Quote Originally Posted by David Thorpe View Post
And we do have an aristocracy here, if not officially recognized by the government. Only the titles are different. Rather than Baronet, Viscount, Earl and such, we have CEO, LLD and NFL.
But we have CEO's, LLD's although perhaps not NFL also. And everyone here can, with a little hard work and perhaps some back-scratching and nepotism can aspire to this 'aristocracy' as you describe it. The other kind, however, no chance except for the odd rich American heiress who they allow to marry in provided she comes with a sufficiently large fortune to rescue their failing fortunes. Otherwise it is down to an accident of birth which rules out you, me and, I suspect, most others on this site. I have long since come to terms with the fact that I will never be a King or a member of the nobility but perhaps, just perhaps, you might have become President or one of those other American equivalents.
One other point that has not really been explored in this thread is the distinction between the relationship of a king or Queen and the people. In Scotland it is 'Rex Scotorum' i.e. King of Scots (the people) whereas in England it is King of England (the country). The Declaration of Arbroath is clear on this where it says "Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself. " In England Kings rule, supposedly, by divine right whereas in Scotland they rule by the will of the people. A subtle distinction but an important one.