On the subject of Nobility and Royalty
My
esteemed friends and colleagues, please allow that I begin quickly and
briefly by first introducing nobility, as nobility and Royalty are much
related there is a distinction between the two designations it is very
prudent of me to make.
The
term ‘nobility’ is used in two ways. The general usage in Europe for
example, is where knights, earls, and younger children of 'peers' are
included. In Great Britain, nobility in a restricted sense is applied
only to the aforesaid peers and their wives and often their offspring
too.
So
I am pointing toward particular ranks of society, termed 'nobility',
and I refer to those who originally did enjoy certain hereditary
privileges, the wealth of nobility being mostly accrued from their
ownership of land. In many societies until here in the twenty-first
century, nobility did provide the requisite elite personnel of
government and also the military. In Great Britain, there exists a very
long line of nobility to scrutinize. During this present time members of
the ‘peerage
’ (nobility) have a seat (attendance) in the governmental House of Lords situated in the Houses of Parliament.
Throughout
the countries of Europe, the proof of nobility (sometimes named
‘gentility’) is and please allow me to offer a definition: ‘Lawful
possession of armorial bearings, or paternal descent from an ancestor
who the crown has ennobled by such a grant or recognized as already
noble’.
Let
me say in addition that nobility has been regarded as a sign of owning
as many types of superiority as there are, thus have become useful
political tools and conferrment as rewards for certain services
rendered. Yes, it is so.
The
early Roman Patriciate for example, was comprised of who were thought
to be descendants of Romulus, the founder of Rome itself, thus from very
early in the history of Rome certain very important offices were always
given to a Patrician and no other.
In
the case of the Republic of Venice, the nobility emerged via a
commercial plutocracy and gradually engulfed and kept hold of all
political power in the Republic.
Let
me just return to the English nobility and to the Middle Ages and to
say that nobility was essentially feudal and military and grounded in
the foundations of landed property, its origins were in the relationship
between lord and vassal and by which the lord, in return for the
allegiance and military services of his vassal, awarded land and
guarantees of protection from attack.
Permit
me to say the English baronial nobility was at odds in certain respects
from the nobility of the rest of Europe. With the English, one member
only (the eldest son or next heir) of a family was deemed to be noble in
the sense of being a member of the peerage. In the case of European
nobility the whole kin of certain families enjoyed privileges from the
fact of their emergemce from an oligarchic aristocracy.
The
present day nobility of England looks like the old feudal nobility only
in that it might still own land estates and for the rest it comprises
an assorted body of peers, some of whom own patents entitling them to
sit in the governmental House of Lords and some who do not, and baronets
and knights, the great majority of whom possess titles of more recent
creation and awarded for political or other public services. Only a few
of the existing English peerages reach back to before the era of William
Pitt the Younger (Prime Minister between 1783 and 1806).
In
England, noble emphasis has been laid on lineal descent fixed firmly to
wealth and intense training in the 'public' (elite private) school
system. In Scotland and elsewhere in Europe less importance has been
attached to ‘proof of nobility’ (16 quarterings, ie. 16 noble
great-great-grandparents, or 8 noble great-grandparents) which the
individual should be able to display. In other words, the continental
nobility attempted a continuation of itself as a privileged caste, a
fact that brought it into direct conflict with the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat. The English system has been to take care of the peers and
their immediate children as 'high nobility' and to allow their children
to acquiesce into the middle class stratum of society.
During
the period of later feudalism a new hierarchy emerged within the
nobility in feudal absolutist nations. The authority and significance of
the court aristocracy increased and the nobility was reinforced by new
members from the bourgeoisie. (In France a distinction was drawn between
the ‘noblesse de la robe’, or new nobility, and the ‘noblesse de
l’épée’, or old nobility.)
The
ridding of the nobility as a privileged status and the cessation of its
political supremacy were among the ambitions of the French bourgeois
revolution as you know. The nobility was, however, able to keep some of
its privileges, especially where the consolidation of the capitalist
system had occurred without a radical breakdown of the old regime and
the bourgeoisie had agreed to some kind of compromise with the old
ruling class. The noble privileges such as for example, the caste nature
of the army, leadership of the political controlling apparatus, the
diplomatic corps and noble titles survived for an especially long time.
In Great Britain’s agrarian system the monopoly in land owned by the
aristocratic ruling class became the foundation for 'landlordism'.
Among the Oriental countries the clearest class differentiation of the nobility took place in Japan (the daimyo and samurai).
Please
allow that I now introduce Royalty as being the highest class of all,
in fact the uppermost of the upper class. Royals transcend class status,
yes they do, because their position is not at all dependent on the same
economic trends . Not only are Royals usually extremely wealthy, they
are intrinsically bound to the government of the country in which they
reside. Royals may rule the country, they may perform in its legislative
process, or simply perform ceremonial duties. Royals may even be
considered a part of the country itself.
It
is the case that different countries have their own individual ways of
deciding who is Royalty and who is not so adorned. One of the most
common accusations made against Royalty is that they are out of time,
but the fact that so many Royal houses continue to exist into our
century has to be demonstration of their
flexibility.
Allow
me to explain that each country employs a different method for deciding
who is to become King or Queen. Often it is the elder male heir to the
former King who receives the crown. This is referred to by the term
'agnatic succession' and is the current practice in Japan. Other
countries allow female heirs to take the crown. In certain nations
several potential heirs may be qualified, for example all male children.
A 'committee of nobles' then elects the next King, thus choosing the
most suitable.
When
a line ceases to exist and there is no suitable heir , the rules and
procedures in place can be disregarded. The one eventually taking the
crown might not be who owns the most distinct bloodline, but the person
who successfully navigates the surrounding and often turbulent political
context.
In
certain cases Royalty is merely comprised of members of a ruling family
who are Royalty to begin with and every single other person other than
they is deemed to be a 'commoner'. There may be others with royal titles
such as duke, earl and so forth but they are not deemed Royal.
In
certain countries there may be several Royal families, referred as
‘houses’. They might all be considered Royal even though only one family
is in line for the crown. If no one in the current line meets the
requirements one of the other royal families could lay claim to the
crown. Needless to say there have been countless succession conflicts
fought over the centuries. Problemmatic are those times when no viable
heir was around to inherit the crown when the King dies.
At
the top of the royal hierarchy sits the King and Queen, who may
alternately be called Emperor and Empress. Relatives of the King and
Queen in line to take the crown at a future time are usually known as
‘princes’ and ‘princesses’. This group can include siblings, children
and grandchildren, or even cousins. The specifics vary from one country
to the next, depending on the country's rules of succession.
Allow
me to state that a Prince is not necessarily the male son of a King.
The designation is also used as a generic term for a person of Royal
blood.
It
is the case that during the past, Royals enjoyed far more political
authority than they do now though there are exceptions. The King was the
head of the country, commander of the military, law maker, appointer of
officials and in general did govern over the nation. However, a
monarch's power was usually not absolute because other nobles, as well
as church officials if there was a state church (and there usually was
one), met regularly with the King to advise him, deliver their
grievances and so on. The King could do whatever he chose to do, though
doing so incurred a balancing act. The lesser nobles, as discussed
earlier, usually had their own private armies and were also responsible
for collecting taxes in their part of the kingdom. If the King alienated
these nobles and lost their patronage, they could upset the status quo
and to a great extent. This is what lead to the English Civil War and
the temporary collapse of the British monarchy under King Charles I.
The
political responsibilities of lesser nobles were eventually made more
formal. The regular meetings of dukes and bishops in England did evolve
into what is now referred to as the House of Lords and, as I said,
constitutes the upper house of the British government. Even today, the
House of Lords is made up of several dozen hereditary nobles and a large
number of life peers who are appointed by HM the Queen.
What
then might one justifiably ask is a 'pretender'? I mean a pretender to
the crown? I will explain that a pretender is not a false King, though
there have been examples. A pretender is one who lays claim to ownership
of a crown but does not hold it, ie. because another already holds it
(falsely so, in the pretender's opinion). It could be because a Royal
Family has been kicked out and that country no longer has a monarchy.
These claims may be substantiable but still, the defunct King is unable
to hold the crown and everything that goes with it.
Many
sovereigns now form part of 'constitutional monarchies', ie. a form of
government in which they are officially recognized and given limited and
varying amounts of political power. The Emperor of Japan enjoys hardly
any political power (mostly ceremonial) and is subject to approval. The
Queen of England enjoys greater power than the Emperor of Japan though
in practice she is a figurehead. HM the Queen consults with both the
Prime Minister and with Parliament before making appointments or signing
laws into effect. The Queen is the head of state, representing the
British nation at special functions.
Canada
is an example where the power of a Queen is diluted. Canada exists as a
separate constitutional monarchy from Great Britain, but by agreement
with Britain, Canada's succession rules are the same so they will always
have the same Queen. Australia is part of this very same agreement. HM
Queen Elizabeth II is not Empress of a worldly ‘British Empire’, rather,
she is simultaneously Queen of England, Australia and Canada and to a
variety of other, smaller territories. This reaches back to the time
when Canada was a part of the British Empire and the British crown did
then rule Canada. The Canadian constitution places HM the Queen as head
of state, thereby all Canadian laws must be approved by her. In practice
her appointed governor acts as representative and whatever decisions
are made by the Canadian parliament are never opposed. HM the Queen
employs virtually no political authority over Canada.
Jordan
is a constitutional monarchy and it has to be said that the King of
Jordan enjoys an amount of political power akin to that of the President
of The United States and as is the case in the USA, the King of Jordan
appoints judges and signs laws into effect and can also be overruled by
Jordan's legislative body, the National Assembly.
One
might ponder whether Royals do enjoy extravagant lifestyles by owning
opulent palaces with servants on hand to cater for their every
requirement? One might also imagine striking country manor houses,
luxury cars, yachts, jewel
encrusted
head attire and the best custom made clothes. Well, I have to say that
if you do imagine this, it turns out you are mostly correct. The lives
of Royalty are indeed, extremely privileged, although the Royals of the
Scandinavian countries are known for a more basic life style than the
rest. The Royals of Great Britain certainly do their bit to keep up the
Royal reputation for absolutely splendid lifestyles.
Why
is this? Let's have examples. Queen Elizabeth II together with her
family and entourage frequently take vacations on board the royal yacht,
Britannia which is one of, if not the, most opulent and large yachts in
the world. It takes six tons of luggage on a sailing and in excess of
300 domestics and crew. If they feel like a vacation and want to travel
over land the English royal family can ensconse at Balmoral, a country
house which in sooth comprises a 56,000 acre estate. Buckingham Palace,
in the heart of the city of London, is a 260 bedroom 'house' needing in
excess of 400 domestics. In addition there is also Windsor Castle, which
is HM Queen Elizabeth II’s opulent 660 room family retreat.
There
is more opulence, yes! This is because the Middle Eastern monarchies
are capable of much, much, much. Brunei for example, is home to the
largest palace in the entire world, brandishing 1,700 rooms. The ‘throne
room’ is adorned in solid gold of the highest caliber and the 16
ceiling chandeliers cost $1 million each
It
is expected that modern royal children are educated at the world’s best
and most exclusive private schools, however this was not always the
case. During the past there were examples of royal families being spoon
fed and their children discouraged from doing anything deemed ‘work’,
including becoming educated. This resulted in quite a few Kings taking
control of a nation even though barely literate, without any military
training and with at best, a very meager comprehension of requisite
economic and fiscal matters.
While
all monarchs relied on advisers to some extent, those who took the
crown while still very young were assisted in their tasks by ‘regents’.
Regents could act as advisers, or they could act as governors
representing the crown until the rightful King came of age, ie. was
sufficiently mature to be taken seriously.
Let’s
just take a moment to look at Royal behavior during this present time
because it is interesting for what it reveals. Very recently German
tabloids featured a story regarding the British Prince Harry and his
attending a party dressed as a Nazi Officer. The British media are
notorious for reporting Royal behavior in its entirety. Thus the
‘sucking of toes photograph’ attributed to the then Duchess of York,
Sarah Ferguson now very much a former member of the British Royal
Family. (She was married to Queen Elizabeth II's second son, Prince
Andrew, Duke of York, from 1986 to 1996). Diana Spencer was also shown
in the British tabloid press during compromising sexual moments. There
is also speculation regarding the red haired Prince Harry with regard to
the identity of his biological father.
Royals
are often referred to as being ‘blue bloods’. Yes! This has been
because for centuries European Royal families have married almost
exclusively in an effort to protect their bloodline and keep them
‘pure.’ These family trees have become very intricate and marrying into
different royal families has not helped because not only were other
families inbred too, but the families had intermarried to such an extent
that the same genetic predispositions that accrue from intermarriage
had been passed on for generations.
The British Queen Victoria did actually pass on an inclination toward hemophilia to her later generations of British royals.
What has been the impact of Royal behavior? Well, Royal MIS-behavior has
been
dealt with most harshly and during the French Revolution as you must
know. The behavior of Royals cannot be blamed on genetics alone,
obviously. Even when sane and healthy, Royals can become embroiled in
very bad decision making indeed. Thus modern Royal scandals can appear
trivial to us when being compared to the scandals of the past. King
Henry VIII banished his wife of 20 years, then proceeded to have several
more wives beheaded in public display only after incarcerating them in
the infamous Tower of London.
Modern
Royalty has its own scandals of course. The British Princess Diana and
husband Prince Charles suffered rumors of infidelity and saw their
marriages fragment and fall to pieces while under heavy public scrutiny.
In Belgium, a more recent scandal has begun erupting, because Prince
Laurent was subpoenaed to testify in a fraud case. It is being alleged
that the Prince and his close associates actually swindled the Belgian
military for over two million euros and to finance Laurent’s lavish
lifestyle.
Certain
Royal stories are very tragic affairs. Diana spencer's death in Paris
due to an automobile accident was the biggest news story of this
century. The talented and beautiful American movie star Grace Kelly
became Princess Grace of Monaco when in 1956 she married Prince Rainier.
In 1982 she was killed when losing control of her sports car while
driving on the winding highway into Monaco.
Please
allow that I continue to focus upon one certain living monarch,
Elizabeth II because we all know of her. Elizabeth, born in 1926, is
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, other
realms and territories and Head of the Commonwealth. Elizabeth became
Queen in 1952 upon the death of her father, King George VI. She was then
barely 26 years of age.
Elizabeth
ascended to the throne during a precarious time for Great Britain
because since the end of World War II Britain had granted whole or
partial freedom to many of its Colonies of The Empire, certain of which
became voluntary members of what subsequently is known as the
Commonwealth of Nations. Their only subsequent tie with Great Britain
was in their allegiance to the Crown and which Elizabeth represented.
Her assignment thus became one of holding and consolidating that
loyalty. In doing this, Elizabeth has actually traveled the world more
than any monarch in history to meet with the people of The Commonwealth.
It
was Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary who was born in London on April
21, 1926. She was the first child of the Duke of York. Elizabeth’s
father became George VI in 1936 upon the abdication of his famous (or
somewhat infamous) brother, Edward VIII. From an early age Elizabeth,
because she was the ‘Heiress Apparent’ was trained and disciplined in
all the requisite duties of Royalty.
Princess
Elizabeth and her younger sister, Margaret Rose, were educated by a
Scottish governess, Marion Crawford, who later wrote about the royal
sisters in the book, The Little Princesses (1950). Tutors taught
Elizabeth German and French. Elizabeth was a serious student and, when
13 years old, began training in constitutional history with a specialist
from the elite, Eton College. She became an active member of the Sea
Rangers and of the Girl Guides (The British equivalent of the Girl
Scouts of America). During World War II, Elizabeth served in London as a
military vehicle mechanic and driver in The Auxiliary Services. At 18
she was empowered to replace her father in The Council of State when
necessary and she first served as such during 1944 while King George was
inspecting British forces stationed at the Italian front.
In
1947 Elizabeth was married to a distant cousin, Prince Philip of
Greece, a descendant of HM Queen Victoria. (Philip had become a British
subject after World War II and had taken his mother's family name of
Mountbatten). Elizabeth's first child, Prince Charles Philip Arthur
George, was born on November 14, 1948. A daughter, Princess Anne
Elizabeth Alice Louise, was born on August 15, 1950.
During
the late 1940’s and with Philip, Elizabeth toured several European and
Commonwealth countries. Following a tour of Canada in 1951, the couple
visited the US President, Harry S. Truman in Washington, D.C.
Please
allow that I say a little about the coronation because it exists as a
historical landmark in our subject of Royalty. On January 31, 1952,
Elizabeth and Philip left Gt. Britain to tour Australia and New Zealand.
On 6
th February
and during a brief sojourn in Kenya, King George died during his sleep.
Elizabeth returned to England, and on February 8 was proclaimed as
Queen. She declared that she, her children, and their descendants would
retain the name Windsor. Philip kept the name Mountbatten. (However, in
1960, Elizabeth announced that any of her descendants not bearing the
title ‘Royal Highness’ would be surnamed ‘Mountbatten-Windsor’.) On 2nd
June 1953 at Westminster Abbey, Elizabeth's coronation was held amidst
much extravagant splendor.
As
reigning Queen, Elizabeth continued her tours to the countries of The
Commonwealth, including Fiji, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and
Uganda. In June, 1959, she and Philip traveled to Canada. With US
President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Elizabeth dedicated the St. Lawrence
Seaway. This one assignment in the United States was completed in
Chicago, at the western end of the seaway.
Prince
Andrew Albert Christian Edward was born February 19, 1960, and Prince
Edward Antony Richard Louis was born March 10, 1964.
In
1969 Elizabeth severed with the tradition of privacy in regard to the
domestic life of Britain's Royalty by allowing a movie to be made
showing the informal activities of herself, her husband, and their
children. The movie, titled, ‘Royal Family’, was broadcast by television
in England and elsewhere.
Throughout
the 1960's, the 1970's, and the 1980's, Elizabeth continued to tour The
Commonwealth countries and other parts of the world. In 1976 Elizabeth
and Philip visited The United States during its Bicentennial. In 1977
Britain celebrated Elizabeth's Silver Jubilee, her 25th anniversary as
Queen. In 1979, Elizabeth, accompanied by Philip, toured the Arab states
of the Persian Gulf. In 1982 she and Philip traveled to Canada, where
she announced The Constitution Act, which removed the remaining vestiges
of British political authority in Canada. In 1986, while in Australia,
she proclaimed a similar act appertaining to that country. Also in 1986,
Elizabeth became the first British monarch to visit communist China.
During
the early 1990's, as I said earlier and following the marital problems
of Elizabeth's children, the Royal Family received a wide amount of
adverse
publicity and it has to be said that support for the monarchy became
weakened as a result. In 1992 Elizabeth removed the names of several
family members from the ‘civil list’, a list of people who receive
public money. In addition and during that year, she volunteered to pay
income tax on her own considerable personal income.
Please allow that I very briefly in my summation look at my own country, Iran, the native name for Persia.
It was during 1935 that The Shah (I refer to The King), Riza Khan Pahlavi, insisted the country be named ‘Iran.’
At
the outbreak of World War II, Iran announced its neutrality, however
the Shah was widely believed to be pro-Nazi. The Allies feared Germany
might seize Iran's considerable oil resources and concurrent with this
fear, a logistic route to the Soviet Union was badly needed. In 1941 the
militaries of Great Britain and the Soviet Union attacked Iran, quickly
overcoming resistance. The Shah abdicated in favor of Crown Prince
Mohammed Riza Pahlavi. American troops entered Iran in 1942. The Allies
made the Trans-Iranian Railway a major logistic route to the Soviet
Union. During 1943, Iran declared war on Germany, and Allied leaders
Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met in the Iranian capitol, Tehran.
It
was at the end of the war that Iran became one of the first areas of
cold war conflict because the Soviet Union, which had set up a
secessionist regime in the province of Azerbaijan, refused to withdraw
troops it had stationed there. Pressure from The United Nations finally
resulted in the troops being removed in 1946. Iranian forces then moved
into Azerbaijan, putting an end to the secessionist attempt.
In
1951 Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry.
In 1953 he forced the Shah into exile but within a week was overthrown
by the Shah's supporters. The Shah, who previously had been little more
than a figurehead, then began to exercise his authority to a fuller
extent.
It
was during the 1960's, that the Shah introduced wide-ranging economic,
political and social reforms. Huge estates were divided up and the land
distributed to the ‘peasants’. New programs helped develop industry,
improve health conditions, provide more educational opportunities and
thus considerably increase prosperity. Women were given the right to
enjoy equal rights with men. During 1961 to 1963 opposition to these
reforms led the Shah to suspend parliamentary government in order to
suppress all the opposition.
During
1967, with prosperity increasing and political stability restored, the
Shah allowed himself to be formally crowned and so, 26 years following
his accession to the throne. The 2,500th anniversary of the founding of
The Persian Empire was celebrated in 1971, 10 years after the actual
anniversary date.
During
the 1970's, large increases in oil prices made it possible for the Shah
to accelerate the modernization of Iran and to build up the country's
military strength on an absolutely huge scale.
It
was during 1978 that protests over the Shah's rule began to boil. Much
of the opposition came from the conservative religious leaders, led by
the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had opposed modernization because
it was, according to him, contrary to traditional Islamic ways. Many
opponents, however, some of them socialists and Communists, demanded a
more equal distribution of wealth and an end to dictatorial rule.
During
1979 the Shah lost the support of the army and his regime immediately
collapsed. He went into exile and the Ayatollah Khomeini became supreme
ruler of Iran. When the Shah visited The United States for medical
treatment in October, 1979, militants seized the American embassy in
Tehran and its personnel, demanding the United States turn over the Shah
in exchange for the release of the hostages. The United States refused
and a diplomatic crisis ensued. In July 1980, the Shah died of natural
causes however the hostages were not released until January, 1981.
In
September 1980, neighboring Iraq invaded Iran in an attempt to regain
border territory it had relinquished during 1975. Seven years later and
after Iran had driven Iraqi forces out of most of the invaded territory,
the war turned into a impasse. In 1988 the two nations conceded to a
cease-fire and a tentative peace settlement in 1990.
Khomeini
died in 1989. He left the country in the hands of other conservative
religious leaders, like himself. Thus very little changed politically
until 1997 when a religious ‘moderate’ Seyed Mohammad Khātamī, an
Iranian scholar and politician was elected president by a large
majority.
In
2004, conservatives regained control of the Majlis in parliamentary
elections after The Council of Guardians had disqualified many reformist
candidates. In 2005, voters elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was the
mayor of Tehran and a political conservative, as president. In 2005, as
in 2004, the Council of Guardians had disqualified large numbers of
reformist candidates before the election took place.
It
has to be said that during the early twenty-first century, tensions
rose between Iran and other countries, especially The United States. The
US government accused Iran of supporting terrorism and seeking to
develop and own nuclear weapons. Subsequently Iran did deny the
accusations. In 2003, United Nations (UN) atomic energy inspectors began
touring Iran in order to try and ascertain the form of the country's
nuclear program. The inspectors criticized Iran for concealing certain
nuclear activities. In 2004, under international pressure, Iran agreed
to suspend its enrichment of uranium, one of the steps involved in
preparing uranium for use as a nuclear fuel. Also in 2005, during talks
with France, Germany, and Gt. Britain, Iran announced that it would
resume nuclear fuel work. In December, 2006, the Security Council passed
a resolution banning Iran from trading nuclear-related materials and
the following year imposed additional economic sanctions on Iran because
of its continued enrichment of uranium.
Please
allow that I now conclude on a humorous note! I will quickly go back in
history and return to England because the country owns a longer line of
nobles and royals than do others and many of them were alive long
before countries such as The United States came into existence.
Allow
me to introduce Godiva, who as the serious history books have it, was
Lady, the wife of Leofric, the 11th century English earl of Mercia and
lord of Coventry. (Remember that I introduced nobles as tax collectors
among other responsibilities). According to legend of that country,
Leofric's taxes were so very burdensome on the poor people of the city
of Coventry that Godiva begged him incessantly to remit them. He
consented but with the provision that she ride on horseback, naked and
astride through the town. Godiva accepted and rode through the town as
promised on horseback. In certain versions of the story, the townspeople
were asked to remain indoors with their shutters closed during the
occasion of her ride because seeing female nobility in the nude was not
the done thing. Only one person, it is said, a maker of clothes, a
pervert, since known as ‘Peeping Tom,’ looked out at her voluptuous
naked body. (Who wouldn't?) The man was immediately struck blind.
Stephie Pahlavi Zan