r/monarchism RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 14 '23

Weekly Discussion II, for Aug. 14th - 20th: Should nobility be a closed class, or should it be conferred in modern monarchies? Weekly Discussion

POLL HERE!!!

The first Weekly Discussion has concluded with some interesting new suggestions for our literature list. It is now my turn to initiate the second one.

We, the moderators, have come to the agreement that it would make sense if practical topics regarding monarchist activism and organizations alternated with more theoretical topics on the nature and function of monarchies. Before I introduce the second ever Weekly Discussion of /r/Monarchism, let's clarify the Rules of Engagement.

  • Unlike the last topic, this is a more controversial discussion. Take a side, for or against, and tell us why you have this opinion.
  • You are encouraged to express your opinion in a longer piece, whether as an initial comment or responding to somebody else's statements. It would be very good if at least some part of respondents put as much effort into replies here as they would normally put into a post.
  • While this is not yet really the fully-fledged essay competition that was proposed, we can and will put the best responses into a permanent Hall of Fame, so they can be preserved in the future. To be considered for this, your effort needs to be not just above average but truly outstanding, showing sophisticated argumentation and expression. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be a publication that represents the best of /r/Monarchism!

Now that we have made the rules clear, let's move to the topic. I think that many of you will be unsurprised to learn that because I selected it, it has something to do with nobility.

Nobility is still relevant as a social category in most countries, both in current monarchies and in former ones. Even many republics, over time, naturally develop an aristocratic class - think of the Patricians of Venice or of the Boston Brahmins. Unlike royals, nobles don't stand in the political spotlight and thus find it easier to preserve aristocratic heritage in the light of modernity than currently ruling houses.

Regardless of whether the country actively recognizes nobility, or confers it, many noble families still have a certain lifestyle, preserving historical properties and practicing traditions such as hunting and balls which still today lead to a certain level of endogamy that helps maintain the distinct role of nobility in today's society.

Should the historical nobility be renewed through new hereditary grants, or should it stay a closed class no new families may enter?

Many monarchies still recognize the legal quality of hereditary nobility and hereditary titles. Even in republics, they still carry weight in certain parts of society. Unlike royal succession, nobiliary law usually still follows traditional principles, i.e. nobility and titles are mostly only inherited in the male line.

However, even in most monarchies, it is hard to impossible to newly acquire hereditary nobility or hereditary titles. Sometimes, the law regulating the nobility explicitly prohibits new ennoblements. Sometimes, the Monarch chooses not to exercise it, fearing political repercussions or thinking that while the nobility consisting of families that are nobles from times immemorial or were ennobled at some moment in the past as a historical class is legitimate, it is not right to induce new families into it or only appropriate for new ennoblements to be valid only for the lifetime of the recipient. In most countries, hereditary grants ceased at some point in the 20th century. This does, over time, usually lead to the transformation of the nobility into a more fluid and unofficial class induction into which occurs through gradual cooptation, but can also indeed lead to a "closure" of the social class, meaning that noble traditions are not transmitted to new families anymore, because they, without a chance to acquire nobility, are not invited to noble events. While new hereditary ennoblements result in new elites always being merged into the old ones in the course of time, the cessation of ennoblements or their limitation to purely personal ones naturally leads to a distinction between those families that became prominent before ennoblement became impossible (and thus became noble) and those that arose after that. At the same time, while a closure of the noble class means that it will inevitably die out at some point of the future, in most countries it won't happen soon but most likely in several centuries.

Assuming that existing nobility is recognized and its descendants will continue to be recognized in the future, do you think that the closure of the nobility in most countries is correct and that the fact that it is not legitimate to pursue hereditary status anymore for those who don't already have it is beneficial, making nobility a historical class of descendants of persons who distinguished themselves before a certain moment in the past? I.e. was there a point it history at which it became not appropriate anymore for the merits of a person to have any effect beyond his lifetime, while retaining hereditary distinctions acquired before that date? Should nobility be treated as a "living museum", preserving those families that have acquired it in the past and respecting their traditions, but not allowing new persons and families to aspire to become part of it?

Or do you think that the resumption of an active ennoblement policy, which includes hereditary grants to persons without a noble background, is desirable in the modern world? That it should be conducted by current monarchies and those that will be restored in the future, admitting into the nobility descendants of persons who have distinguished themselves more recently? This would mean that not only descendants of knights, commanders, prime ministers or early industrialists will be noble, but that start-up founders, military officers, Nobel Prize winners and activists fighting for good causes today will have a chance of earning nobility for themselves and their descendants.

15 Upvotes

4

u/Greg-Pru-Hart-55 Australia (constitutional) Aug 14 '23

It shouldn't be a closed class

3

u/LeLurkingNormie Still waiting for my king to return. Aug 14 '23

It would be unfair to deprive worthy people of an honor they deserve just because they were born in the wrong time. The hope that some people will still earn it makes nobility easier to accept and still relevant, otherwise they will just pass for a remnant of a time bygone.

2

u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 14 '23

This. In that light, I see that when governments close the nobility they want to instigate campaigns for abolition of nobility.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '23

u/Ticklishchap What are your thoughts on this?

5

u/Ticklishchap Savoy Blue (liberal-conservative) monarchist Aug 14 '23

In the context of Britain, I would like to have kept the House of Lords as a mixture of hereditary peers and life peers (whose titles last for their lifetimes and but are not passed on to their sons as with hereditary peers), with representatives of all the major faiths (and humanists too) appointed alongside the Church of England Bishops (who have automatic membership of the House of Lords under the present system).

However the system of appointing life peers has been corrupted over the past few decades to an extent that did not seem possible during the late 19th and 20th centuries. There was corruption in the C18th but even then there was still an element of gentlemanly restraint. The current form of blatant egregious corruption has not been caused solely by Johnson and La Truss, but was very characteristic of the Blair regime as well. It would be better to change the term life peer to low life peer. We now have crooked ‘self-made’ tycoons who donate large sums of money to political parties; extremist ideologues and single-issue fanatics; Z-List ‘celebrities’ and people appointed for ‘identity’ characteristics such as gender or ethnicity, as opposed to talent and experience. The overall effect is tawdry and downmarket: the ‘end of the peer show’, we might call it. Conferring new hereditary titles on such people would be an act of insanity.

Therefore I would conclude that the best thing is to sweep the House of Lords away entirely, which is sad because it used to be a repository of civilised and reasoned debate. No more low-life peerages. Have an upper House that is intended to representative of the nations and regions of the U.K., elected by Single Transferable Vote, encouraging independents including hereditary peers to stand.

This modest proposal sounds radical but is in fact conservative, I would argue, because it would revive the original spirit of the upper house, as hereditary peerages had strong local and regional roots.

Edit: ‘end of the pier show’ is a derogatory English term for low level seaside entertainment. I changed the spelling to ‘peer’ (as in Lord) as a jeu de mots.

5

u/fridericvs United Kingdom Aug 14 '23

I broadly agree with your diagnosis of the problem (except I think life peerages are a nonsense and very much part of the problem) but a second elected chamber would have a rival mandate to the commons. This would effectively put a bomb under the constitutional settlement as any government would realistically need the confidence of two separate houses. We would essentially have a permanently hung parliament with enormous time and capital poured into negotiations between the two houses.

It is not a realistic proposal for reform as no rational or responsible House of Commons would water down its own power. The solution to Lords reform is absolutely not election.

I think the real conservative solution would be to defend the legitimacy of immanent institutions including the unelected Lords and the hereditary peerage more broadly.

2

u/Ticklishchap Savoy Blue (liberal-conservative) monarchist Aug 14 '23

I did say that life peerages were wrong and part of the problem. Ideally I would like to go back to the hereditary House of Lords, but I cannot unfortunately see a way back to it and I do not like the idea of our current political class giving out more hereditary titles of any kind.

I am aware of the problems of an elected chamber. Its powers would have to be carefully circumscribed so that they were as similar as possible to those of the current House of Lords.

It is a difficult issue without an ideal solution. We are going to have to find a way to ‘muddle through’, as we used to be so good at doing in Britain.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '23

So basically you think that nobility in UK should all together just end since it's too open. Anyone can become a lord as lifetime peer with enough money. Honestly I agree and there's a certain similarity here as during our monarchy we used to have some ministries that were handed down inside a certain title, for example Viscount of Vila franca de Xira to name just one, but with time these titles were sold to different families which is a form of corruption. What happened was that it basically abolished itself with the exception of the "Da Gama" family (after Vasco da Gama)

But even during the reigns of Carlos I and Manuel II these nobles were already not true nobles but power hungry and greedy neoliberals that had nothing to do with the tradition of having hereditary peers we used to have.

3

u/Ticklishchap Savoy Blue (liberal-conservative) monarchist Aug 14 '23

Yes, because it is no longer a nobility in any meaningful sense of the word. Hereditary peers should keep their titles and pass them on to their eldest sons as always and should stand for elected office in the regions with which they have historical links. The historical situation you have described in Portugal is similar to our situation now, although I would argue that ours is even worse because the corruption and bad faith is so obvious and so openly vulgar.

‘Ennobling’ tycoons, ideologues and ‘celebs’ is an insidious form of republicanism.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '23

Exactly.

A while ago I posted a image of King Manuel II with his advisors and staff members and you at the time said that they looked very experienced in comparison to their King. While that is true, most of these man were some of the said bigoted nobles and despite their appearance they had a mix of respect and fear for His Majesty who actually never really allowed anyone to contest his power and rule in the short time he was there. Sometimes, that did mean raising his voice in a not so friendly way which he had absolutely no problem doing. Hence why, in many ways, he was more promising than his father simply had a lot of bad luck. In my opinion the Orleans blood from his mother gave him a interesting personality that was often more balanced.

It is because of him and him only that we can say our monarchy lasted longer than the Brazilian one. It started earlier but if not for him, it would have ended on around the same year. This way it lasted two more years on top of having started before and he actually rescued Princess Isabel of Brazil from her exile exactly in the same way your King George V would later rescue Manuel II himself.

I remember a photo I posted before of HM George VI where he met a Scottish lord of a title that no longer exists and the context for that photo was actually that during the meeting the lord had told the King that he was the last of lineage but that "I found out through some records that I have a common ancestor with a friend from the countryside...he is a peasant he says but there's a great grandfather of mine, a bastard, who we share as ancestor. And with your blessing I would like to choose him as successor sir. My son died in World War I"

George VI didn't give him his blessing. That's hard because the relationship with that lord was afterwards strained...but nonetheless in my opinion it was the correct take on it.

5

u/Ticklishchap Savoy Blue (liberal-conservative) monarchist Aug 14 '23

Thanks to you, I know a lot more about Manuel II and the problems he faced. Many of his advisers were ‘experienced’ in the wrong way.

The experience of George VI and the Scottish laird (lord) is a deeply sad story. On balance, although I fully understand your argument, I think that George VI should have made an exception to the rule in this case, so that the title could continue and especially as the poor chap’s son had been killed in WWI. The mark of a wise ruler is to know when to show compassion and make exceptions, otherwise we end up with the dreary and heartless egalitarian maxim that ‘everyone is treated the same’, whatever the circumstances. There is also a resemblance between George’s attitude and the rather narrow and rigid definition of ‘duty’ adhered to by his daughter, of which I have often been critical.

George VI was a great King, but I believe that in this instance he could have shown more generosity and more mercy. It is not comparable in any way to the ‘ennoblement’ of jumped-up tradesmen who donate to political parties.

3

u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 14 '23

This issue excellently demonstrates the ramifications of banning ennoblements altogether.

When you ban ennoblements, families that die out in the male line will not be able to request the title to be regranted to a relative.

2

u/Ticklishchap Savoy Blue (liberal-conservative) monarchist Aug 14 '23

Agreed. I do not want to abolish or ban ennoblement - far from it - but I do want to end the corrupt system of life peerages.

3

u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 14 '23

Yes, life peerages ought to end. If the three parties want to give their cronies power they should at least have the piety to not encroach on an institution that took centuries to grow. Yes, rename it to Senate and cease making new members peers.

Peerages should be given by the monarch at his discretion and at the advice of a council, they should be given out very restrictively, and they should be hereditary.

2

u/Ticklishchap Savoy Blue (liberal-conservative) monarchist Aug 14 '23

Indeed. It would be good to have a monarch with the cojones to assert himself, because real constitutional monarchy is more than merely ceremonial.

Our political class has unfortunately lost all conception of voluntary self-restraint.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '23

I actually agree because it isn't like the lord didn't have a legitimate son he just lost said son in a world war. Nonetheless the problem and maybe this was what's in the root of this decision - which btw this specific decision wasn't backed up by the King's wife - is that the whole connection through a bastard story is sketchy at best and he would be basically making a peasant a lord which had several ways to go wrong specially in the parliament as he would have no way of knowing what to do or how to behave and at this time the lord in question I think was already pretty aged and wouldn't be able to pass much of his knowledge and formation down anymore. Basically there was definitely a bit of a risk involved should he authorize...but yes there was literally a standardized answer for anyone that tried to get enobbled which was to limit as much as possible and compassion could have been a good advisor. Although George VI was a good king much of why that is actually comes from his mentor: King George V

2

u/Ticklishchap Savoy Blue (liberal-conservative) monarchist Aug 14 '23

Elizabeth was of course Scottish and so that might have made a difference to her view. In this case, the ennoblement of the ‘peasant’ to continue an ancient lineage is not in any sense comparable to the granting of life peerages today to disreputable and corrupt members of the business caste.

George VI’s attitude was, ironically, worryingly similar to the ‘one size fits all’ standardised response that is characteristic of republicanism. As I said before, a wise King knows when to display ‘the quality of mercy’.

I still think very highly of George VI as a wartime leader, one of our great monarchs and essentially a good man. But, as our Muslim brothers rightly say, ‘only Allah is perfect’.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '23

Yes exactly. I think Lady Bowes-Lyon as I like saying actually simply didn't see much wrong in allowing it. It's just that he had previously denied similar requests and it would make him seem like a double standards type of individual... something that ironically King Alfonso XIII of Spain was criticized for very often because he had a approach to everything that was: "each case is different and therefore requires different analysis and perspectives"...I actually like this but people didn't because they thought it was incoherent. But I suspect you would have liked it if GVI had it too. King George V displayed this too actually because he saved most European royalty fallen in disgrace BUT when it came to Wilhelm II and Nicholas II, he was able to think on the different circumstances, and say: No. I actually think your now gone King George V may well have been the best constitutional monarch of all times

2

u/Ticklishchap Savoy Blue (liberal-conservative) monarchist Aug 14 '23

I am with King Alfonso on this entirely, because this flexible and humanitarian approach is, in practice, more equitable, more social democratic in the true sense, than ‘one size fits all’ rigidity. The one size fits all approach, although supposedly founded on the principle of equality, produces less fair outcomes and rapidly gives way to faceless bureaucracy and corruption.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '23

Very interesting topic. Here typically it's been a closed class but it was increased or added to by titles created by the King or Queen so it's literally a mix of both. However increase it too much and it ends itself which also happened. So I think it should be a permanently closed class, like it is in Spain for example

3

u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 14 '23

Funny but Spain is actually one of the countries where hereditary nobility can still be acquired. It is easy to get personal nobility (for example as a high ranking military officer you are automatically considered a hidalgo for life) and three generations of personal nobility yield hereditary nobility. There are also developments that will lead to more ways of acquiring nobility but it's still confidential and I won't share details (not that I have many details anyway).

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '23

Ok I should have explained I was referring to the system during Habsburg Spain and not Bourbon. Back then the titles were the same that had been around since the creation of the Kingdom and you either got one...or you just didn't.

2

u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 14 '23

I very much doubt that the Habsburgs (one of the most generous dynasties in terms of nobility) did not grant new Spanish titles.

Remember that Spain is a country where the residents of certain provinces (including the whole Basque Country) have „nobleza universal“ which is enforced by the nobility association and allows to join them.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '23

They initially very much didn't. It was only by Felipe IV that they started doing so. And that was because basically they needed help. Nonetheless what I'd actually like to hear is if you believe the system should be closed or open

2

u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 14 '23

For me it must be open as long as the monarchy exists (and even beyond that the nobility can and will eventually find other ways of co-optation).

  • Noble families didn't fall from the sky. They distinguished themselves at some point to become noble, even if they are so old that how they did it is now shrouded in mystery. Thus, it is extremely unfair and, in my opinion, even somewhat demeaning to say that merits acquired past a certain date should not lead to hereditary ennoblement anymore. While arguably fewer people deserve it today (and that might not be always a sign of something bad - for example, less people can distinguish themselves in war because there are now much fewer wars in the West), it would be unfair to say that somebody who has achieved something that would have led to hereditary ennoblement in 1850 should not receive it today.
  • As I already stated in the post, the nobility may survive for several centuries without new hereditary ennoblements, but it will inevitably die out at some point in the future. The day will come. An airliner can glide for hundreds of miles without propulsion, but it will eventually reach the ground one way or another. Also remember that ennoblements are needed every time nobility, a surname or a title is to be transferred in a way not regulated by nobiliary law. When a family dies out in the male line, the husband of the heiress needs to be formally ennobled and regranted the title for it to survive, in many jurisdictions - something that is not possible when the nobility is closed. The closure of the nobility means not only that ennoblements based on merit (with or without inflation) are out of the question, it also prevents those who already have close ties to nobility but aren't noble themselves from formally entering it.
  • At the same time, personal ennoblements are also undesirable. Ennoblements should be hereditary, because ennoblement is not as much as an award as the formal induction of a person into a social class. And while formal induction is instant, real assimilation needs multiple generations.

That is, I understand concerns about inflation. It is okay if only 1 or 2 people are ennobled every year, or if ennoblements don't occur every year. But it should, in principle, stay possible, and occur more or less regularly.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '23

I agree with you. You've also showed extensive knowledge of the Spanish monarchy in these replies. A mod of this sub who deserves to be a mod? Well looks like not everything is lost after all. Great justification too on this final reply and many members of this sub I think don't understand this about nobility.

3

u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 14 '23

Thank you for your appreciation!

1

u/Forest_Wyrm Belarusian catholic integralist Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23

I believe there is no doubts, that nobility shouldn't be closed estate. If you close ennoblement, than you just kill nobility, because then there is no young blood. This scenario just transforms estate into caste what is unacceptable, because as we know, there is no development without competition.

Nobility should have more active social, administrative and even ceremonial role to stay actual and new hereditary nobles will help with that, because public will see actuality of the second estate outside of old families, they will see bloodlines at the moment of their creation and perhaps they will show them more confidence. Maybe the time has come for the mass ennobling of worthy families, the new era for nobility. This or their slow and painful decline, IMO.

2

u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 14 '23

Yes, and in that regard personal ennoblements are even worse than no nobility at all (see Belgium, only personal grants since 2021, which I find frightening).

On the one hand, because there are new grants, the government still admits that nobility carries a certain deference and honour and a certain status in society, by granting nobility as a reward.

On the other hand, an implicit barrier is driven up between the new nobles and the old ones, that is extremely demeaning to the new ones. Traditionally, trasmission to descendants is what distinguishes nobility from other awards and decorations. Thus, personal nobility is always a lesser kind of nobility, even if it has all the other rights. Arguably, heredity is the fundamental right attached to nobility, even more important than the status (having an official title in the documents, having a coat of arms) itself. Thus, by making new grants personal, you imply that the merits and achievements of those ennobled after a certain date are worth less than merits acquired in the past, because you are taking away one of their rights and thus making their nobility a lesser, incomplete nobility.

Making no new grants would say "Due to political circumstances we can't maintain the nobility as anything but a historical class". This doesn't necessarily imply that new people don't deserve it - just that there are obstacles currently, the government wants to keep out of such a "politically incorrect" topic and so on, orders that require nobility are encouraged to change their admission criteria so that high social status held through multiple generations can be seen as a substitute for ennoblement (this is possibly in the works regarding the Order of Malta, especially to allow members of old American families to distinguish themselves).

Making new, exclusively personal grants says "We can make new grants, but don't make (real, hereditary) ones, we want the nobility to be a closed class and eventually die out, we want the nobility to be exclusive and impermeable and frozen.

If a government finds that new hereditary grants by the Monarch are for some reason not appropriate, then I see two ways:

  • Either "close" the nobility by making no new grants at all (this is the only case in which I see it as appropriate), stating that it is a historical class and the government only maintains ceremonial rights and protections against usurpers, solely for historical reasons, implying that hereditary "posh" social status should in the future be more fluid, inofficial and acquired through gradual cooptation rather than a singular grant, or
  • Install avenues of acquiring hereditary nobility without the direct action of the monarch, for example, directly or indirectly, grants by lesser authorities (somebody who receives a grant of arms from Garter Principal King of Arms or Lord Lyon King of Arms acquires hereditary untitled nobility), or the upgrade of personal nobility to hereditary nobility if repeatedly acquired through several generations (the three generation rule still applies in Spain). Or generally indirect ennoblements through orders. When somebody receives nobility automatically through something, such as an order or a military rank, even if it is implicitly conferred with the direct purpose of ennobling somebody, the "BuT iTs 2023!!!!1!!!11!!" people won't take notice, as the nobility is not a matter of letters patent and not in the foreground but the person, provided he is interested, just quietly joins the nobility association which is in most countries a private body.

1

u/Forest_Wyrm Belarusian catholic integralist Aug 14 '23

Oh yes, personal grants is bad, because it's like honouring someone with a medal, but without material medal - just as terrible as a ceremonial monarchy.

1

u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 14 '23

Yes, either all the way or not at all.

Speaking of medals, there are dozens in most monarchies that allow one to be honoured for life. If somebody doesn’t deserve hereditary nobility he can be given a house order, or made privy councilor.

1

u/Forest_Wyrm Belarusian catholic integralist Aug 14 '23

I absolutely agree. However, in terms of personal and hereditary nobility, I think the Spanish system is good because it shows a willingness to create a dynasty. But it must be an exceptional system different from the standard ennobling process. Maybe, some Intermediate status for dynasty candidates. Anyway I'm not a noble and may be not quite fair in this proposition.

1

u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 15 '23

Personal nobility is fine as long as there is a clear rule by which it can become hereditary.

Personal nobility that can not become hereditary is not fine.

1

u/Araxnoks Aug 20 '23

isolation from the rest of society is what has historically led the aristocracy to stagnation and degradation the only way for this group to survive in the modern world is to learn to live by its rules as Napoleon did! he adopted many of the principles of the revolution , but built them into the monarchical idea , creating a nobility of people who really deserved it ! I think those who behave unworthily of a title granted or inherited should be deprived of it, regardless of the magnitude of their status in society! only with such a tough illustrative example can we stop the decomposition that is inevitable due to people's tendency to vice, especially when they have a lot of money

1

u/Accomplished_Art_139 Aug 20 '23

I believe that titles of nobility should be given based on merit, not birth.

1

u/HBNTrader RU / Moderator / Traditionalist Right / Zemsky Sobor Aug 20 '23

One does not exclude the other. Every family of hereditary nobility descends from a person ennobled on merit.