I'll never be offered one but if that were the case I'd refuse on the grounds that by accepting I would implicitly recognize the fact that there are more than one kinds of people.
But good for Jonathan Ive that his contributions are recognized, too many people like that never get any recognition at all so from that point of view this is positive.
These days they're awarded by the democratically elected government and the royal family's role in it is purely ceremonial. Whichever member of the royal family carries out the ceremony is basically a paid actor on behalf of that state in this context.
The whole Royal family works in two ways - the theoretical what they (or more usually the Queen) can do, and the way it actually works.
In theory the Queen can veto any law, could decide who to knight herself and so on but in reality this doesn't happen for the simple reason that the minute she did we the people would advance on Buckingham Palace with torches and pitchforks and burn the place to the ground. She is very much the Queen because the people and the government allow her to be, whatever the technicalities of the law say.
The reality of the situation is that the democratically elected government (sort of, see the House of Lords below) make all the decisions and the Queen merely "endorses them" (though even that suggests she has a say in it which she doesn't in any real way).
Do the Royal family have influence? Yes they do, but I'd suggest it's really no more than anyone else with that much money has (look at Adrian Beescroft right now) and they're far better than most with that much money in this sense as they're aware that they should remain neutral and do so. Generally the worst that happens is that Prince Charles runs his ill informed mouth about homoeopathy and architecture.
It's an odd system and no-one in their right mind would design one like it but as it operates now it's really not that broken.
If you want to take a swipe at something can I suggest the unelected House of Lords which has genuine power over the laws of the land and frequently uses it?
And even they tend to be a force for good, curbing the worst excesses of successive governments, though I may be more positively inclined towards them than I could otherwise be as I detest the current government so like that the Lords are giving them the run around.
How it actually works because people (or more specifically, parliament) don't feel like aligning theory and practice is not my problem.
If to the law there are more than one kinds of people then you may say that in theory it isn't like that however in practice this has all kinds of real effects and these will remain as long as Royalty is not formally abolished.
Knighthoods are one of those effects, another is the fact that people of 'royal blood' are to some extent above the law. And are protected in ways that no commoner would ever be protected.
On top of that it is still hereditary rule, you may be Knighted but your children will never accidentally be born King or Queen. And to me that is just plain wrong, ceremonial or not.
While I would prefer an apolitical president for Head of State of the UK, I feel that the Royals do deserve some credit for their hard work and willingness to put themselves in harms way in the Armed Forces.
The difference between how it works in theory and how it works in practice is everything. British law is largely unwritten - until the EU gave us them we had no written bill of rights and most of our laws are based on precedent rather than anything parliament has decreed. If you do the immigration test one of the things you might be asked is what sort of constitution Britain has (correct answer "an unwritten one"). To try and understand Britain based on what is theoretically true is an exercise in futility that will rapidly lead you away from anything resembling reality.
I don't know if you have to live here to really understand it but what you imply simply doesn't tally with the way the Royal family are viewed. It's a strange combination of soap opera, duty, alien otherness and sentimental fondness. For most people there's more of a feeling of pity for them than any idea that they're better than us. They are an anachronistic anomaly but that's how they're viewed - so different, so outside that the comparisons you make really aren't there, any more than you'd compare yourself to something in a museum.
Now that's obviously not true of everything to do with the class system which at it's top levels embodies almost everything you say (the Prime Minister for instance is to me far worse, an elitist fop with none of the Royal family's sense of duty or propriety) but to pick on the Royal family is a little like protesting against BP by not buying sweets in their garages when you're filling up your car with petrol - it's really not the problem.
Yeah, because countries following "the modern theory" are doing so much better than countries with a Royalty.
In practice, it makes no significant difference, governments can and do have lavish expenses and luxury. So it's not like not having a monarchy is saving them any significant amount of money
"another is the fact that people of 'royal blood' are to some extent above the law. And are protected in ways that no commoner would ever be protected."
Oh you mean like diplomats or a president? I'm sure the POTUS is the most protected human being on the planet way more than any king or queen
"On top of that it is still hereditary rule, you may be Knighted but your children will never accidentally be born King or Queen"
Knighthood is not hereditary and even you're "royal blood" tough chance being born King or Queen (if not altogether impossible, but I'm not sure about that)
If you are looking for elitism in the British system then you are missing the point when you pick on the Royals. They are probably one of the better investments the government makes in boosting the tourism sector. As your comments demonstrate, lots of people around the world take them very seriously, a lot more seriously than British people typically do.
President Cameron.
Shiver...
In theory they are completely wrong, in practice I only see them doing good things.
Nobody argues that juries should be elected, or selected by the police.
Heredity as it is (or rather was) favours white, male (many of the titles couldn't be passed to women), upper class, privately educated, wealthy, christian individuals.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/j...
I don't know that hereditary peerage is a good idea, but I'm pretty certain that an elected peerage would be worse.
Interestingly, I have never seen anyone theorize about this. Everyone understands why democracy and elections are related. Parliament is a snapshot of public opinion at a given time. By using two snapshots taken at different time intervals, you get better reliability. Sounds obvious to IT engineers :-)
The Royal family is an immense force for good and long may it continue.
It certainly has nothing to do with there being "more than one kinds of people" - which is a cop out 'argument'.
I wouldn't wish being a Royal on my worst enemy. I have enormous respect for the tireless, sometimes thankless task they are forced to perform day in, day out, binding the country together towards common goals and purpose.
Although they don't in practice have political power, they're part of a system which gives some wealthy and privileged peers a hereditary right to make our laws[1].
Also "Membership was once a right of birth to hereditary peers but, following a series of reforms, only 92 members (as of 1 July 2011) sitting by virtue of a hereditary peerage remain."
Further reforms are in the pipeline as regards the house of lords.
Unfortunately what we saw under the Labour government was "cash for honours", and politicians making their cronies lords. Which IMHO is far worse than hereditary peerages.
The vast majority in the UK are very favorable toward the Royal family (As you'll see later in the year).
Importantly, they will not pass on their peerages to their children. There are no longer hereditary peerages in the UK, it's just that they didn't strip the current ones of their titles. There are still members of the clergy in there though, which is wrong.
IMO the unelected house of lords is often the most effective part of our government. I don't like it but I find it very difficult to argue against.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declining_a_British_honour#Knig...
Edit: to clarify, I mean against citizenship as a birthright.
Without having a nationality suddenly a lot of things are no longer possible (such as travel or residency). I have no right to a pension but pay in to them, my children are not in any way subsidized by state sponsorships for parents with children ("kinderbijslag" it is called here), but I do pay my taxes and so on.
I opt out to the point that I'm able to but that doesn't go nearly far enough. I still think there is a net positive effect, even if that same effect might be achievable by some other means. I'm not an anarchist, I just don't believe that there is a good reason for nation states and such because in general they are just used as vehicles to control people or to motivate them to do bad things rather than to provide them with services that are for the common good. In that sense they are like democracy, it's what we've got because we have nothing better but there are plenty of warts and issues with the concept.
Probably my views are pretty extremist but having seen a lot of misery in people close to me grounded in nationality it is an easy one to come by. For me nationality/citizenship is a matter of choosing the least bad option, not the best. We have nothing better so this is what I'll have to live with, it's like the weather, I am incapable of making significant change so I make the best of it.
This happens now. Governments might try to prevent people from leaving but at that point they are only buying time.
> Countries would be forced to compete on giving the best quality of life to attract labour force.
This, to some approximation regarding which parts of labour force are sought, happens now.
> Corrupt governments with inneficient policies and economy would be forced to improve or go broke.
This, to a degree, happens now.
All the things you mentioned do happen, the issue is that few things concerning large organizations happen fast. Even in near-perfect-capitalist Silicon Valley environment organizations as troubled as Yahoo or Palm can keep on going for quite a while.
That's not the problem with citizenship. The problem is, other countries will refuse to let you in, or make your life miserable and you won't have the same rights as citizens.
s/citizen/noble/ in the following:
I am a citizen of a wealthy country, but I didn't earn this privilege, I got it by birth, and that gives me more rights than a lot of poor people working here much harder than I do.
Countries/states/provinces/regions/cities are organizations of people, by definition people living in the geographical area (minor modern aberrations like small amounts of nonresident citizens notwithstanding). I'm really not sure how you imagine doing away with a notion of citizenship will convince a group of people to allow "others" into "their" group if the others don't offer the group something it values. This isn't evil statesmanship, it's basic human psychology.
That's a fair point and I don't know what would happen if we eliminate citizenship. It might be replaced by something just as bad. I'm just pointing out why I dislike the concept, how it is similar to nobility.
No state should have claim upon a person simply because of where they were born or spent their childhood because the logic which underlies such claims is the same logic which underlies chattel slavery. The nexus is most obvious in places such as North Korea, however, if one considers the proportion of states which one considers repressive it will probably represent several percent of the entities one recognizes as states.
While I am probably not an anarchist, I find utility in their analysis of politics and nationalism.