Also: Hang on PNP wasn't it you who was citing the fact that we had a queen as some evidence that there was no such thing as a patriarchy or that sexism was all sorted or something? Well why was this one aristocrat's position relevant to the larger question of sexism in society then but the entire aristocratic inheritance system isn't relevant now? (Apologies if it wasn't you who made that point and if that's the case you can just go ahead and ignore the above point).
We won't learn much by examining hereditary titles. It's to do with upholding archaic traditions these days, because people like that sort of thing. It's good for tourism - like Disneyland. I don't think anyone even considers the gender issue any longer. Passing on wealth and privilege is obviously a consideration though, but you could do that without the pomp and ceremony and without being called the Duke of wherever........ When titles were handed out, we did have a very patriarchal society. But then knights did have to wear heavy armour and fight - and quite reasonably that was seen as a job for a man rather than a woman. So it was a good bet that a knighthood would be bestowed on a man.
Yeah I must say I thought it was a lot more recent than that when I read "early sixties". Women my age who had any knowledge of the law (more likely if they were one of those loathsome young feminists who read books and value education and other moustache-inducing behaviors) would have grown up knowing that, among other things, if they got married their husband could rape them at will as part of his many husbandly rights. Her body was his in this respect. Luckily things changed. And I doubt it was people who thought that feminists just weren't fit enough or that blacks are inferior who helped either create the society where that change was possible or managed to read a book long enough to qualify to create that law. I just doubt it. Thank **** there are fewer and fewer of those people about.
You brought up the Saudis and the Grosvenors in the same comment, Spurf. I merely offered my opinion on both situations and said that I don't think that they're of similar relevance to the two societies. I'm not Maggie Bloody Thatcher, Lenny! Are you trying to put forward some sort of homeopathic feminism here? That appears to be the case. One extremely minor thing that basically affects about a thousand people in society at most, so it rules us all? I believe that about as much as I do the kooks with the water fetish, frankly. I pointed out that it's hard to have a patriarchy when we literally have two women running the country. The Queen can actually do things that effect us all and she's one of our main diplomatic figures. Neither of those two apply to hereditary titles that are unevenly split between a family of billionaires, do they?
I don't know much about how it all works or used to work but I know that knighthoods are not hereditary. I believe they also had (have) no connection to land or property anyway. Knights etc are not part of the aristocracy as far as I understand it though I might be wrong. I always thought they were just the recipients of a royal pat on the head. You don't, like, become part of the line of succession or anything if you get knighted!
You're largely correct. The only hereditary peerages that have been dished out in recent years were all to do with Thatcher, I believe. A couple of childless blokes got given one, which died with them, Harold McMillan got one and Denis got one after her resignation. That leaves Mark Thatcher and McMillan's grandson Alexander from the last 50 years or so, basically.
There were some hereditary knighthoods in the middle ages, but it's a non hereditary title now Pretty meaningless when you consider who's received it
"Are you trying to put forward some sort of homeopathic feminism here? That appears to be the case. One extremely minor thing that basically affects about a thousand people in society at most, so it rules us all? I believe that about as much as I do the kooks with the water fetish, frankly." I'm struggling to think of a single area of human thought where a change in one part of a system or organisation does not affect the overall system or organisation. I think that my assertion that the rules, practices, mores, tastes, conventions of * the ruling bloody classes* of a society over the course of a millennium probably has a tangible effect on the society as a whole has more in common with physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, medecine etc etc than bloody homeopathy (dodgy debating tactic there by the way). Not to mention that, of course, I would give you several gold stars if you could find a single historian, sociologist or anthropologist who would come close to refuting the idea that the rules, conventions, tastes etc etc of the ruling elites of a country or society have an impact on that society. It's just one of the most bizarre aspects of this entire thread that you would say that they don't or haven't. Trust me - you are way off in the long grass on this one. Academically you would be greeted with total puzzlement if not derision if you tried to say these sorts of things among anyone who had studied society or history at any level beyond date-learning.
Ok, find me and academic that would suggest that the Duke of Westminster handing his title down to his son affects society now. Not previous things leading up to this having an affect, but the thing that we're actually talking about. Dodgy debating tactics would be stretching out someone's point to an absurd level, where it's no longer recognisable. Another one would be to put words into someone's mouth. Has our system of monarchy had any effect on society? Of course it has. I didn't claim otherwise. Does this example that I've addressed influence anyone in the slightest manner? I don't believe so. Please demonstrate that it does. I doubt that it even has much of an effect on the two Lady Grosvenors, to be honest. If you think that this minor footnote in history has done anything, then how much influence must having a Queen as head of state have had? She's been the longest reigning monarch in our history, having overtaken Victoria last September. With those two at the helm for so long, we must be a bloody matriarchy, I guess.
The business issue we were originally discussing, is nothing to do with Knights and Arabs, it's about : - opportunity - motivation (in a wide sense) and realisation, and - ability/suitability There's undoubtedly been a revolution in recent years, and hopefully that will be a good thing for all by the end of the process. But we're during the period of transition identified by Luke atm, where opportunity has opened up, but new choices by women arent yet fully happening or havent yet been fully seen. For those of us living and working during the transition period, it's important that all continue to be treated fairly, and that means that the feminists shouting and stamping for any old women to be given the top jobs, will have to be made to realise that they need to wait. It will also be interesting in the fullness of time, when 'motivation' and realisation of opportunity has caught up with the progression made to full opportunity made to date, just how balanced things will be. Ie, exactly how inappropriate our historical allocations of gender roles were (or how inapproprie they were required to be bthe chalenges facing the human race at that time), and to what extent the physical etc differences between the two genders, have an effect on labour distribution, once all other factors have been removed for a full cycle of opportunity.
I haven't agreed with everything that you've said in this thread Rob, but I agree with all of this. Equality of opportunity and freedom of choice are the aims, for me.
I have noticed on the web that they have African-American balls for dancing and celebration.That's ok.......if you were born in Africa and now American. If you were born in America,you ain't African- American. Do you see many people in the North East of England calling themselves Viking-Englishmen? Do you see many people in the South and East of England calling themselves Saxon-Englishmen? Come to think of it,the Welsh don't call themselves Britons either. Did you know the Scots invaded,from Ireland,part of the land known as Scotland?.....and settled there! My name on my original birth certificate is/was Coulter,until it was changed when I was three. Does this make me Irish? HELP!
I might be wrong Smithy, but my understanding is that the first inhabitants of the island of Ireland, came from west scotland (out of portugal), and that it was much later, after Catholicism had been brouht to Ireland (from Somerset !), that people came from Ireland back to the west coast of Scotland, and with them brought learning and development which had continued at that time in Ireland (since the arrival of Catholicism) during a period of stagnation of enlightenment in what is now Scotland and England ? With regards to your identity, what do you want to be ?
The Duke of bloody Westminster and his poor, hard-done by daughters came up as a little example in Spurf's post earlier as a passing reference to how **** like male preference (in this case for *the* most privileged positions in society) still exists and we have some ways to go til we have a rational, fair society. To me that's just a black and white, cold, hard fact that is worth noting, not arguing with, and moving on. It was only because you wanted to say "Yeah - but what does that matter?" that this whole, weird debate about how stuff affects other stuff came up (again). I just have no idea why anyone would want to argue that this (minor) point is not admissible evidence or relevant. No - it's not going to affect whether or not I inherit my dad's VHS player or not. Or indeed if my fictitous elder sister should rightly inherit it. But to actually gain a proper understanding of *anything* I think it pays to go just a little way beyond the absolute surface cause and effect. I mean I can't possibly untangle how one human action affects the whole world but who is to say that the inheritance rights of a thousand or so people doesn't affect, physically, psychologically and financially exponentially more people beside? What do those other privileged girls think who are Lady whats-her-face's classmates about how that girl over there will not inherit what her little brother will just cos he's got a dick? What drip,drip,drip influence does it have on the young Dukeling or whatever they're called and all his social circle and his family and his staff to know that he'll be getting what his sister's won't cos of his fantastic Y chromosome? How are people's attitudes and opinions formed? Their ambitions, their hates, their desires and their resignations? And how do those in turn affect others? **** knows. I'm being ridiculously literal here with the description of "effects" too and probably throw myself open to ridicule. And I know that I'm going further than I really should - that anyone could turn around and say "Look - you're getting into bloody chaos theory here. Weren't you supposed to be talking about how you think thing x can have effect y?" Maybe they'd be right. But I just can't...I just cannot see why anyone would want or need or think it was helpful to say "Yeah but lineage of the aristocracy - what's that got to do with your point about male privilege?" Also: Have I put words in your mouth or stretched out one of your points til it became absurd? I'll apologise if I have. PS In all this talk about how stuff affects stuff and the impossible nature of describing and understanding history I'm reminded of what the Chinese Premier said to Nixon when asked what he thought the consequences of the French Revolution were: "It's too early to tell". Now I recently found out that this quote was a misunderstanding and something was lost in translation - he was actually being asked about the student protests etc of 1968. Bit of a shame but I still love the thought it inspires.
Rob - you are clearly a gigantic knob. But fair's fair - you do actually have a point with this post. If more racists and illiterate misogynists could form thoughts like this the world would be a better place.
