Aristocracy ... what sort of phenomenon are they to you?

Question

I do believe in live and let live.
I do believe a lot of good things have come from the House of Lords over the years because to a degree the true aristocracy is so far removed from 'real' life that they can afford to be more objective. Philantropy is a hobby of many aristocrats. I wish i could afford to spend more time and energy on humanitarian explorations of the world. It would be a privelege :-)
You could try to say they should be gotten 'rid off' but what would it solve? Only to be replaced by some who are in it for power and greed?

It matters in the UK i think, because they are an integral part of working parliament. Historically i find aristocracy intriguing. What should be their 'purpose' in the 21st century? If any? And what do they really represent? Should they allow their own to be 'diluted' by allowing commoners to sit between them.
Or is it a case of sod history and get rid of them to you? (in that case don't bother to elaborate too much i reckon)

bumbleboy: maybe that is why i put the question under history to start with? It's more than just politics to me. it's living historyAnd please source where i have ever claimed to be either humanitarian or democratic in so many words as your statement seems to imply? Tsssst.

Answer 1

Needed.

The whole point of having the House of Lords is to have a counterweight to the power hungry money grubbing politicians. It is not about do we or do we not LIKE them!

The House of Lords do not have to pander to an electorate and at the time it was created, although yes they were the rich elite, they were also some of the most well educated people in the country. It is a very important thing to have a group of people who do not care much about the politics, unless of course it involves stopping one of their favourite pass times, and just vote on the case in point. Of course there are going to be those who are idiots but when isn't there in any committee?!

The replacement of the Lords so far has been with Labour friendly people already bought and well invested in the Labour party. Seeing as the majority of lords were Conservative this has evened the balance a bit but it cannot continue if the House of Lords is to remain as non-political as possible.

As far as having Aristocracy is concerned it is a long running human flaw that we want someone to aspire to and hate all in one. The Aristocracy in situations were it did not exist has and probably always will be recreated. Look at the US and it's celebrities, they even refer to them as Hollywood Royalty. You may love to hate the Aristocracy but then who is next because there will be a next. People without money and power look to people who have it. That is where it all started and that is how it still is. If you are so jealous of these people that you hate them just for that then go and make your own money, find your power and become one yourself. The Nouveau riche of today are the Old Money of tomorrow.

With the House of Lords though look at the function it provides, not at who is providing it. Look at why it is necessary and not who you feel is necessary. Can you honestly say that you can find anyone better for that role who can not be bought and who will still function as is needed? I don't think so.

Answer 2

A parasitic and outmoded concept, a legacy of ancient feudal times. I object to taxes that working people pay, contributing to the priveleged lifestyle of a few.
For me, being objective is an achievable goal for any human being, it is a reflection of an educated and well rounded mind which has had opportunity and life experience, (a set of circumstances increasingly denied to the younger generation). Broad minded and objective attitudes are not necessarily the realm of those with the money and time on their hands to afford this achievement.
Baroness Young is a good case in point and the vile, insightless and incorrect venom she spouts about gay people.
If the house of Lords can afford the time to be Humanitarian, why did they keep rejecting the hunting bill?
Most well rounded politicians that genrate respect come from ordinary backgrounds. Just one other thing, if you are going to ask a politically hot question which will attract of range of views then please do not assume you can tell those who do not share your view not to "eloborate", hardly the demonstrates the democratic and humanitarian view you claim to have does it?

Add on: Your opening line is "I believe in live and let live", What is that but a Humanitarian view? Just because you may not have all the time and heaps of cash to devote to Philanthropic activity does not mean you don't do it. If you buy clothes from Oxfam or put a pound in a collection box then you are exercising an aspect of Philanthropy; it is also a state of mind and your question implies it is not a state of mind which is alien to you.
Your overall question also implies you have democratic values, until it's end. Perhaps you are not aware of the implications of your own written words? Incidently, whatever group you put your question in, you slanted it towards politics not I.
Tsst yourself!

Answer 3

Is your question about the aristocracy, or about the House of Lords ? Because they are not the same thing.

The number of hereditary peers in the House of Lords, and these of course are the only group in it that can be termed "aristocracy" is now very small. By far the largest group are the life peers, those rewarded for a lifetime of public service, often in the House of Commons...and I trust that you are not seriously suggesting that such people are "aristocrats" simply because they now sit in the Lords?

It is not the House of Lords that is essential, it is simply the existence of a second chamber. And the fact that our current second chamber is entirely unelected is, ultimately, undemocratic
and therefore wrong.

Answer 4

Most of them are pretty dim - like most people in fact. They contain good and bad like any other group. I myself am not fixated on them. My ancestry is as common as muck and I'm proud of it. If anyone says to me, 'I'm descended from the Duke of Shitbag', I think, 'You sad ****.'
That being said, the ridiculous way the House of Lords was constituted fitted its small powers. If there's an elected second chamber, sooner or later they will say to the commons, 'What legitimacy have you got that we haven't?'
Anyone born in the west has an enormous privilege of birth anyway against the rest of the world. Think about it.

Answer 5

I believe in patriotism and all that but the aristocracy such as the lords and earls ect are in my opinion just a waste of time now, they are outdadted and do nothing for the country except dwell in there big houses of there ancestors, its a shame cus it would have only been one person out of all of there family that actually did something to attain the title they now abuse. GET RID!!!

Answer 6

How would you get rid of them? line them up in front of a firing squad?
They are already diluted as they are forced to open their castles to the public to pay the taxes and other expenses. The inheritence of the "blue bloods" does not take into consideration run away inflation.
Anyone with a lot of money can sit in parliment in any country. It is the rich who run the countries. Bush inherited his money the same as an aristocrat inherits his or hers. The only difference is the "aristocrats" have manners.

Answer 7

They are good buffer to the Houses of Parliament, although the Lords does need updating.
As far as philanthropy is concerned, I wish they'd throw some my way!

Answer 8

parasites - the idea that we should be deferential to these people due to a fate of birth is ludicrous. Out of touch, out of date, time to go I think

Answer 9

nationalize their holdings, put them on a pension. a small pension, about what they voted for old people.