I don't mean to be rude, but I do think it's a tad disingenuous of you to omit to add to your commentary that today these 'privileges' are not only effectively rendered impotent, but that they are also recommended for abolition by the 1967 committee.
Recommended, but not abolished.
Nor are the concepts they represent unique to the UK, many apply in the US as well, in their own fashion. Does the US not have a concept of social rank, a pecking order if you will, both in and out of Government?
We certainly do. Every society has something approaching a class system, however ours is not incorporated into government nor based on heredity. Our upper house is elected, not appointed (although it used to be), and nobody gains a right to sit in it solely upon accident of birth. Despite general perceptions, not everyone in the Senate (and certainly not the House) is rich, privileged, or comes from old money names.
A few, but again nothing of significance unless perhaps exploited fully by the ruthless - and I'd agree some were and did - or at least tried. Manorial rights (as incorporeal hereditaments) have long been overriding interests under English land law, and are now incapable of substantive registration.
The manorial rights business, if you recall, turned into a bonanza for some barons when the North Sea oil was discovered as manors bordering the North Sea had the right to claim mineral rights out to the extent of territorial waters. Some barons were very ruthless. Their private constables monitored everyone for the slightest infraction (particularly tourists) and their private courts regularly collected all kinds of lucrative fines. Some erected tolls, and others demanded ancient rent payments from tenants. It was a hell of a deal if your manor had working farms, fishing, or villages in leasehold.
Blair's aim was to remove the right of hereditary peers from 'claiming' seats in the Lords, and to establish some form of electoral process within the house. Beyond that, it was tinkering a puttering for the most part.
The key act in neutering the Upper house occured 100 years ago with a further step change in the shape of the Life Peers act, 1958. The 1958 act transformed the house beyond recognition, Blair sought to add a cherry on top.
As of right now, there are 759 hereditary peers, 92 of which have right to sit in Lords. That means that 759 people have a 12% quorum in a house of government. There is nothing remotely proportional about that kind of representation compared to the Commons where one MP represents millions. If that isn't privilege for merely being born with a title, I don't know what is. That is not counting the queen who represents herself in government. She is, in fact, a branch unto herself for no other reason than accident of birth. How many Brits can summon the PM to their house for a nice chat?
You know far more than a great many Englishmen I'd wager, perhaps because it's 'their' system there's less motivation for them to study it, after school so to speak. I imagine (for example) to some degree many know more about US Governmental systems than many Americans.
Of that, I have no doubt. I once saw a survey that indicated that a small percentage of Americans believe the queen of England is also the queen of the United States! Americans are appallingly uninformed about the mechanics of their government.
Each system has its strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately both depend on the integrity of those operating them. Sadly, they tend to let us down increasingly frequently, far too often with impunity and lack of consequence.
I suspect that every person has said that since the days of Hammurabi. Any government that needs to compromise to function will be anything but efficient. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."
I agree, at least in terms of strict definition. But for the most part I'd have to draw the line at aristocrat. I'd eat ground glass before I'd apply that epithet to some of the ...
characters found shuffling round the quieter corridors at odd hours - up to heaven knows what.
Too bad. They've got a government endorsed and recognized title. They're aristocrats whether you want them to be or not. See what I mean?
I know I have been a tad flippant, and I quite agree there are some tangible benefits to be had, but the primary 'privlige' gained one is social rank and a perception of 'power'. Despite the rhetoric such things still matter a great deal to many in the UK.
Not at all and of course it matters a great deal. If it didn't, then the system would be abolished.
However, at the risk of repeating myself in this regard, and with all due respect to the Americans among us, how is this so very different from US social hirearchy - sans the actual titles, naturally. I'm sure your were not seeking to paint a picture of unbridled power and privilege but for the sake of those who don't have an indepth knowledge it could be read that way.
It's different because the government holds some people to have higher social rank than others and gives them disproportional representation in that government along with a few perks (like titles and arms). In one case (the Duke of Atholl) that "perk" is to raise and maintain the only private army in Europe (which he does)!
The American legal system, and system of representation in the states, is completely flat. That's not to say that some families wield more influence than others or that everyone is fair to everyone else, but it does say that everyone gets an even playing field when it comes to the chunk of government representation they get. Rather than 92 Senators saying, "We were born to the office so we get to stay here," those 92 seats are filled by elected representatives. Some may be from powerful families, others (like Obama's) are very middle class or even poor.
As I wrote about in another thread, there is something here called the
Social Register. They're a private society loaded with the very rich,
Mayflower names, and is a bastion of American old money. If you're in the
Social Register, you're considered American aristocracy.
But only to the other members. At no point does our government recognize or endorse or allow these people any peculiar grace or emolument simply by virtue of their membership in their society. That's a key and important difference.
In one sense, I agree. In another I think as an institution it/they serve a useful and beneficial purpose, beyond the mere tourist appeal of course. At least the British Monarchy has for the most part managed to avoid (so far) becoming a mere puppet monarchy, serving no real purpose beyond keeping gawking Americans amused. :wink:
I agree with that. I think frequently of the value of European monarchy and, in some cases, the people are very lucky. In particular I have to admire King Juan Carlos who raised Spain out of fascism and into a parliamentary democracy, at great personal risk, and willingly relinquished most of his power to the government he created. Then there are the Grimaldis who, for all their tabloid exploits, give their 5,000 citizens a tax-free living and one of the highest standards of living in the world.
But then I also have to consider that there are still monarchs out there who are true despots (Mswati anyone?) and still have the power to condemn to death, jail indefinitely, or pluck virginal girls from their families at a whim. The problem with the entire system is that it's the luck of the draw. You might get a great king and a good aristocracy, or you could pull a real asshole who only seeks to collect power for selfish reasons. Given that the risk is the welfare of a nation and with no existing mechanism to remove a bad monarch, I'd say that the risk is too great.
