Search This Blog

Thursday, 13 August 2009

A question for the Counter Revolutionists

While wondering about how I was going to start off this blog and reading several other people's blogs, this question which I had thought of before came to my mind.

"How is nobility defined?"

And no i do not mean the philosophical tripe regarding the nobility of one's spirit, or attitude or state of mind. But instead, The Nobility. In the past, there was one key characteristic of noble families, especially in Britain. They were the landed gentry/classes, and had extensive properties. As such this meant they had all the money they would ever need or want, thus, in theory eliminating the want for more, so that instead of working to increase one's income one worked as the Father of the people in your area .

Now I ask this question to Counter Revolutionaries because we all seek the revival and reinstitution of Monarchy, everywhere. And with Monarchy, comes the inevitable Noble families, (or to the egalitarians out there who cannot stomach such filthy and unequal language coming forth from my typing hands, "The old Money", or "The Elites"), who will gain recognition within the system as important. Now in today's world, anyone who works hard enough for it can obtain property for themselves, I see no reason why this is a bad thing, my own father worked hard all his life from a large family who had very little to his own small family who have much. The problem here is that if they are noble because they are landed gentry and have been so for a long time, how can this work intoday's world where a Large capitalist may own more land then a minor nobleman? From that point on does the Capitalist, provided his family own the land for succeeding generations become noble? Does the minor nobleman lose his titles as a result? Please remember I ask this in the context of Modern day Monarchical system.

Slan go phoile

1 comment:

  1. Well, as an Australian Tory (and being in a country with abundant open space, if you're inclined to own an estate the size of a small country), I'm not too sure myself.

    I mean, in old times (if Wikipedia is to be believed), a gentleman had to be financially independent in order to be considered a part of high society. To that extent, any capitalist could be a gentleman and thus mingle with the aristocracy.

    You've also got to accept that society has well and truly changed - we're no longer an agrarian economy. We're industrial or post-industrial economies, and to that extent, the new aristocracy must reflect that.

    So, perhaps it might be better to consider one's aristocratic status to be simply based on financial independence, not on how much land they own. I mean, playing the stockmarket is a very good way to make money, and many people do invest in shares (if you have enough, you can live off the dividends, much like living off the rent payed by a landlord's tenants).

    Of course, you'd also have to expect that they would own their own home (be it an inner city townhouse or a stately mansion), and pass it down through the generations (which is something that has become exceedingly unfashionable).

    As for determining movement into the aristocracy, I'd prefer it not be based off wealth, but rather an acknowledgement of their contribution to society (since a hereditary title is essentially a way of saying that such capacity to contribute to society runs in the blood - very unfashionable when society is... equal, as you get here in the Land Down Under).