Andrew is ungallant so it is reasonable to strip him of his knighthoods. But it is rather silly to strip him of the title Prince for behaving like a prince.
You may be joking but in case you are not it is grossly unacceptable to be condoning child rape and the vast conspiracy that enabled this kind of behaviour that kept it going on for so long.
Now properly just called Andrew, not “Prince” anything. (It was interesting to see most British news outlets make that change immediately while the US ones lagged).
It was weird to see coverage refer to him as just "Windsor". Ok, it's common to refer to a contextually-determined person by only their last name, but in this case it obviously shouldn't be done.
Did his titles grant him any powers or privileges that he doesn't retain? What's different for him now?
At the very least he lost his free lodging/staff (though it sounds like the royal family will pay for his new lodging somewhere else).
A large amount he's lost is also ceremonial, it sounds like he won't be removed from the line of succession cause that would require approval from all the separate countries the monarchy reigns over to do so (and he's like eighth in line so extremely unlikely given his age).
He's been excluded from a lot of official events already so a lot of it is just making it official.
He's still not being criminally charged with anything from the government.
Well that is the question, isn't it. What qualities are passed on to their children? It is actually fairly common to see ideological continuity between parent and child (eg, most members of a religion had parents from that religion). So there is a case to be made that if you have a subgroup of society with unusually clear governing principles it makes sense to put them in change and have their children continue to be in charge because it has a chance of preserving the principles. In the optomistic case they can propagate for generations. That does actually appear to be what happens historically in successful countries where a hereditary or semi-hereditary ruling elite form with strong capabilities and shepherd everyone to success for a few generations before their abilities mean revert.
That being said it is comparatively a terrible way of doing things vs a more mathematically and psychologically sound system. Electing people really is the way to go, all these "stable" political systems are stable at being worse than just letting people vote for everything. As the saying goes, dead is stable. Stable isn't great if unstable means the capacity to rapidly improve.
> Whatever qualities or services performed by the original person probably didn't pass to the children
Maybe if you subscribe to the hard times theory. There’s plenty of reason to suspect that certain aptitudes can be genetically heritable, and that doesn’t even address the issue of skills transferring by osmosis or deliberate instruction in the household.
That isn’t what is being discussed here. An inept man could conceivably have a sexually attractive daughter. From a meritocratic perspective, it would be a mistake for a king to install the inept man as an advisor simply to gain access to the man’s daughter.
What we are discussing, however, is the existence of a man who has been identified as possessing some competency, and his office passing to his offspring on his death, on the basis that his children may have inherited the competency genetically or via an informal education. Heredity isn’t as simple as that, but at the same time, it isn’t clear that competencies “probably” do not pass between parent and child.
I always chuckle (or squirm) when someone suggests “picking a random person to be the president” rather than our current broken campaigning system.
Far better than that option, would be for a random family to inherit that power forever, than for a different random family be chosen every 4 years. Because at least then the “royal” family has some accountability to govern for long-term success, lest their descendants be dragged into the street and hung by an unhappy mob with pitchforks.
It’s hard to grasp in a post-Westphalian world but killing opposition and governing with accountability to the people were not always considered opposing ideas. Loyalty to the king was a two-way street, noblesse oblige, etc
The generational succession is VASTLY more predictable than a random one, considering the successor comes from the same house and has literally spent his entire life being groomed and prepared to rule.
Having an apolitical (or unelected) and slow changing second chamber is a useful counterbalance to elected officials running amok. There’s no “great” answer to this that I’m aware of but it has been a viable compromise.
Apolitical? Hardly. They are literally politicians, just unelected. It’s all the worst aspects of elected officials with added nepotism and no ability to remove them.
They are not political appointees, so have a lower chance of being correlated with whatever movement of the moment and so serve as checks and balances. The fact that they can’t be replaced is a feature.
> In terms of them not being swayed by ‘movements of the moment’, you are quite right. They are stuck in the past. 6% aren’t white. 26% are female
You think this is an argument against the lords but for the people on the other side they think you are supporting them with these points.
Britain was white country for the last 12,000 years and had primogeniture for the last 1,000+. The UK today is a proverbial pale blue dot on the timeline
>>They are stuck in the past. 6% aren’t white. 26% are female.
If you excuse me, I just don't understand the implication here - if they were exactly representative of British racial demographics and exactly 50/50 men and women, they would not be stuck in the past?
I’m not intending to imply anything, I’m trying to state it.
Having political control of the country being hereditary, male and white is something that does not represent the make up of Britain. It represents the way Britain was run a long time ago and the current political infrastructure is not a strength.
If political control was actually democratic and representative of the country, I don’t think the situation would be worse.
It’s a non sequitur and not with engaging with. The purpose of a second chamber is temporal representation, as in the makeup is “stuck in the past” (more of a moving average) and not subject to the whims of the day. Some idea of forcing it to be composed based on arbitrary and irrelevant personal characteristics would accomplish nothing for the state and would be as stupid and in democratic as trying to do something like that for elected officials.
Technically they are mostly affiliated with one or other political party. It's even a convention for the internal elections that select which peers sit in the Lords, to only have candidates from the same party as the one being replaced, to maintain the ratio set by New Labour in the nineties.
Was that always the case? I took from TFA that some number are purely hereditary and that all of them used to be before a recent reform.
Or was it that one has to be a hereditary peer in order to be a government appointee?
Either way, the greater the barrier to the house of sober second thought being stacked by whoever is currently in power, the better. I’d also favor people being randomly appointed for life.
Another compromise in the same vein was (until 1913) the U.S. Senate, elected by the state legislature rather than direct election and for terms 2.5x as long as that of a House rep
To me (a non-American), that actually makes a kind of sense. Have people in the federal Congress whose job is to speak for their respective state governments. Instead of duplicating the House of Representatives with different electoral boundaries.
Quite like the European Council. Well if it was the state governors flying in to DC once a month, so maybe not exactly like it.
Slightly related: to any British readers, I have a question. In the past few weeks, I have seen more and more YouTube videos showing most of Britain outside of London as being essentially like Detroit. How bad are things really?
That assumes our knowledge of Detroit is more informed that yours of the UK ;-)
Generally there is a lot of propaganda around at the moment, so take that with a pinch of salt. The UK is not as well off as the US generally, but this does not mean there is a breakdown of society or law and order.
The propagandists would have you believe that there is a massive crime wave and social breakdown due to immigration, but what people are mostly worried about in actuality is job uncertainty and backlogged public services.
There are areas of wealth and of deprivation both inside and outside London. There is political and economic uncertainty because the UK economy is imbalanced, and most people expect a difficult few years and are sceptical that the government knows how to fix the issues (and that vested interests won't prevent the solution)
Thanks. To be more specific on what I’ve seen by YouTubers touring outside London is just boarded up shops, minimal economic hope, lots of abandoned homes again outside London. The narrative being essentially the de industrialization having now gutted the entire economy except for the well off and financial services etc. which of course shocked me cause I always pictured England as quite wealthy and having made that transition out of factory economy quite well. Which then led me to wonder if Britain is just just a few years ahead of the rest of us.
Not noticeably any worse than over the last 15 years.
Be wary of what you are fed on YouTube (or any major social network) they are astroturfed to hell at this point.
Life here isn’t great for a lot of people but it’s not super terrible either for the most part, we have broadly the same problems as many western nations (aging population, corporations running amok, slow and expensive infrastructure development, expensive housing, low wage growth).
We are still a safe wealthy western democracy though.
You seem to be picking on a US city as an example of (something) and attempting to apply (something) to the entirety of the UK that isn't a particular city in the UK.
Are you sure that is a wise comparison? I'm certain that Youtube is a source of information, but are you sure it is a useful one?
I live next door to a park and have just stuffed shit loads of cash into an American cruise company as a passenger (P&O - British name, American owner).
Sorry didn’t mean to pick on anyone. Even Detroit I heard has had somewhat a recovery in the last decade or so. I guess what stoked my unsettled curiosity was if the narrative of de-industrializion of the west and its impact on the social fabric was worse than I thought.
Detroit is known as a place with lots of abandoned buildings and I don’t think something similar exists in the UK. There are poor regions but AFIAK they don’t look like Detroit. Many high street shops are closed but it doesn’t mean that everything is bad. High street shops were hit hard first by COVID lockdowns then by high inflation (people can afford less) but rents continued to be high. It sad to see a row of boarded shops but it’s not everywhere and eventually landlords probably will reduce rent prices.
This is a somewhat silly question because you could probably get anecdotal replies of all kinds to it. Some things are different to how they used to be, and in some cases different in ways that feel bad. For example, there are more empty shops in the town centre where I live compared to 20 years ago, which for some people evokes a strong emotional reaction and a sense of loss.
My own personal experience tends to back up what the data here show (no significant changes really) - I teach in a large secondary school and really, kids today are not massively different from how they've ever been. They face challenges in navigating the vast amounts of information and misinformation presented nowadays, but we do try to educate them as best as possible in respect of this.
Appreciate it. Yeah I knew it was a very subjective question. I guess the reason I was shocked was prior I watched British shows like grand design and all I saw was rolling green hills and idyllic life outside the capital. Then in quick succession I watch some YouTubers doing walking tours outside of London and railing against the decline and neglect. So I was just curious what the locals opinion is. That said the same debates are happening here and half the time I feel people are describing different planets.
Abandoned homes in any great number would be a real surprise. I think those videos are likely quite carefully staged.
I left the UK about four years ago but AFAICT the picture of housing over there hasn’t changed a lot - it keeps going up in price and there’s a shortage.
There are economic problems at the moment, and service provision problems in particular with the NHS. A decade of post 08 GFC austerity stripped public services and hammered government investment, which turned out to have not been that smart. Then Brexit hammered trade.
Closed-up shops have been a minor trend for a while - small shops have been failing for years due to high taxes, insane rents and being thoroughly outcompeted by the internet. Many old-fashioned high streets have become little more than strips of coffee shops and charity retailers, the former because apparently there is no limit to the appetite for coffee, the latter because they often get tax and rent concessions.
It has always been true that London is like its own country, with transport, employment and investment there dwarfing everywhere else, and tackling this to spread out the prosperity more widely has been a consistent failure of British politics for as long as I remember.
Beyond London there’s the ever expanding, fairly wealthy belt of dormitory-towns, and then there’s the rest of the country, which in my last visit did just feel run down.
I’ve been to Detroit, and I’ve read about the decline there. I don’t think the UK is anywhere near that. But it is languishing in a prolonged economic malaise.
I live next to a baron, next town lives a count. Both are just moderately wealthy humans.
There is one distinction that sets them apart from "new money": They could not leave without loosing a significant part of their identity and influence.
I grew up among socialists, I have no love for aristocracy, but in times when the schism between rich and poor widens a caste of people that are bound by custom to be loyal to a place, meaning they are reluctant to abandon their local community, might be worth more than we think.
From his point of view, it very much is. I have no sympathy for him at all, but in terms of empathy it's easy to understand that he'll be completely crushed by losing his nice house and his shiny titles.
Because his entire identity has been defined by a life of titles and privilege. Losing those - becoming a commoner, one of the plebs, an ordinary person - will be devastating to his narcissism. It will also affect his ability to earn money, because most of his "business" dealings relied very much on his position.
Does this bother me? Not at all. He almost certainly belongs in prison. And he's being thrown under the bus by his brother - or more probably by his brother's court advisors - before more news comes out.
Even so. This kind of fall from a great height happens very rarely, and there's a certain lurid fascination in wondering how it's experienced.
And he still has his supporters. There was an organised post storm on Twitter today from various minor establishment hangers-on complaining how unfair it all is.
Hot take: hereditary kingdoms were a reasonably successful solution to curbing constant civil war in a time when representative democracies might not have been viable (for various reasons).
I don’t think you could call it reasonably successful. For example, much of European history consisted of war and succession disputes. The entire system of aristocracy was prone to instability and shifting alliances. It turns out hereditary succession is not a good way to choose a competent political leader.
> this book also shows that the development and spread of primogeniture - the eldest-son-taking-the-throne - mitigated the problem of succession in Europe in the period after AD 1000. The predictability and stability that followed from a clear hereditary principle outweighed the problems of incompetent and irrational rulers sometimes inheriting power. The data used in the book demonstrates that primogeniture reduced the risk of depositions and civil war following the inevitable deaths of leaders.
> The predictability and stability that followed from a clear hereditary principle outweighed the problems of incompetent and irrational rulers sometimes inheriting power.
It doesn't though, incompetence is more dangerous than uncertainty. If someone wants to be a hereditary head of state as a formality, then ok that is one thing. But if we look at the most successful nation in the 1000s it is probably the UK, who haven't allowed the monarch to be in the room where the big decisions get made since Charles I was executed in 1649. From that point it is a stretch to say that the monarch is inheriting power. The power to agree cheerfully with what their government tells them to do, perhaps.
The Prime Minister meets the monarch every week. It's very, very naive to assume they only talk about the weather.
The Queen was known to object to legislation that affected her personally. And the monarchy - as the head of the aristocracy, the biggest land-owner, a major influence on the Tory Party, and a private corporation with significant business interests - can always use back-channels and cut-outs to have its say.
The British specialise in this kind of indirect hinting and insinuation. It's part of the culture at most levels, and it drives foreigners insane, because until you learn the subtext you'll completely misread what's being said.
How can you have a democracy when 90% of the populous is working 12 hour days 6-7 days a week just to pay the bills? How are they going to have an opinion on anything, other than “Stuff is too expensive”.
Note that the Ancient Greeks very often had democracies, when their standard of living was rather lower than what you describe. Life expectancy at birth was often below 30 years.
Note that in the Ancient Greek democracies, the people who worked 12 hour days 6-7 days a week and had a life expectancy of 30 years were called "Slaves", and they were not allowed to vote.
Non-laboring, land-owning males were the only ones allowed to participate in the democracy, and they lived to ripe old ages just as in modern times, even allowing for the occasional hemlock ingestion.
The Old Greeks cannot be trusted with historic matters. They were victims of indigestion, you know.
For most of human existence, life expectancy at birth was dominated by half of all kids not reaching puberty, and a quarter of all infants not making it through their first year.
Republics, like Venice and San Marino (oldest Republic still in existence), endured for a millennia.
I'll accept they don't have a good track record for defending themselves from hereditary monarchies. e.g. Nizny Novgorod to Muscovy, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (technically elected monarchy) to Prussia-Russia-Austria.
The real downfall of the great British houses (architectural sense) was the financial catastrophe that 1914 to 1946 was for the British Empire. Top billing in two world wars - and they went from being blatantly the richest and most powerful nation on earth, to needing a US Treasury bail-out to avoid national bankruptcy.
(Though over in America, most of the historic grand mansions are now tourist attractions, for lack of heirs with the wealth and interest in maintaining them.)
And the benefits of British aristocratic titles faded over quite a few centuries, not just recently. Compare King Charles I of the early 1600's (Parliament didn't like his exercise of Divine Right) with George III of the later 1700's (a clever King could appoint his own Prime Ministers against Parliament's wishes) with Queen Victoria of the later 1800's (she complained to the PM that the Foreign Secretary was taking actions without her approval) with Queen Elizabeth II of the later 1900's (she dutifully read her supposed "Queen's Speech" to Parliament, whether she agreed with a word of it or not).
> (Though over in America, most of the historic grand mansions are now tourist attractions, for lack of heirs with the wealth and interest in maintaining them.)
Part of this is that the "old money" tended to withdraw from public life after the Great Depression when they decided infamy was a serious liability.
That's why one struggles to name any of the living heirs of the big names of that era, who are absolutely still filthy stinking rich, while newbies like Musk, everyone knows. The culture of what Fussell calls the "top out-of-sight" is to remain sufficiently anonymous that nobody knows their given names unless one goes looking (and even then, it may be hard to find much trace of them). A bunch of them don't show up on any of those "richest" lists not because they couldn't rank, but because you effectively have to opt-in to those, for enough of your wealth to be traceable without great effort to get counted.
Owning a highly-visible Newport mansion could well be a mark of poor taste, among that set.
They still have their grand houses, they just may not (though, may) be in the Georgian or Neoclassical style or whatever, and they're probably not visible (from remotely close-up, at any rate) from any public road. Drive minor highways in the right parts of the country and look for nice (though, not necessarily imposing or impressive) gates leading into what looks like a simple, wooded lot with an unremarkable, perhaps even gravel, drive that immediately disappears into the trees, and you've probably found one, and they're all over the place... plus their families will usually own plenty of extremely nice, but not flashy, well-located houses and condos and such in more-populated areas.
I read a biography of a British politician who was later elevated to the aristocracy (although I guess his family was somewhere between commoner and aristocrat prior to that). It said his family took a financial hit because of a decline in crops in the late 1800s. I dug it up and found out that the US was partly responsible for that actually because of cheaper imported grains. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression_of_British_ag...
Many aristocrats relied on agricultural income from their property holdings.
Another interesting point is that it seems like the majority of titles were awarded relatively recently as in within the last 120-150 years. That doesn't mean there aren't some older ones but it changes the perception of them from being a centuries old group of warlords or relatives of the king to a group of lawyers, military officers, and politicians.
Yes-ish? I might have linked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws#Repeal In many ways that repeal was a direct consequence of the Industrial Revolution, and the IR's "new rich" were often eager to acquire the architectural trappings of the old rich, pay staggering sums to marry into them, and other tricks.
>(Though over in America, most of the historic grand mansions are now tourist attractions, for lack of heirs with the wealth and interest in maintaining them.)
Taxes had a lot to do with it--though, really, in the UK as well. In Newport RI, a lot of the gilded era mansions ended up donated to a local college because, as you say, the heirs didn't have either the wealth or the interest in maintaining (and playing the taxes on) them. A lot of these places were also summer "cottages" and would require a huge amount of money to update to modern standards. I know someone whose extended family owned one of these places (not in Newport but similar) and it was going to be a huge expense; don't know how it ended up.
Kinda? Taxes on the UK's wealthy (not just property taxes) skyrocketed from '14 to '46, mostly because the gov't needed to seize every farthing it could, to starve off national bankruptcy. And taxes were only part of the US issue. Wikipedia notes that just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Breakers needed 50-ish servants to run, and 150 tons of coal a year to heat. Imagine the payroll and utilities to live at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltmore_Estate
Worth noting - in Britain's "good old days", there mostly seemed to be no lack of heirs with the £££££ to staff and maintain those enormous estates, century after century after century. Yes, that was partly social. And primogeniture certainly helped.
In fact there was a lot of churn and drama. What we have left today in the UK is literally the result of survivor bias.
A lot of country houses are now state-owned, managed through nominal charities. Quite a few disappeared in the 20th century.
The British aristocracy is a complex thing, with came-over-with-the-Normans at one extreme, and relatively recent self-made opportunists at the other. It's a socio-archaeological phenomenon in its own right - influential, but under-researched, and opaque to outsiders.
Oh I don't really disagree with any of that. In both the US and the UK, the interest in staffing and maintaining multi-million dollar high-maintenance summer places (typically in conjunction with multi-million dollar city places) definitely declined over time.
There are still some ultra-wealthy with multiple homes, but there are also probably increasingly options for people to just rent something for a month or two that's a lot less headache with some minimal staff (if that)--or at least have one of a couple of places be as low maintenance as possible.
This relic of the days of Kings/Queens/princes/dukes/Lords/Ladies has to be extinguished, root, branch and leaf. There are residues in many European countries as well, slowly fading to irrelevance. The current King should dissolve this system and abdicate and let the remnants shrivel.
The UK 'House of Lords' = also gone. Create an elected second house with spread terms, like the USA has, with 6 years and 1/3rd every 2 years. USA has fixed lengths, first house 4 years for all, the senate 6 in 3 staggered pairs.
Or something rational. In the UK/Canada/others, there is party discipline and party members vote as told be leader(except for free votes). This blocks buying votes, as happens in the USA and some, where an elected member is free to vote. This appears to 'let the people see', but it creates a fungible vote where a briber can see if the elected member voted as paid, yes illegal, but the word 'bagman' crops up a lot in politics.
Paid lobbies need to be outlawed, however they are named\hidden
Merit is from Latin, and cracy is a Greek suffix, so combining them together is nonsense. Aristo has the advantage of actually being Greek for "the best."
The word meritocracy was actually popularized (1) by British Labour Party politician Michael Young in his 1958 satirical novel "The Rise of the Meritocracy" which was basically the Idiocracy of its day- in the future idiots will reign supreme sort of thing. But the book was definitely meant to mock the entire idea of society that we live in today. Right down to how the society in the book defined "merit" as basically IQ plus how hard you work, it was a dystopia that came true.
1: Apparently someone else actually coined the term two years earlier in a peer reviewed paper, but Young was where it broke through into general use.
> Aristo has the advantage of actually being Greek for "the best."
Well, yes. You're emphasizing the "Greek" aspect, but if you want a word that means "rule by the best", you should probably use a word that means "best". The Latin word is optim(us).
Anyone who thinks mixing roots is nonsense must have a hyperventilating grammar nazi fiddling with a monocle in his head. Maybe go out and ride a bicycle? Or watch the television? Or take your automobile out for a spin?
It would be nonsense in Latin or Greek. But we aren't doing that in Latin or Greek, we're doing that in English.
"Meritocracy" was a satirical term invented to mock the way that the markers and abilities suggested by "merit" tend to accrue self-reinforcingly to the "meritorious" and those connected to them, creating a stratified society that pretends to justice and legitimacy by appeals to "natural" outcomes of "natural" advantages or "better work ethic", and dismissal of calls for reform with pleas that changes could only result in "less-meritorious", so, necessarily, worse, rule.
The word itself is basically a joke about the circularity and word-game bullshit of "well we assign power according to merit, so anything else is necessarily less-just". If it's not clear, consider: "Goodocracy" or "Bestocracy", or "everyone-gets-what-they-deserve-ocracy". Like... yes, sure, but the details are everything, that's just a vague appeal to stuff approximately everyone wants.
It's entirely hilarious that it's been adopted as a serious term.
In most countries the hereditary caste system that has oppressed the people of the country for centuries is correctly scorned, but the English are very clever and have managed to turn it into a reality tv show.
Speaking of a country that desperately needs a no kings protest...
The British monarchy just took another hit with the formal degradation of Prince Andrew.[1]
(That's what "degradation" really means - having an aristocratic title removed, making someone a commoner.)
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cnveqgj957dt
Andrew is ungallant so it is reasonable to strip him of his knighthoods. But it is rather silly to strip him of the title Prince for behaving like a prince.
You may be joking but in case you are not it is grossly unacceptable to be condoning child rape and the vast conspiracy that enabled this kind of behaviour that kept it going on for so long.
I think the parent poster is saying that he behaved in a fashion that is consistent with traditional royal behaviour.
Now properly just called Andrew, not “Prince” anything. (It was interesting to see most British news outlets make that change immediately while the US ones lagged).
Because most people in the US don’t know who “Andrew Windsor” is but have heard of “Prince Andrew.”
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor I believe.
It was weird to see coverage refer to him as just "Windsor". Ok, it's common to refer to a contextually-determined person by only their last name, but in this case it obviously shouldn't be done.
Did his titles grant him any powers or privileges that he doesn't retain? What's different for him now?
Being a peer of the realm historically confers some immunity from civil arrest in the UK.[1] Andrew Windsor just lost that.
[1] https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4571/lords-privileg...
At the very least he lost his free lodging/staff (though it sounds like the royal family will pay for his new lodging somewhere else).
A large amount he's lost is also ceremonial, it sounds like he won't be removed from the line of succession cause that would require approval from all the separate countries the monarchy reigns over to do so (and he's like eighth in line so extremely unlikely given his age).
He's been excluded from a lot of official events already so a lot of it is just making it official.
He's still not being criminally charged with anything from the government.
> Ok, it's common to refer to a contextually-determined person by only their last name, but in this case it obviously shouldn't be done.
Why?
Presumably GP meant readers would be unlikely to understand 'Windsor' referred specifically to AMW.
Doughty does not go into the polemical question of whether or not the elimination of hereditary peers is a good idea (for the record, it isn’t…)
If we are proponents of hereditary roles, why not go full hog, and just have the monarchy control the show?
Why isn't it a good idea? Whatever qualities or services performed by the original person probably didn't pass to the children
Well that is the question, isn't it. What qualities are passed on to their children? It is actually fairly common to see ideological continuity between parent and child (eg, most members of a religion had parents from that religion). So there is a case to be made that if you have a subgroup of society with unusually clear governing principles it makes sense to put them in change and have their children continue to be in charge because it has a chance of preserving the principles. In the optomistic case they can propagate for generations. That does actually appear to be what happens historically in successful countries where a hereditary or semi-hereditary ruling elite form with strong capabilities and shepherd everyone to success for a few generations before their abilities mean revert.
That being said it is comparatively a terrible way of doing things vs a more mathematically and psychologically sound system. Electing people really is the way to go, all these "stable" political systems are stable at being worse than just letting people vote for everything. As the saying goes, dead is stable. Stable isn't great if unstable means the capacity to rapidly improve.
> Why isn't it a good idea?
I had the same question.
> Whatever qualities or services performed by the original person probably didn't pass to the children
Maybe if you subscribe to the hard times theory. There’s plenty of reason to suspect that certain aptitudes can be genetically heritable, and that doesn’t even address the issue of skills transferring by osmosis or deliberate instruction in the household.
The aptitude for having one of your daughters be the King's mistress may not be of particular value as a legislator.
That isn’t what is being discussed here. An inept man could conceivably have a sexually attractive daughter. From a meritocratic perspective, it would be a mistake for a king to install the inept man as an advisor simply to gain access to the man’s daughter.
What we are discussing, however, is the existence of a man who has been identified as possessing some competency, and his office passing to his offspring on his death, on the basis that his children may have inherited the competency genetically or via an informal education. Heredity isn’t as simple as that, but at the same time, it isn’t clear that competencies “probably” do not pass between parent and child.
I always chuckle (or squirm) when someone suggests “picking a random person to be the president” rather than our current broken campaigning system.
Far better than that option, would be for a random family to inherit that power forever, than for a different random family be chosen every 4 years. Because at least then the “royal” family has some accountability to govern for long-term success, lest their descendants be dragged into the street and hung by an unhappy mob with pitchforks.
> lest their descendants be dragged into the street and hung by an unhappy mob with pitchforks.
The idea that a monarchy sees itself as accountable to the people is hilarious. They have a record of ruling with an iron fist and killing opposition.
It’s hard to grasp in a post-Westphalian world but killing opposition and governing with accountability to the people were not always considered opposing ideas. Loyalty to the king was a two-way street, noblesse oblige, etc
Well, your way means there's a succession unpredictably every ~20 years instead of predictably every 4.
Whether that's a point for or against depends on whether you think policy thrashing every 4 years is a good idea.
The generational succession is VASTLY more predictable than a random one, considering the successor comes from the same house and has literally spent his entire life being groomed and prepared to rule.
Having an apolitical (or unelected) and slow changing second chamber is a useful counterbalance to elected officials running amok. There’s no “great” answer to this that I’m aware of but it has been a viable compromise.
Apolitical? Hardly. They are literally politicians, just unelected. It’s all the worst aspects of elected officials with added nepotism and no ability to remove them.
It’s monarchy-lite.
They are not political appointees, so have a lower chance of being correlated with whatever movement of the moment and so serve as checks and balances. The fact that they can’t be replaced is a feature.
Are you talking about a specific example or a hypothetical?
I’m referring to the House of Lords. They are affiliated with political parties.
In terms of them not being swayed by ‘movements of the moment’, you are quite right. They are stuck in the past. 6% aren’t white. 26% are female.
https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/10/02/audit2018-how-und...
> In terms of them not being swayed by ‘movements of the moment’, you are quite right. They are stuck in the past. 6% aren’t white. 26% are female
You think this is an argument against the lords but for the people on the other side they think you are supporting them with these points.
Britain was white country for the last 12,000 years and had primogeniture for the last 1,000+. The UK today is a proverbial pale blue dot on the timeline
>>They are stuck in the past. 6% aren’t white. 26% are female.
If you excuse me, I just don't understand the implication here - if they were exactly representative of British racial demographics and exactly 50/50 men and women, they would not be stuck in the past?
I’m not intending to imply anything, I’m trying to state it.
Having political control of the country being hereditary, male and white is something that does not represent the make up of Britain. It represents the way Britain was run a long time ago and the current political infrastructure is not a strength.
If political control was actually democratic and representative of the country, I don’t think the situation would be worse.
It’s a non sequitur and not with engaging with. The purpose of a second chamber is temporal representation, as in the makeup is “stuck in the past” (more of a moving average) and not subject to the whims of the day. Some idea of forcing it to be composed based on arbitrary and irrelevant personal characteristics would accomplish nothing for the state and would be as stupid and in democratic as trying to do something like that for elected officials.
Ironically the the post appears stuck in 2021
How is a hereditary representative of anything other than a narrow gene pool?
You can’t think of anything better?
Why have anyone elected at all?
Technically they are mostly affiliated with one or other political party. It's even a convention for the internal elections that select which peers sit in the Lords, to only have candidates from the same party as the one being replaced, to maintain the ratio set by New Labour in the nineties.
Was that always the case? I took from TFA that some number are purely hereditary and that all of them used to be before a recent reform.
Or was it that one has to be a hereditary peer in order to be a government appointee?
Either way, the greater the barrier to the house of sober second thought being stacked by whoever is currently in power, the better. I’d also favor people being randomly appointed for life.
The hereditary peers are now a much smaller bunch, apparently there are 92, elected from the larger number of 800ish who are theoretically eligible.
Before 1993 all of them could hold seats.
The majority of the house these days is made up of life-appointed peers, who are nominated to the house by the commons. There are also 24 bishops.
There are moves afoot to remove the last hereditary peers, though I’m not sure of the current status of that bill.
If Labour get re-elected in a few years, they have made muttering about further second-house reform, but no plans or commitments at present
> so have a lower chance of being correlated with whatever movement of the moment
Correct, they instead have a 100% chance of being correlated with what is good for the aristocracy.
Another compromise in the same vein was (until 1913) the U.S. Senate, elected by the state legislature rather than direct election and for terms 2.5x as long as that of a House rep
To me (a non-American), that actually makes a kind of sense. Have people in the federal Congress whose job is to speak for their respective state governments. Instead of duplicating the House of Representatives with different electoral boundaries.
Quite like the European Council. Well if it was the state governors flying in to DC once a month, so maybe not exactly like it.
3 times as long (6 years for the Senate vs 2 years for the House)
A hot take I support is that switching to popular election of Senators was a mistake. We should go back to the state legislature method.
Slightly related: to any British readers, I have a question. In the past few weeks, I have seen more and more YouTube videos showing most of Britain outside of London as being essentially like Detroit. How bad are things really?
That assumes our knowledge of Detroit is more informed that yours of the UK ;-)
Generally there is a lot of propaganda around at the moment, so take that with a pinch of salt. The UK is not as well off as the US generally, but this does not mean there is a breakdown of society or law and order.
The propagandists would have you believe that there is a massive crime wave and social breakdown due to immigration, but what people are mostly worried about in actuality is job uncertainty and backlogged public services.
There are areas of wealth and of deprivation both inside and outside London. There is political and economic uncertainty because the UK economy is imbalanced, and most people expect a difficult few years and are sceptical that the government knows how to fix the issues (and that vested interests won't prevent the solution)
Thanks. To be more specific on what I’ve seen by YouTubers touring outside London is just boarded up shops, minimal economic hope, lots of abandoned homes again outside London. The narrative being essentially the de industrialization having now gutted the entire economy except for the well off and financial services etc. which of course shocked me cause I always pictured England as quite wealthy and having made that transition out of factory economy quite well. Which then led me to wonder if Britain is just just a few years ahead of the rest of us.
One of big blows to the economy is uniquely British (Brexit) so others would not necessarily follow.
Not noticeably any worse than over the last 15 years.
Be wary of what you are fed on YouTube (or any major social network) they are astroturfed to hell at this point.
Life here isn’t great for a lot of people but it’s not super terrible either for the most part, we have broadly the same problems as many western nations (aging population, corporations running amok, slow and expensive infrastructure development, expensive housing, low wage growth).
We are still a safe wealthy western democracy though.
What is wrong with Motown?
You seem to be picking on a US city as an example of (something) and attempting to apply (something) to the entirety of the UK that isn't a particular city in the UK.
Are you sure that is a wise comparison? I'm certain that Youtube is a source of information, but are you sure it is a useful one?
I live next door to a park and have just stuffed shit loads of cash into an American cruise company as a passenger (P&O - British name, American owner).
I'm alright mate and I'm sure you are too.
Sorry didn’t mean to pick on anyone. Even Detroit I heard has had somewhat a recovery in the last decade or so. I guess what stoked my unsettled curiosity was if the narrative of de-industrializion of the west and its impact on the social fabric was worse than I thought.
Detroit is known as a place with lots of abandoned buildings and I don’t think something similar exists in the UK. There are poor regions but AFIAK they don’t look like Detroit. Many high street shops are closed but it doesn’t mean that everything is bad. High street shops were hit hard first by COVID lockdowns then by high inflation (people can afford less) but rents continued to be high. It sad to see a row of boarded shops but it’s not everywhere and eventually landlords probably will reduce rent prices.
This is a somewhat silly question because you could probably get anecdotal replies of all kinds to it. Some things are different to how they used to be, and in some cases different in ways that feel bad. For example, there are more empty shops in the town centre where I live compared to 20 years ago, which for some people evokes a strong emotional reaction and a sense of loss.
When you say "like Detroit" I assume, having never been, that you mean a high crime rate and unemployment rate? You could visit the ONS: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand... https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotin...
My own personal experience tends to back up what the data here show (no significant changes really) - I teach in a large secondary school and really, kids today are not massively different from how they've ever been. They face challenges in navigating the vast amounts of information and misinformation presented nowadays, but we do try to educate them as best as possible in respect of this.
Cheers and hope this helps.
Appreciate it. Yeah I knew it was a very subjective question. I guess the reason I was shocked was prior I watched British shows like grand design and all I saw was rolling green hills and idyllic life outside the capital. Then in quick succession I watch some YouTubers doing walking tours outside of London and railing against the decline and neglect. So I was just curious what the locals opinion is. That said the same debates are happening here and half the time I feel people are describing different planets.
Abandoned homes in any great number would be a real surprise. I think those videos are likely quite carefully staged.
I left the UK about four years ago but AFAICT the picture of housing over there hasn’t changed a lot - it keeps going up in price and there’s a shortage.
There are economic problems at the moment, and service provision problems in particular with the NHS. A decade of post 08 GFC austerity stripped public services and hammered government investment, which turned out to have not been that smart. Then Brexit hammered trade.
Closed-up shops have been a minor trend for a while - small shops have been failing for years due to high taxes, insane rents and being thoroughly outcompeted by the internet. Many old-fashioned high streets have become little more than strips of coffee shops and charity retailers, the former because apparently there is no limit to the appetite for coffee, the latter because they often get tax and rent concessions.
It has always been true that London is like its own country, with transport, employment and investment there dwarfing everywhere else, and tackling this to spread out the prosperity more widely has been a consistent failure of British politics for as long as I remember.
Beyond London there’s the ever expanding, fairly wealthy belt of dormitory-towns, and then there’s the rest of the country, which in my last visit did just feel run down.
I’ve been to Detroit, and I’ve read about the decline there. I don’t think the UK is anywhere near that. But it is languishing in a prolonged economic malaise.
I live next to a baron, next town lives a count. Both are just moderately wealthy humans.
There is one distinction that sets them apart from "new money": They could not leave without loosing a significant part of their identity and influence.
I grew up among socialists, I have no love for aristocracy, but in times when the schism between rich and poor widens a caste of people that are bound by custom to be loyal to a place, meaning they are reluctant to abandon their local community, might be worth more than we think.
Forgive me if I don't shed a tear because somebody can't live in a giant house anymore.
But but but... It's a fundamental part of his identity!!! /S
From his point of view, it very much is. I have no sympathy for him at all, but in terms of empathy it's easy to understand that he'll be completely crushed by losing his nice house and his shiny titles.
Because his entire identity has been defined by a life of titles and privilege. Losing those - becoming a commoner, one of the plebs, an ordinary person - will be devastating to his narcissism. It will also affect his ability to earn money, because most of his "business" dealings relied very much on his position.
Does this bother me? Not at all. He almost certainly belongs in prison. And he's being thrown under the bus by his brother - or more probably by his brother's court advisors - before more news comes out.
Even so. This kind of fall from a great height happens very rarely, and there's a certain lurid fascination in wondering how it's experienced.
And he still has his supporters. There was an organised post storm on Twitter today from various minor establishment hangers-on complaining how unfair it all is.
Hot take: hereditary kingdoms were a reasonably successful solution to curbing constant civil war in a time when representative democracies might not have been viable (for various reasons).
I don’t think you could call it reasonably successful. For example, much of European history consisted of war and succession disputes. The entire system of aristocracy was prone to instability and shifting alliances. It turns out hereditary succession is not a good way to choose a competent political leader.
The Politics of Succession, by Andrej Kokkonen, Jørgen Møller, Anders Sundell
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Politics_of_Success...
> this book also shows that the development and spread of primogeniture - the eldest-son-taking-the-throne - mitigated the problem of succession in Europe in the period after AD 1000. The predictability and stability that followed from a clear hereditary principle outweighed the problems of incompetent and irrational rulers sometimes inheriting power. The data used in the book demonstrates that primogeniture reduced the risk of depositions and civil war following the inevitable deaths of leaders.
> The predictability and stability that followed from a clear hereditary principle outweighed the problems of incompetent and irrational rulers sometimes inheriting power.
It doesn't though, incompetence is more dangerous than uncertainty. If someone wants to be a hereditary head of state as a formality, then ok that is one thing. But if we look at the most successful nation in the 1000s it is probably the UK, who haven't allowed the monarch to be in the room where the big decisions get made since Charles I was executed in 1649. From that point it is a stretch to say that the monarch is inheriting power. The power to agree cheerfully with what their government tells them to do, perhaps.
The Prime Minister meets the monarch every week. It's very, very naive to assume they only talk about the weather.
The Queen was known to object to legislation that affected her personally. And the monarchy - as the head of the aristocracy, the biggest land-owner, a major influence on the Tory Party, and a private corporation with significant business interests - can always use back-channels and cut-outs to have its say.
The British specialise in this kind of indirect hinting and insinuation. It's part of the culture at most levels, and it drives foreigners insane, because until you learn the subtext you'll completely misread what's being said.
> But if we look at the most successful nation in the 1000s it is probably the UK
There is also a solid argument to be made for France.
> It turns out hereditary succession is not a good way to choose a competent political leader.
I'm not sure republics have cracked that one either.
Let's try technocracy!
I read that at some point the system in Turkey devolved to the point that succession was always determined by a civil war.
This produced a very long string of extremely competent leaders, but the cost was too high.
>It turns out hereditary succession is not a good way to choose a competent political leader.
It beats strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
Farcical aquatic ceremonies have their uses.
Binding people to a shared worldview due to a fear of an unsuccessful afterlife?
History says: proved useful.
How can you have a democracy when 90% of the populous is working 12 hour days 6-7 days a week just to pay the bills? How are they going to have an opinion on anything, other than “Stuff is too expensive”.
Note that the Ancient Greeks very often had democracies, when their standard of living was rather lower than what you describe. Life expectancy at birth was often below 30 years.
EDIT: Add some cites -
https://acoup.blog/2023/03/10/collections-how-to-polis-101-p...
https://acoup.blog/2025/07/18/collections-life-work-death-an...
https://acoup.blog/2025/10/10/collections-life-work-death-an...
Note that in the Ancient Greek democracies, the people who worked 12 hour days 6-7 days a week and had a life expectancy of 30 years were called "Slaves", and they were not allowed to vote.
Non-laboring, land-owning males were the only ones allowed to participate in the democracy, and they lived to ripe old ages just as in modern times, even allowing for the occasional hemlock ingestion.
The Old Greeks cannot be trusted with historic matters. They were victims of indigestion, you know.
Ancient Greek democracy was limited franchise and the average life expectancy figure is pop history and not accurate.
For most of human existence, life expectancy at birth was dominated by half of all kids not reaching puberty, and a quarter of all infants not making it through their first year.
Republics, like Venice and San Marino (oldest Republic still in existence), endured for a millennia.
I'll accept they don't have a good track record for defending themselves from hereditary monarchies. e.g. Nizny Novgorod to Muscovy, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (technically elected monarchy) to Prussia-Russia-Austria.
I'm sort of amazed that democracies came into existence at all.
On the other hand, I guess the actions of kings were a catalyst. (crazy taxation, closing ports, quartering troops, etc)
It's not just "kings", but "distant kings" in most cases. The French Revolution being a notable counterexample.
I suspect the root of democracy’s success lies in Galton’s observation
Seems a bit shallow.
The real downfall of the great British houses (architectural sense) was the financial catastrophe that 1914 to 1946 was for the British Empire. Top billing in two world wars - and they went from being blatantly the richest and most powerful nation on earth, to needing a US Treasury bail-out to avoid national bankruptcy.
(Though over in America, most of the historic grand mansions are now tourist attractions, for lack of heirs with the wealth and interest in maintaining them.)
And the benefits of British aristocratic titles faded over quite a few centuries, not just recently. Compare King Charles I of the early 1600's (Parliament didn't like his exercise of Divine Right) with George III of the later 1700's (a clever King could appoint his own Prime Ministers against Parliament's wishes) with Queen Victoria of the later 1800's (she complained to the PM that the Foreign Secretary was taking actions without her approval) with Queen Elizabeth II of the later 1900's (she dutifully read her supposed "Queen's Speech" to Parliament, whether she agreed with a word of it or not).
> (Though over in America, most of the historic grand mansions are now tourist attractions, for lack of heirs with the wealth and interest in maintaining them.)
Part of this is that the "old money" tended to withdraw from public life after the Great Depression when they decided infamy was a serious liability.
That's why one struggles to name any of the living heirs of the big names of that era, who are absolutely still filthy stinking rich, while newbies like Musk, everyone knows. The culture of what Fussell calls the "top out-of-sight" is to remain sufficiently anonymous that nobody knows their given names unless one goes looking (and even then, it may be hard to find much trace of them). A bunch of them don't show up on any of those "richest" lists not because they couldn't rank, but because you effectively have to opt-in to those, for enough of your wealth to be traceable without great effort to get counted.
Owning a highly-visible Newport mansion could well be a mark of poor taste, among that set.
They still have their grand houses, they just may not (though, may) be in the Georgian or Neoclassical style or whatever, and they're probably not visible (from remotely close-up, at any rate) from any public road. Drive minor highways in the right parts of the country and look for nice (though, not necessarily imposing or impressive) gates leading into what looks like a simple, wooded lot with an unremarkable, perhaps even gravel, drive that immediately disappears into the trees, and you've probably found one, and they're all over the place... plus their families will usually own plenty of extremely nice, but not flashy, well-located houses and condos and such in more-populated areas.
the houses are really easy to find in satellite view on maps too
I read a biography of a British politician who was later elevated to the aristocracy (although I guess his family was somewhere between commoner and aristocrat prior to that). It said his family took a financial hit because of a decline in crops in the late 1800s. I dug it up and found out that the US was partly responsible for that actually because of cheaper imported grains. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression_of_British_ag...
Many aristocrats relied on agricultural income from their property holdings.
Another interesting point is that it seems like the majority of titles were awarded relatively recently as in within the last 120-150 years. That doesn't mean there aren't some older ones but it changes the perception of them from being a centuries old group of warlords or relatives of the king to a group of lawyers, military officers, and politicians.
Yes-ish? I might have linked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws#Repeal In many ways that repeal was a direct consequence of the Industrial Revolution, and the IR's "new rich" were often eager to acquire the architectural trappings of the old rich, pay staggering sums to marry into them, and other tricks.
>(Though over in America, most of the historic grand mansions are now tourist attractions, for lack of heirs with the wealth and interest in maintaining them.)
Taxes had a lot to do with it--though, really, in the UK as well. In Newport RI, a lot of the gilded era mansions ended up donated to a local college because, as you say, the heirs didn't have either the wealth or the interest in maintaining (and playing the taxes on) them. A lot of these places were also summer "cottages" and would require a huge amount of money to update to modern standards. I know someone whose extended family owned one of these places (not in Newport but similar) and it was going to be a huge expense; don't know how it ended up.
> Taxes had a lot to do...
Kinda? Taxes on the UK's wealthy (not just property taxes) skyrocketed from '14 to '46, mostly because the gov't needed to seize every farthing it could, to starve off national bankruptcy. And taxes were only part of the US issue. Wikipedia notes that just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Breakers needed 50-ish servants to run, and 150 tons of coal a year to heat. Imagine the payroll and utilities to live at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltmore_Estate
Worth noting - in Britain's "good old days", there mostly seemed to be no lack of heirs with the £££££ to staff and maintain those enormous estates, century after century after century. Yes, that was partly social. And primogeniture certainly helped.
In fact there was a lot of churn and drama. What we have left today in the UK is literally the result of survivor bias.
A lot of country houses are now state-owned, managed through nominal charities. Quite a few disappeared in the 20th century.
The British aristocracy is a complex thing, with came-over-with-the-Normans at one extreme, and relatively recent self-made opportunists at the other. It's a socio-archaeological phenomenon in its own right - influential, but under-researched, and opaque to outsiders.
Oh I don't really disagree with any of that. In both the US and the UK, the interest in staffing and maintaining multi-million dollar high-maintenance summer places (typically in conjunction with multi-million dollar city places) definitely declined over time.
There are still some ultra-wealthy with multiple homes, but there are also probably increasingly options for people to just rent something for a month or two that's a lot less headache with some minimal staff (if that)--or at least have one of a couple of places be as low maintenance as possible.
This relic of the days of Kings/Queens/princes/dukes/Lords/Ladies has to be extinguished, root, branch and leaf. There are residues in many European countries as well, slowly fading to irrelevance. The current King should dissolve this system and abdicate and let the remnants shrivel. The UK 'House of Lords' = also gone. Create an elected second house with spread terms, like the USA has, with 6 years and 1/3rd every 2 years. USA has fixed lengths, first house 4 years for all, the senate 6 in 3 staggered pairs. Or something rational. In the UK/Canada/others, there is party discipline and party members vote as told be leader(except for free votes). This blocks buying votes, as happens in the USA and some, where an elected member is free to vote. This appears to 'let the people see', but it creates a fungible vote where a briber can see if the elected member voted as paid, yes illegal, but the word 'bagman' crops up a lot in politics. Paid lobbies need to be outlawed, however they are named\hidden
> “aristocracy” means “rule of the best.”
Should not “rule of the best” rather be called "meritocracy"?
Merit is from Latin, and cracy is a Greek suffix, so combining them together is nonsense. Aristo has the advantage of actually being Greek for "the best."
The word meritocracy was actually popularized (1) by British Labour Party politician Michael Young in his 1958 satirical novel "The Rise of the Meritocracy" which was basically the Idiocracy of its day- in the future idiots will reign supreme sort of thing. But the book was definitely meant to mock the entire idea of society that we live in today. Right down to how the society in the book defined "merit" as basically IQ plus how hard you work, it was a dystopia that came true.
1: Apparently someone else actually coined the term two years earlier in a peer reviewed paper, but Young was where it broke through into general use.
Tele is from Greek and vision is Latin, so while you’re at it…
Automobile, sociology…
That book is pure gold.
> Aristo has the advantage of actually being Greek for "the best."
Well, yes. You're emphasizing the "Greek" aspect, but if you want a word that means "rule by the best", you should probably use a word that means "best". The Latin word is optim(us).
Anyone who thinks mixing roots is nonsense must have a hyperventilating grammar nazi fiddling with a monocle in his head. Maybe go out and ride a bicycle? Or watch the television? Or take your automobile out for a spin?
It would be nonsense in Latin or Greek. But we aren't doing that in Latin or Greek, we're doing that in English.
"Meritocracy" was a satirical term invented to mock the way that the markers and abilities suggested by "merit" tend to accrue self-reinforcingly to the "meritorious" and those connected to them, creating a stratified society that pretends to justice and legitimacy by appeals to "natural" outcomes of "natural" advantages or "better work ethic", and dismissal of calls for reform with pleas that changes could only result in "less-meritorious", so, necessarily, worse, rule.
The word itself is basically a joke about the circularity and word-game bullshit of "well we assign power according to merit, so anything else is necessarily less-just". If it's not clear, consider: "Goodocracy" or "Bestocracy", or "everyone-gets-what-they-deserve-ocracy". Like... yes, sure, but the details are everything, that's just a vague appeal to stuff approximately everyone wants.
It's entirely hilarious that it's been adopted as a serious term.
In that sense, all types of government are "rule of the best". The differences are just in the metrics used to determine who...
No Kings!
In most countries the hereditary caste system that has oppressed the people of the country for centuries is correctly scorned, but the English are very clever and have managed to turn it into a reality tv show.
Speaking of a country that desperately needs a no kings protest...
And speaking of country where reality-TV-stars are Kings ...