Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What is the 'common man' argument for maintaining an aristocracy (presumably at great expense to the taxpayer)? Is it a national pride thing? Something else?

I've never had a discussion with anyone from the UK about this before, and seeing as this site has so many UK folks, I'm interested to hear why.

What is the "common man" argument for letting big companies run your country?

There is not a huge tax funded "aristocracy " in the UK. Many old stately homes have been sold or are otherwise run by various charitable trusts. The first world war killed off a lot of the old families or significantly reduced their role in society and increased "new money" society from the post war era finishes off the relegation of the old guard started by the industrial revolution.

In terms of the remaining tax supported aristocracy; as far as I am aware this is limited to a small amount of the royal family. A group who generally work for the public interest and have holdings which contribute significantly to the public purse, both through wages and taxes.

I would much rather have them than yet another bunch of slimy politicians.

At the end of the day, one could be forgiven for asking, is the only difference between the traditional aristocracy andthe Kardashians, Hiltons, etc just a few hundred years of time?

 jasper76 wrote:
What is the 'common man' argument for maintaining an aristocracy (presumably at great expense to the taxpayer)? Is it a national pride thing? Something else?

I've never had a discussion with anyone from the UK about this before, and seeing as this site has so many UK folks, I'm interested to hear why.

What aristocracy are costing us money? All the old blood have estates and pay for themselves, and the Royal Family's estates contribute far more to the Exchequer than they cost us.

You may be taking your notions of Britain from a stereotype.

 Compel wrote:
At the end of the day, one could be forgiven for asking, is the only difference between the traditional aristocracy andthe Kardashians, Hiltons, etc just a few hundred years of time?

Point taken...I have often thought the same myself. However, US celebrities aren't funded by taxpayers (generally speaking, maybe there is some wierd exception). However, I'm quickly gaining the impression that my presumption of a high tax burden on UK citizens for the aristocracy may be incorrect.

@Silver: If I came off as condescending or anything, I didn't mean to. I really don't know why the UK has an aristocracy, and was just trying to find out what the reasons were as a matter of curiosity and nothing more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
What is the 'common man' argument for maintaining an aristocracy (presumably at great expense to the taxpayer)? Is it a national pride thing? Something else?

I've never had a discussion with anyone from the UK about this before, and seeing as this site has so many UK folks, I'm interested to hear why.

What aristocracy are costing us money? All the old blood have estates and pay for themselves, and the Royal Family's estates contribute far more to the Exchequer than they cost us.

You may be taking your notions of Britain from a stereotype.

Likely. I'm uneducated on the subject.

Rookie move, Jasper. Shoulda googled it first.

Same reason that the Rockefellers, Kennedys, etc are considered a "big deal" here in the US.

Because reasons!

@cincey: I was more interested in what 'everyday people' here thought, rather than talking heads on the internet.

But your point is taken.

 jasper76 wrote:
@cincey: I was more interested in what 'everyday people' here thought, rather than talking heads on the internet.

But your point is taken.

For clarity, that wasn't intended to be mean. I was teasing.

I've made the mistake myself.

Gotcha

I suppose in certain instances you could say old families with land do get money from the taxpayer, in terms of setting up wind farms for the subsidies but that is something any landowner can do, especially when you consider some of these family homes can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds in upkeep. I met a lad through friends at university who was from one of these old families and he wasn't exactly wealthy, but, the title gets passed on regardless of fortune, short of sending them all to the guillotine there will always be an aristocracy. It's the same for many other European countries.

 jasper76 wrote:
What is the 'common man' argument for maintaining an aristocracy (presumably at great expense to the taxpayer)? Is it a national pride thing? Something else?

I've never had a discussion with anyone from the UK about this before, and seeing as this site has so many UK folks, I'm interested to hear why.

As others have said, the aristocracy, are long gone. The Royal family, publicly funded, still remain. As a republican (not the US version ) I would like to see them abolished.

People will point to them bringing in more cash than they take, but France, a republic, still makes loads of money from Versailles, so that argument doesn't hold much water.

But that's an argument for another day.

To address your main point, class has always been an issue in the UK. people may point to the power of corporations in the US (and that's a valid ;point) but I've always seen America as more of a meritocracy than the UK, but that could be down to it being an immigrant success story.

The abolition of grammar schools in the UK, which did a lot to help social mobility, was a major setback in the fight against class divisions.

It's ironic that the conservatives of old, Margaret Thatcher and Ted heath being a prime example of a grammar school graduates, were generally a socially progressive party.

These days, they've been hijacked by a public school mafia. The UK equivalent of American politics being dominated by Ivy league graduates, if you're looking for a comparison.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The UK equivalent of American politics being dominated by Ivy league graduates, if you're looking for a comparison.

Not really too far from what we have, TBH.

 Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The UK equivalent of American politics being dominated by Ivy league graduates, if you're looking for a comparison.

Not really too far from what we have, TBH.

Exactly. I'm probably telling you what you already know, but in the UK, most political parties, top business owners, the media, and the judicial system, are dominated by people who went to the same public schools, went to the same two universities (Oxford and Cambridge) and mostly end up marrying each other, so their sons and daughters continue the cycle.

No different to what you guys have with the Ivy league crowd dominating everything important.

Check the cost to the US taxpayer of having a president and then compare it to the cost of the Royals.

Our head of state is self funding, non political and a living link to our history and culture. Cheap at twice the price I say.

Another question coming from curiosity and ingnorance:
Does the UK system of government have a peaceful method to oust the Royal Family on the off chance that a future king or queen starts doing things that are unacceptable to the citizenry?

Since they are unelected, how would that work?

Well, I think the Brits seem to have a very high bar as to what they deem "Unacceptable" given the antics of a certain member of the Royal family who shall remain nameless.

Plus they don't really have all that much power anyway so it really doesn't matter.

The monarch's powers are essentially symbolic.

What sort of things do you imagine a future monarch might do that would be unacceptable?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
What is the "common man" argument for letting big companies run your country?

ZING! lol!

They run your country too. Frankly, there's no real difference between aristocracy and the dynastic nature of business magnates beyond the fact that the aristocrats beyond the perception that one is "traditional" and one is "modern".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The monarch's powers are essentially symbolic.

What sort of things do you imagine a future monarch might do that would be unacceptable?

I'm basically talking about bat-poop insanity, or attempting to regain actual power.

I'm not suggesting it's likely... how would I know....although I have noticed rumblings in the media over the years that one of the princes is pretty out there.

 jasper76 wrote:
Another question coming from curiosity and ingnorance:
Does the UK system of government have a peaceful method to oust the Royal Family on the off chance that a future king or queen starts doing things that are unacceptable to the citizenry?

Since they are unelected, how would that work?

There's not much they can do that would be unacceptable. Let's be frank, the Royal Family are figureheads. They're there to rubber-stamp the paperwork, wave at the tourists, kiss babies, and open supermarkets. Whilst they still have a certain amount of power on paper (royal assent, for example), the moment a royal family member decided to play the Divine Right card would be the moment the Government enacted the Law anyway, told the current King/Queen to take a hike(or abdicate), and then passed another law removing the need for royal assent. Technically it would be illegal, but de facto trumps de jure any day of the week.

The British Constitution is a curious one, in that it doesn't exist on paper. If you took it and tried to apply it in an African or Middle-Eastern country, the 'Monarch' would have seized power with the army within about ten minutes, or the House of Lords would be openly soliciting bribery for their votes, or the judiciary would be run entirely by the Government. The only reason our separation of powers works is because all British citizens have this strange idea that it should do.

The result being that any monarch who tried to seize power would be ignored by everyone, the army commanders have no desire to seize power and genuinely view their place as being 'to serve', and any government who tried to abolish democratic voting rights or the monarchy unnecessarily would be summarily removed by the judiciary and a new Government swiftly formed.

It's a very strange system, ringfenced by tradition and interoperating laws and oaths of loyalty. A millenium of continuous evolution of Government in these isles since the formation of England/Scotland has left us with a system that exists in our heads as much as it does on paper, but still works (bizarely enough). We are the most stable institution in the world. And with a dose of luck and reasonable planning, we'll outlast the rest of the world again, and still be around in another millenium.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, I think the Brits seem to have a very high bar as to what they deem "Unacceptable" given the antics of a certain member of the Royal family who shall remain nameless.

Plus they don't really have all that much power anyway so it really doesn't matter.

You're probably gonna have to name them, otherwise that comment amounts to "some guy was bad"

Very illuminating. I can't say I agree with your assessment that the UK system of government is a paragon of stability, due to a successful secession by Republican Irish a century ago, thimgs cooling down in Ulster only relatively recently, and the near secession of Scotland only weeks ago.

In any case, thanks everyone for all this info....I am a little less ignorant than I was before.

 jasper76 wrote:
Very illuminating. I can't say I agree with your assessment that the UK system of government is a paragon of stability, due to a successful secession by Republican Irish a century ago, thimgs cooling down in Ulster only relatively recently, and the near secession of Scotland only weeks ago.

Allow me to put things in perspective for you.

England and Scotland have both existed as unified nations for over a millennia. The last successful external invasion and conquest of the British mainland was William the Conqueror in 1066, who also forced Wales into submission. England and Scotland united under the same monarch in 1603. The last civil war and revolution we had ended in victory for the Parliamentarians in 1651.

In comparison, Germany's been around for less than one and half centuries. France has had more revolutions and changes in Governmental administration in the last two centuries than I've eaten meals this week. America had a civil war a hundred and fifty years ago, and didn't exist much before that. Italy didn't exist until Garibaldi and co, Spain's had more ups and downs in governments than I care to count, the Ottoman Empire collapsed a bloody long time ago, and so on.

And these are the 'modern' countries.

Britain, by contrast, has had a relatively peaceful succession of Governments. You had the War of the Roses which culminated in Henry VII ascending the throne at the turn of the sixteenth century, but the Tudors then ruled quite happily, until they were succeeded by the Stuarts, and so forth. The actual transition of power right up to Charles I was peaceful. We then had the Civil War (which ended in 1651), and bar a bit of collusion with the Dutch to keep James II and his Catholic heirs off the throne, we've had a peaceful unbroken line of successive governments since (the last one doesn't count because the British were on both sides. It's not an invasion if we do it ourselves. )

Even if you do only take it from the badly named 'Glorious Revolution' in 1688, since then we've had no civil wars. No enemies invading us. No defeat in a war that mattered. No coups. No real rebellions. All of those things that have put nations around the world in turmoil, we've evaded. By any standard, we ARE the most stable nation in the world. We might gain or lose hunks of land abroad here or there like spare change off the street, but the administration remains unbroken, and that's what counts.

William Shakespeare, "King Richard II", Act 2 scene 1 wrote:'This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,--
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.'

Well, losing Ireland in a war may seem like a small thing to you, but I assure you that winning the Republic of Ireland is a very, very, veru big deal to the Irish, including many Irish-Americans. Some of us have ancestors who fought in that war.

Your larger point is taken, though.

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, losing Ireland may seem like a small thing to you, but I assure you that winning the Republic of Ireland is a very, very, veru big deal to the Irish, including many Irish-Americans.

Of course. Like how the American War of Independence is a massive thing to the Americans, but as a date is quite unknown to practically every person over here. If we had to remember every bit of foreign real estate we've acquired or lost over the last five centuries, we wouldn't have time for anything else, there've been so many.

When I say, 'wars that mattered', I'm talking about ones that threatened the continuity of the British State. Ireland leaving? Nope. African possessions? They cost more than they were worth. America? We had other more important fish to fry in Europe at the time, and whilst it's a bit we probably should have hung onto upon reflection, Britain has continued without it nonetheless. Hong Kong? We only leased it to begin with.

Judging by history, in two centuries time, half of the nations that exist today most likely won't anymore, and a quarter of those remaining will be the same states in name only. Odds are though, we'll still be here. There's no stomach for coups and revolutions, ideologies and religions are viewed by most here as a minor social affliction, and we maintain a big enough army/navy to deter any opportunistic invaders. As long as we play our political/diplomatic cards right and eliminate any potential superpower threats (as we have done for two hundred years now), we'll most likely be just fine. The world will keep spinning, nations will rise and fall, and every British citizen will still be moaning about the 'Bloody Tories!' in Westminster.

If anything, we'll prosper. Certain predictions rank the UK as the fourth largest economy in the world within around 20 years, iirc.

Well, I certainly hope your right. American actors are horrible at British accents, and maybe one day you'll get your groove back with music, too.

I can speak from New Zealand's point of view about our role in all of this

Technically the Queen, acting through the Governor-General, is our head of state here in NZ. Mostly the G-G rubber stamps policies set by our PM. According to our constitution the G-G can only act under advice from the PM anyway. If there was a major disagreement in policy for some reason we could just declare ourselves a republic, leave the commonwealth and that would be that. That's not likely to happen though.

All the monarchy stuff is voluntary, NZ could just leave at any time, but people here like it and it keeps us connected to the world.