its about origin of royalty?

Question

Lets face it ,there hasnt always been royalty has there?When did it all start ? Does it go back to early cave dwellers ,when someone decided to become leader. Lets hear your opinion .Den

Answer 1

It began in neolithic slavery, evolved to feudalism and became ruling families or ruling classes then ruling dynasties.

Answer 2

I agree with jamand. The sad thing is as time goes by people begin to revere royalty. That is because nobody respects anything more than tradition. They drummed tradition into us in catechism lessons, repeating over and over that Christianity is more than 2000 years old to impress us. They did the same when I studied Psychology stating that the roots of Psych go back to Plato and Aristotle (arguable). Happy Holidays

Answer 3

origin of royalty comes from the base notion of superiority. from there, the aspects (or customs) that are involved with royalty appear.

to me it seems like an animalistic instinct of a pack of gorillas or dogs...

the man in charge... since all it takes is cash to make it to the top, people tend to spend some of it on crowns and castles ;)

unfortunately, people who have all that cash (or power which is kinda similar in what the results can be) are quite often @ss3s

don't mind me i still haven't opened my holiday gifts yet

Answer 4

In England it goes back to about the 8 or 9th century, although those were not kings of England, but of regions of the country. People will always want someone to lead them, and in those days elections didn't really exist so...Shame that they do noew and we still have an unelected head of state, but whatever...

Answer 5

It's called 'The Pecking Order' dude.

Been around for thousands of years in human and animal form! Strongest takes the top spot and it goes down the line.

Not saying it's right but unless you can find someone who is about 20,000 years old you are never gonna get a definitive answer

Answer 6

All leaders got theirv position because they proved more powerful (usually by violence and extortion) than their neighbours. The monarchy is no exeption.

A little story to ilustrate.
A tramp was crossing a field when the owner called to him, 'Get off my land' The conversation continuedf as follows:-
How come it is YOUR land?
My father left it to me in his will
How did your father get it?
His father left it to him, and so on.
How did it get into your family's ownership in the first place?
0ne of my ancestors fought for it
OK> I'll fight you for it.

Answer 7

It's based on the Greek concept of Aristocracy. I think it means that those who can hold on to their wealth get to rule.
More here:
"The term "aristocracy" was first given in Athens to young citizens who led armies from the front line with their swords up. Since military bravery was such a highly regarded virtue in ancient Greece, the armies were being led by "the best". From the ancient Greeks, the term passed on to the European Middle Ages for a similar hereditary class of military leaders often referred to as the "nobility". As in ancient Greece, this was a slave holding class of privileged men whose military role made them see themselves as the most "noble", or "best". In India, these men are usually of the martial or Kshatriya caste such as the Gujjars and Rajputs and their sub-divisions. In the Islamic world, the aristocratic caste of Sayyid belongs exclusively to the descendants of Prophet Muhammad and extends to all classes of society. This is usually distinguished from the ordinary use of "Sayyid" to mean 'Sir' or 'Lord'. In this sense, the Sayyid is a born aristocrat on account of his/her blood lineage to the person of the Prophet Muhammad and is usually synonymous with high morality, integrity, cleanliness, impeccable manners and deep courtesy. Both aristocracies relied upon an established church to back up their claims of being "best" in the society. Philosopher Alec Harras was once quoted as saying: "There's almost two billion people in the world [in the lower class], that's such a small amount. It's maybe ten or twenty percent [of the population]. And for some reason it feels like such a dominating force, now there's aristocracy for you"

One of the key causes of the French Revolution was the idea that the traditional aristocracy no longer represented the "best" of its society. The army had been modernized by Louis XIV to a degree that aristocrats no longer rode at the front of their troops, but directed movements from a safe distance. It was difficult to abide the aristocracy's traditional privileges when they didn't earn them in the traditional way. Civic nobles -- the "nobility of the robe" -- were seen as greedy courtiers who attended the court at Versailles or held appointed positions for their own gain.

The French Revolution attacked aristocrats as people who had achieved their status by birth rather than by merit, such unearned status being considered an affront to the bourgeoisie and new liberal norms. The term thus became symbolic of people who claim luxuries and privileges as a birthright, rather than people who claim the chance to die on the front lines as a birthright, a far cry from the original meaning of the term. In the United Kingdom and other European countries in which hereditary titles are still recognized, "aristocrat" still refers to the descendant of one of approximately 7,000 families with hereditary titles, usually still in possession of considerable wealth, though not necessarily so.

In the United States and other nations without a history of a hereditary military caste, aristocracy has taken on a more stylistic meaning. It also can refer to those, like the Roosevelts, whose families came to the United States early in its history, acquired large holdings and have been able to hang onto their wealth through many generations. In the American south, particularly in former Confederate states, the term southern aristocracy refers to those families that acquired large land holdings before the Civil War and remain wealthy landowners to this day, or to families that lost their wealth in the 19th century but continue to insist on deference. In some cases, especially the latter, the usage is pejorative and refers to purveryors of snobbery, but "aristocrat" can also refer to an elegant person with a gracious lifestyle and strong sense of duty. This last meaning can be seen as taking the term back to its original roots."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy

And we all know how fond those that shape our education are of all things greek now, don't we?

Answer 8

10 points for jamand