Monarchists

[a completely inoffensive name]

The merchant class isn't a part of the aristocracy, and they were the ones with the cash...

Not the only ones...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Parliamentary/Constitutional model all the way.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Updated.
.

[HoreTore]

Not the only ones...

Well alright.

They were the ones who made their own money by working. The aristocracy stole it from someone else or forced others to work for them while they got drunk.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well alright.

They were the ones who made their own money by working. The aristocracy stole it from someone else or forced others to work for them while they got drunk.

Granted, the aristocracy wasn't always great, but it isn't as if a lot of them didn't do work for money. For example, do you think a CEO of a company should be paid less than the average line worker?

[HoreTore]

Granted, the aristocracy wasn't always great, but it isn't as if a lot of them didn't do work for money. For example, do you think a CEO of a company should be paid less than the average line worker?

How is it possible to compare a CEO with the aristocracy?

An aristocrat got his position by birth. A CEO has his position because of his ability, experience and previous results.

The aristocracy was illiterate. A CEO is usually very well educated, or, usually if he has built his own company, has a wealth of experience.

The aristocracy took their position by force. A CEO is there because someone wants him to have the job.

And the list goes on....

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
18 declared monarchists so far. I wonder what proportion of average backroomers that is.
.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How is it possible to compare a CEO with the aristocracy?

An aristocrat got his position by birth. A CEO has his position because of his ability, experience and previous results.

The aristocracy was illiterate. A CEO is usually very well educated, or, usually if he has built his own company, has a wealth of experience.

The aristocracy took their position by force. A CEO is there because someone wants him to have the job.

And the list goes on....

Heh heh.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Indeed, most of the replies so far have been all the same idealized thing . All in all, I would prefer a Shaftesbury or a Conde over a Bernard Maddoff or a Bill Gates.

Also aristocracy "illiterate"? WTH? The British "aristocracy" had a solid etiquette and superb political skills, complemented of course by their higher literacy and knowledge than the rest of the mass. For centuries it was them who patronized the arts and the letters, and not just for the knack of profit and consumer appeal like a CEO would, but of taste. A generalization still, but a valid one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Indeed, most of the replies so far have been all the same idealized thing . All in all, I would prefer a Shaftesbury or a Conde over a Bernard Maddoff or a Bill Gates.

Also aristocracy "illiterate"? WTH? The British "aristocracy" had a solid etiquette and superb political skills, complemented of course by their higher literacy and knowledge than the rest of the mass. For centuries it was them who patronized the arts and the letters, and not just for the knack of profit and consumer appeal like a CEO would, but of taste. A generalization still, but a valid one.

Oh indeed, and more. King Alfred is credited with translating the Latin philosopher Boethius, among others, and the daughter of William the Bastard, Matilda, was latin-litterate, as were her brothers;
Richard I knew Latin well enough to crack jokes in the it, the Black Prince and the John of Gaunt were both energetic patrons of Latin, French and English literature; Elizabeth I translated classical works into English, James I was extremely well educated, and authored, "A Counterblast against Tobaco" while King....

The list goes on, and on, and on.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Oh indeed, and more. King Alfred is credited with translating the Latin philosopher Boethius, among others, and the daughter of William the Bastard, Matilda, was latin-litterate, as were her brothers;
Richard I knew Latin well enough to crack jokes in the it, the Black Prince and the John of Gaunt were both energetic patrons of Latin, French and English literature; Elizabeth I translated classical works into English, James I was extremely well educated, and authored, "A Counterblast against Tobaco" while King....

The list goes on, and on, and on.

Heh you could write an entire book just of summarizations .

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

James I was extremely well educated, and authored, "A Counterblast against Tobaco"

Shame on you Jimmy!
.

[HoreTore]

Indeed, most of the replies so far have been all the same idealized thing . All in all, I would prefer a Shaftesbury or a Conde over a Bernard Maddoff or a Bill Gates.

Also aristocracy "illiterate"? WTH? The British "aristocracy" had a solid etiquette and superb political skills, complemented of course by their higher literacy and knowledge than the rest of the mass. For centuries it was them who patronized the arts and the letters, and not just for the knack of profit and consumer appeal like a CEO would, but of taste. A generalization still, but a valid one.

Turn the clock back a little more. Say 13th century. Back then it was a shame for "noble knights" to know math or read, that was for others to do...

And I seriously doubt that it's a coincidence that our economies shot through the roof at the same time we abolished the aristocracy....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Turn the clock back a little more. Say 13th century. Back then it was a shame for "noble knights" to know math or read, that was for others to do...

And I seriously doubt that it's a coincidence that our economies shot through the roof at the same time we abolished the aristocracy....

Maybe this was true for Norway, it is not for England. Certainly it has been said in the past, but that was so much guff put about during the Renaissance, along with the belief that Kings only bathed once a year and everyone thought the world was flat before Columbus.

Certainly, universities were the preserve of priests, but education was not. When one considers the cost of books, one must acknowledge the great store the aristorcacy put by learning, as evidenced by the libraries listed in their wills.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Turn the clock back a little more. Say 13th century. Back then it was a shame for "noble knights" to know math or read, that was for others to do...

And I seriously doubt that it's a coincidence that our economies shot through the roof at the same time we abolished the aristocracy....

What? Have you done any research or read any serious history in the books? The British never "abolished" the aristocracy or the monarchy and yet were the forerunners of industrialization. The French, however, and here that comparison works really well, went through bloody years of tyranny, followed by a failed despotism and then a hundred years of stagnation in population and economic growth relative to countries that retained their Monarchies and their aristocracies like Germany and Britain.

NOT that the correlation between both establishes causation, but only that if your correlation indeed had any grain of truth, it would work against you anyway.

Also 13th Century and Knights did not read? WTH did you read that? Apart from the examples above, court poetry and culture was the only secular art in Europe that existed in these years. Many kings were knowledgeable in history and/or sponsored people who knew it, examples being Charlemagne, who was eager to learn how to read (and whose courtier Einhard wrote a history based on Suetonius), Charles IV Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II Holy Roman Emperor (patron of pretty much all Southern Italian culture and writer of a book on falcon hunting). If anything the average aristocrat was far better educated than the rest of the populace from the very early days.