5 ms·

I'm not sure what protesting the historical origins of the knighthood really achieves. These days they're awarded by the democratically elected government and

I'm not sure what protesting the historical origins of the knighthood really achieves. These days they're awarded by the democratically elected government and the royal family's role in it is purely ceremonial. Whichever member of the royal family carries out the ceremony is basically a paid actor on behalf of that state in this context.

jacquesm 14y ago
It's not historical, see: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/Knighthoods.aspx http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/Knighthoods.aspx
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Thank you but I'm British, I really don't need to have it explained to me what I knighthood is. The whole Royal family works in two ways - the theoretical what they (or more usually the Queen) can do, and the way it actually works. In theory the Queen can veto any law, could decide who to knight herself and so on but in reality this doesn't happen for the simple reason that the minute she did we the people would advance on Buckingham Palace with torches and pitchforks and burn the place to the ground. She is very much the Queen because the people and the government allow her to be, whatever the technicalities of the law say. The reality of the situation is that the democratically elected government (sort of, see the House of Lords below) make all the decisions and the Queen merely "endorses them" (though even that suggests she has a say in it which she doesn't in any real way). Do the Royal family have influence? Yes they do, but I'd suggest it's really no more than anyone else with that much money has (look at Adrian Beescroft right now) and they're far better than most with that much money in this sense as they're aware that they should remain neutral and do so. Generally the worst that happens is that Prince Charles runs his ill informed mouth about homoeopathy and architecture. It's an odd system and no-one in their right mind would design one like it but as it operates now it's really not that broken. If you want to take a swipe at something can I suggest the unelected House of Lords which has genuine power over the laws of the land and frequently uses it? And even they tend to be a force for good, curbing the worst excesses of successive governments, though I may be more positively inclined towards them than I could otherwise be as I detest the current government so like that the Lords are giving them the run around.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Sorry, simply having a Royal class is paying lip-service to a state of affairs that is unhealthy. How it actually works because people (or more specifically, parliament) don't feel like aligning theory and practice is not my problem. If to the law there are more than one kinds of people then you may say that in theory it isn't like that however in practice this has all kinds of real effects and these will remain as long as Royalty is not formally abolished. Knighthoods are one of those effects, another is the fact that people of 'royal blood' are to some extent above the law. And are protected in ways that no commoner would ever be protected. On top of that it is still hereditary rule, you may be Knighted but your children will never accidentally be born King or Queen. And to me that is just plain wrong, ceremonial or not.
    - arethuza 14y ago
      "some extent above the law" While I would prefer an apolitical president for Head of State of the UK, I feel that the Royals do deserve some credit for their hard work and willingness to put themselves in harms way in the Armed Forces.
    - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
      Reminds me of the Hugh Laurie joke "I used to be Princess Anne's assistant but I quit because I realised that however hard I worked they were never going to make me Princess Anne". The difference between how it works in theory and how it works in practice is everything. British law is largely unwritten - until the EU gave us them we had no written bill of rights and most of our laws are based on precedent rather than anything parliament has decreed. If you do the immigration test one of the things you might be asked is what sort of constitution Britain has (correct answer "an unwritten one"). To try and understand Britain based on what is theoretically true is an exercise in futility that will rapidly lead you away from anything resembling reality. I don't know if you have to live here to really understand it but what you imply simply doesn't tally with the way the Royal family are viewed. It's a strange combination of soap opera, duty, alien otherness and sentimental fondness. For most people there's more of a feeling of pity for them than any idea that they're better than us. They are an anachronistic anomaly but that's how they're viewed - so different, so outside that the comparisons you make really aren't there, any more than you'd compare yourself to something in a museum. Now that's obviously not true of everything to do with the class system which at it's top levels embodies almost everything you say (the Prime Minister for instance is to me far worse, an elitist fop with none of the Royal family's sense of duty or propriety) but to pick on the Royal family is a little like protesting against BP by not buying sweets in their garages when you're filling up your car with petrol - it's really not the problem.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- cafard 14y ago
  Bagehots "The English Constitution" is freely available on-line at gutenberg.org (among other places). It makes the useful distinction between the efficient and ceremonial parts of government. At the time it was written, the House of Lords had a good deal more power than it has had since about 1910, but the book is still worth reading.
  - jarek 14y ago
    Not being British, I was wondering for a while if "bagehots" is some mild denial word used as one would use "bollocks." Punctuation matters ;)
baddox 14y ago
I'm not sure what jacquesm's political and philosophical views are, but the whole idea of governments (including democratic governments) is that there is more than one kind of person (namely, that some people can justifiably perform violent acts like taking a portion of your income).

jacquesm 14y ago

It's not historical, see: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/Knighthoods.aspx http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/Knighthoods.aspx

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
Thank you but I'm British, I really don't need to have it explained to me what I knighthood is. The whole Royal family works in two ways - the theoretical what they (or more usually the Queen) can do, and the way it actually works. In theory the Queen can veto any law, could decide who to knight herself and so on but in reality this doesn't happen for the simple reason that the minute she did we the people would advance on Buckingham Palace with torches and pitchforks and burn the place to the ground. She is very much the Queen because the people and the government allow her to be, whatever the technicalities of the law say. The reality of the situation is that the democratically elected government (sort of, see the House of Lords below) make all the decisions and the Queen merely "endorses them" (though even that suggests she has a say in it which she doesn't in any real way). Do the Royal family have influence? Yes they do, but I'd suggest it's really no more than anyone else with that much money has (look at Adrian Beescroft right now) and they're far better than most with that much money in this sense as they're aware that they should remain neutral and do so. Generally the worst that happens is that Prince Charles runs his ill informed mouth about homoeopathy and architecture. It's an odd system and no-one in their right mind would design one like it but as it operates now it's really not that broken. If you want to take a swipe at something can I suggest the unelected House of Lords which has genuine power over the laws of the land and frequently uses it? And even they tend to be a force for good, curbing the worst excesses of successive governments, though I may be more positively inclined towards them than I could otherwise be as I detest the current government so like that the Lords are giving them the run around.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Sorry, simply having a Royal class is paying lip-service to a state of affairs that is unhealthy. How it actually works because people (or more specifically, parliament) don't feel like aligning theory and practice is not my problem. If to the law there are more than one kinds of people then you may say that in theory it isn't like that however in practice this has all kinds of real effects and these will remain as long as Royalty is not formally abolished. Knighthoods are one of those effects, another is the fact that people of 'royal blood' are to some extent above the law. And are protected in ways that no commoner would ever be protected. On top of that it is still hereditary rule, you may be Knighted but your children will never accidentally be born King or Queen. And to me that is just plain wrong, ceremonial or not.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    "some extent above the law" While I would prefer an apolitical president for Head of State of the UK, I feel that the Royals do deserve some credit for their hard work and willingness to put themselves in harms way in the Armed Forces.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    Reminds me of the Hugh Laurie joke "I used to be Princess Anne's assistant but I quit because I realised that however hard I worked they were never going to make me Princess Anne". The difference between how it works in theory and how it works in practice is everything. British law is largely unwritten - until the EU gave us them we had no written bill of rights and most of our laws are based on precedent rather than anything parliament has decreed. If you do the immigration test one of the things you might be asked is what sort of constitution Britain has (correct answer "an unwritten one"). To try and understand Britain based on what is theoretically true is an exercise in futility that will rapidly lead you away from anything resembling reality. I don't know if you have to live here to really understand it but what you imply simply doesn't tally with the way the Royal family are viewed. It's a strange combination of soap opera, duty, alien otherness and sentimental fondness. For most people there's more of a feeling of pity for them than any idea that they're better than us. They are an anachronistic anomaly but that's how they're viewed - so different, so outside that the comparisons you make really aren't there, any more than you'd compare yourself to something in a museum. Now that's obviously not true of everything to do with the class system which at it's top levels embodies almost everything you say (the Prime Minister for instance is to me far worse, an elitist fop with none of the Royal family's sense of duty or propriety) but to pick on the Royal family is a little like protesting against BP by not buying sweets in their garages when you're filling up your car with petrol - it's really not the problem.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
cafard 14y ago
Bagehots "The English Constitution" is freely available on-line at gutenberg.org (among other places). It makes the useful distinction between the efficient and ceremonial parts of government. At the time it was written, the House of Lords had a good deal more power than it has had since about 1910, but the book is still worth reading.
- jarek 14y ago
  Not being British, I was wondering for a while if "bagehots" is some mild denial word used as one would use "bollocks." Punctuation matters ;)

baddox 14y ago

I'm not sure what jacquesm's political and philosophical views are, but the whole idea of governments (including democratic governments) is that there is more than one kind of person (namely, that some people can justifiably perform violent acts like taking a portion of your income).