is an act of God.

Just making sure you understand the correct delegation of authority in the Commonwealth... ~;)

[Franconicus]

Don, 'Prima Nocta' can be a nightmare if you have to do it! ~;)

Let me rephrase your question: Can there be democracy if there are priviledges? If there are few people taht own a lot and others that have nothing. If the media is controlled by only few people?

[Al Khalifah]

People who are free cannot be equal.
I'd disagree but only with the wording. I think it should read people who are free won't be equal.

I agree with your line of logic though, people cannot be equal unless artificial constraints are imposed upon them, which are in themselves an opposition to freedom.

[Idaho]

-Let's say Prince William is at the same pub as me in Soho. He's getting pretty snockered and he happens to be a mean drunk. He leans over and slaps me a couple of times. I turn around and hit him back, in self defense. Have I committed a crime? (Nothing against the guy, it's the title he holds. He seems like a decent enough fella).

Payday! Out of court settlement, tabloid expose, tv interviews... come and hit me William - give it your best shot!

[Duke Malcolm]

The answer I was looking for. Thank you.

Okay, let me shift gears on you then. What is the difference between a Duke, an Earl, a Lord Baron, a Baron, a Count, a Viscount, or a Marquis?

Further to lars573'sanswer, the titles used in the UK are from highest to lowest:

King/Queen
Duke/Duchess
Marquess/Marchioness (Marquis is used for Scottish titles pre-dating the Act of Union 1707)
Earl/Countess
Viscount
Lord-Baron/Baroness (A Life Peer or English Baron, holds a permanent seat in H of L, title not hereditary, but appointed, uses title Lord/Lady)
Baron/Baroness (The Scottish Baron is in many cases not hereditary, but a feudal barony, tied to a particular piece of land, which can be bought and sold with the title)
Baronet (hereditary knighthood)
Knight

[Al Khalifah]

In that case, I am a serf.

[King Henry V]

Don Corleone

About the laws, there's some special cases around our king. I know from the newspapers that the king cannot be charged with speeding tickets and that trowing cake on him is a much more serious crime (in theory) than trowing a cake on the statsminister (it's about equal to primeminister).

On the democratic issue, our left all got kicking out the king as a part of their party program and they have gotten the power most of the time, and we have never even voted on the issue. Why? Because the royalists would win. ~D

As one of my favorite quotes say (leader of the Greens youth-party, when getting the comment that the king is more popular than ever during a debate):
"Popularity has nothing to do with defending a undemocratic system"

Are here I thought that democracy was a big popularity contest. ~D

So how does it work when a undemocratic system is defended through democracy?

Edit:
The nobility has no power (since 1848 I think) in Sweden BTW. In case you wondered.
Who ever said that republicans had any sense?

[Spetulhu]

Let me rephrase your question: Can there be democracy if there are priviledges? If there are few people taht own a lot and others that have nothing. If the media is controlled by only few people?

What, like Berlusconi's Italy or Putin's Russia? ~:confused:

Nobility has nothing to do with the real world anymore. It's just a nice title to brag about - if you're crude enough to do so. These days it's industrialists and bankers who make up the real nobility, and their only real power comes from money. People will bend the rules in order to keep their business around.

If you want to see something truly insane regarding nobility, come to Finland. Our remaining noble families still play the game, even if we're no longer part of the empires that originally granted them titles! Yup, there's a few hundred old families from the Swedish and Russian times keeping tabs on titles from long-gone empires. :dizzy2:

[Ianofsmeg16]

In that case, I am a serf.
Hahaha i technically should be a knight of the realm, my family fought at agincourt and later in the wars of the Roses. plus i also should be in line for the Lordship of Mann if the King hadn't politley taken it from the Stanley side of my family in 1764 ~D

[King Henry V]

And technically my father is a Baron of Prussia, except that all the estates were lost when it became Poland.

[Ianofsmeg16]

Are you being serious? Cos i was, anyway most families probably have noble blood in them, kind of a cross-breeding thing ;)

[Duke Malcolm]

My grandmother would be countess of Donegal, or her cousin would be.