No title of nobility
Was that a "noble" decision?
posted over 11 years ago
U.S. Constitution 1:9:8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no
person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without
the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office,
or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Now this was created to prevent the passing down of hereditary titles like Duke of York or Earl of Sandwich, thus keeping people who would hold such titles from using the authority their titles granted to keep themselves in a place superior to other citizens. All in the spirit of "all men are created equal."
Now how much relevance does this hold today? One modern-day pro is that I can call the girl I love "a princess" or "the princess" or "my princess" because in England, if you call anybody but the crown princess "princess," people will KILL! YOU! A con is that the custom of calling all other people "guys" may be the ultimate result of "no title of nobility." How? Without titles to keep the "nice" people in their place, the road was open for the distinction between them and "common" people to fall, and when that fell, it in turn opened the road for the distinctions between elders and youngers and more recently (and controversially) between males and females.
Now I'd say the Vikings were doing it right. They'd give their child a common name, then attach his father's name plus "son" or her mother's name plus "daughter." Then, throughout his/her life, others would attach titles based on someone's life achievements, like "Trollface" or "Graybeard" or "Fishslayer." These titles reflected life achievements rather than heritage, and as such would have great relevance in the modern world of "made, not born." Now the "son/daughter" part would be opening a can of worms because of so many people with foreign names, but the life titles could exist in its absence. What say you about establishing life (and death) titles?
Now this was created to prevent the passing down of hereditary titles like Duke of York or Earl of Sandwich, thus keeping people who would hold such titles from using the authority their titles granted to keep themselves in a place superior to other citizens. All in the spirit of "all men are created equal."
Now how much relevance does this hold today? One modern-day pro is that I can call the girl I love "a princess" or "the princess" or "my princess" because in England, if you call anybody but the crown princess "princess," people will KILL! YOU! A con is that the custom of calling all other people "guys" may be the ultimate result of "no title of nobility." How? Without titles to keep the "nice" people in their place, the road was open for the distinction between them and "common" people to fall, and when that fell, it in turn opened the road for the distinctions between elders and youngers and more recently (and controversially) between males and females.
Now I'd say the Vikings were doing it right. They'd give their child a common name, then attach his father's name plus "son" or her mother's name plus "daughter." Then, throughout his/her life, others would attach titles based on someone's life achievements, like "Trollface" or "Graybeard" or "Fishslayer." These titles reflected life achievements rather than heritage, and as such would have great relevance in the modern world of "made, not born." Now the "son/daughter" part would be opening a can of worms because of so many people with foreign names, but the life titles could exist in its absence. What say you about establishing life (and death) titles?
