4 ms·

? The history of aristocracy is about amplifying perception of power. Everyone knows who the King and Duke are and what their means of power are. The stage el

? The history of aristocracy is about amplifying perception of power. Everyone knows who the King and Duke are and what their means of power are. The stage elaborate public things to legitimize their power. The Pharaohs themselves lived an entirely 'stage performed' existence to convince the plebes of their ostensible legitimacy. There are 'other groups' with power, whereupon the public knowledge of their influence would be to their detriment, and they were not 'aristocrats' though they would have probably desperately like to be that.

woodruffw 4y ago
> Everyone knows who the King and Duke are and what their means of power are. This is only true in a limited sense. The single most important justification for the King's power has been his divine right: a doctrine of preordained power that no earthly force can usurp. This works pretty well on illiterate peasants who fear divine retribution, but the cat is more or less out of the bag on that front. And note: that is the justification for power, which defines its perception. A king's true source of power has historically been his wealth (and therefore the size of his army and supporting court), or the support of extremely wealthy parties (churches, merchant classes, etc.). Every regent in history has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep the public from realizing that he is just a man, one whose wealth (and therefore power) can be taken.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  And so the Declaration of Independence was a direct shot against that. "All men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" is a direct attack against the divine right of kings (and nobles).
- pydry 4y ago
  The justification matters less than the ever present belief that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative This is largely why the French Revolution was so vehemently opposed by foreign leaders and why they tried almost everything to get another king on the throne in France or to destroy it trying. It was a living, breathing, functioning and preferable alternative to monarchy. If not clamped down upon it was only a matter of time until it spread.

woodruffw 4y ago

> Everyone knows who the King and Duke are and what their means of power are. This is only true in a limited sense. The single most important justification for the King's power has been his divine right: a doctrine of preordained power that no earthly force can usurp. This works pretty well on illiterate peasants who fear divine retribution, but the cat is more or less out of the bag on that front. And note: that is the justification for power, which defines its perception. A king's true source of power has historically been his wealth (and therefore the size of his army and supporting court), or the support of extremely wealthy parties (churches, merchant classes, etc.). Every regent in history has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep the public from realizing that he is just a man, one whose wealth (and therefore power) can be taken.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
And so the Declaration of Independence was a direct shot against that. "All men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" is a direct attack against the divine right of kings (and nobles).
pydry 4y ago
The justification matters less than the ever present belief that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative This is largely why the French Revolution was so vehemently opposed by foreign leaders and why they tried almost everything to get another king on the throne in France or to destroy it trying. It was a living, breathing, functioning and preferable alternative to monarchy. If not clamped down upon it was only a matter of time until it spread.