Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Hot take: hereditary kingdoms were a reasonably successful solution to curbing constant civil war in a time when representative democracies might not have been viable (for various reasons).by overvale
- It mirrors what happens when any legacy institution (whether it's nobility or old tech) tries to survive in a world that's stopped needing it but still watches it, half-curious, half-conflictedby RataNova
- Slightly related: to any British readers, I have a question. In the past few weeks, I have seen more and more YouTube videos showing most of Britain outside of London as being essentially like Detroit. How bad are things really?by siavosh
- Seems a bit shallow.
The real downfall of the great British houses (architectural sense) was the financial catastrophe that 1914 to 1946 was for the British Empire. Top billing in two world wars - and they went from being blatantly the richest and most powerful nation on earth, to needing a US Treasury bail-out to avoid national bankruptcy.
(Though over in America, most of the historic grand mansions are now tourist attractions, for lack of heirs with the wealth and interest in maintaining them.)
And the benefits of British aristocratic titles faded over quite a few centuries, not just recently. Compare King Charles I of the early 1600's (Parliament didn't like his exercise of Divine Right) with George III of the later 1700's (a clever King could appoint his own Prime Ministers against Parliament's wishes) with Queen Victoria of the later 1800's (she complained to the PM that the Foreign Secretary was taking actions without her approval) with Queen Elizabeth II of the later 1900's (she dutifully read her supposed "Queen's Speech" to Parliament, whether she agreed with a word of it or not).
by bell-cot - I live next to a baron, next town lives a count. Both are just moderately wealthy humans.
There is one distinction that sets them apart from "new money": They could not leave without loosing a significant part of their identity and influence.
I grew up among socialists, I have no love for aristocracy, but in times when the schism between rich and poor widens a caste of people that are bound by custom to be loyal to a place, meaning they are reluctant to abandon their local community, might be worth more than we think.
by niemandhier - Forgive me if I don't shed a tear because somebody can't live in a giant house anymore.by BrenBarn
- Doughty does not go into the polemical question of whether or not the elimination of hereditary peers is a good idea (for the record, it isn’t…)
If we are proponents of hereditary roles, why not go full hog, and just have the monarchy control the show?
by lostlogin - The British monarchy just took another hit with the formal degradation of Prince Andrew.[1]
(That's what "degradation" really means - having an aristocratic title removed, making someone a commoner.)
by Animats