Classic-Castle.com


The source for all your LEGO Castle needs!

Check this out!

Discussion of topics concerning life in the middle ages around the world, including architecture, history, and warfare.

Postby Dragon Master » Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:54 am

Update:

This http://www.baronytitles.com can actually give you an officially recognized by the Lord Lyon. Its not simply changing your first name to "Sir."

However if you want to be a Baron, it will set you back about $100,000. Certainly not practical.

>DM<
"I have looked for you. Now you have come to me. And I thank you." -Pope John Paul II
User avatar
Dragon Master
Merchant
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:30 pm
Location: USA

Postby Dragonlord Esq. » Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:38 am

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the U.S. Constitution specifically bans aristocratic titles. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
User avatar
Dragonlord Esq.
Reeve
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:41 am
Location: TX

Postby doctorsparkles » Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:00 am

Dragonlord Esq. wrote:I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the U.S. Constitution specifically bans aristocratic titles. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Well, if you were to obtain a real title, it wouldn't mean anything in the U.S., but it would whereever you got it from.
"Always do what you want, and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." ~ Doctor Suess
User avatar
doctorsparkles
Landlord
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 10:42 pm
Location: Medina, Ohio

Postby Dragon Master » Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:48 am

Dragonlord Esq. wrote:I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the U.S. Constitution specifically bans aristocratic titles. Can anyone confirm or deny this?


Sparkles is right. The Constitution only bans the US government from bestowing aristocratic titles to someone. If you get it somewhere else, there is nothing they can do.

DM
"I have looked for you. Now you have come to me. And I thank you." -Pope John Paul II
User avatar
Dragon Master
Merchant
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:30 pm
Location: USA

Postby Azaghal » Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:14 pm

Article I, section 9 of the US Constitution wrote:... 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 Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


Legalise, ackk! :shock:

I'm mostly sure this means that A) the US Government can't bestow titles, and B) an employee of the government can't accept a title (emolument, office, etc.) without Congressional approval. Conflict of interest or something. :D

Regarding people who actually spend money for titles, well, it's their money. I wouldn't spend that much* on a title, but if they want to...

*actually, I'm not sure I'd buy a title at all.
Image
ImageImage
Bricklink store - GabilzaramBricks
User avatar
Azaghal
Man-At-Arms
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:23 pm
Location: Gabilzâram

Postby Dragon Master » Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:24 pm

If I had the $100,000 I would consider purchasing a Barony. Becoming a Scottish Baron has nothing to do with being a noble, it simply means that you own the land, and you get to put a chapeau on your coat of arms. But sadly I'm just a commoner in status adn wealth, so Its unlikely I'll ever purchased one.

DM
"I have looked for you. Now you have come to me. And I thank you." -Pope John Paul II
User avatar
Dragon Master
Merchant
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:30 pm
Location: USA

Postby Blueandwhite » Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:15 pm

Dragonlord Esq. wrote:I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the U.S. Constitution specifically bans aristocratic titles. Can anyone confirm or deny this?


Article 1, Section 9, Clause 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."

No American will ever be addressed as "Sir". For example, Bill Gates was just Knighted for his charitable efforts. Despite his Knighthood, he cannot use the title "Sir".

You poor Americans :P .


Later.
User avatar
Blueandwhite
CC Mascot Maker
 
Posts: 1417
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:12 pm
Location: Bolton, Ontario

Postby kajo163 » Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:46 pm

I think it´s cool that people can still get knighted, and of course the honour should go to the people who deserves it rather than one who can afford it. Noble titles dont make noble people.

What I meant back in my first post from last summer was not the REAL geneolgists that you can pay to get your family history properly charted, but rather people who (on the Internet) sells the service to give you a title and/or your familys "ancient" coat of arms, that stuff is often pure bogus.

I thik a title, be it a noble, academic or political one, is something you should earn, except for royalty of course :)

Joel.
I'm back, and so is Castle!
User avatar
kajo163
Journeyman
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: The Kingdom of Sweden

Postby doctorsparkles » Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:17 pm

Blueandwhite wrote:
Dragonlord Esq. wrote:I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the U.S. Constitution specifically bans aristocratic titles. Can anyone confirm or deny this?


Article 1, Section 9, Clause 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."

No American will ever be addressed as "Sir". For example, Bill Gates was just Knighted for his charitable efforts. Despite his Knighthood, he cannot use the title "Sir".

I'm pretty positive that the section of the Constitution quoted refers to elected officials and possibly goverment employees only (hence "no person holding any office of profit or trust"). Bill Gates is neither, so he can indeed accept any title without Congressional consent (Former Presidents Bush and Reagan, as well as Secretary of State Colin Powell all accepted knighthood with Congressional consent).
Besides, only British recipients are allowed to use the title 'sir' before their names when knighthood is given by the British government. Non-British recipients are allowed to use the suffix 'KBE,' or Knight Commander of the British Empire.
Regardless, titles of nobility have absolutely no bearing in the U.S., but they're great for picking up chicks.
"Always do what you want, and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." ~ Doctor Suess
User avatar
doctorsparkles
Landlord
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 10:42 pm
Location: Medina, Ohio

Postby Blueandwhite » Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:16 pm

doctorsparkles wrote:I'm pretty positive that the section of the Constitution quoted refers to elected officials and possibly goverment employees only (hence "no person holding any office of profit or trust"). Bill Gates is neither, so he can indeed accept any title without Congressional consent (Former Presidents Bush and Reagan, as well as Secretary of State Colin Powell all accepted knighthood with Congressional consent).


I believe you are correct. My appologies. I am not that familiar with your constitution.

Besides, only British recipients are allowed to use the title 'sir' before their names when knighthood is given by the British government.


I believe that any member of the Commonwealth (ie Australia, Canada etc... may also use the title 'sir'.) You must appreciate in Canada, the Queen is also our head of state. Still, it sucks for Bill Gates. I would have loved to see "Sir Gates" on future Microsoft products :P .


Later.
User avatar
Blueandwhite
CC Mascot Maker
 
Posts: 1417
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:12 pm
Location: Bolton, Ontario

Postby Formendacil » Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:24 pm

Blueandwhite wrote:I believe that any member of the Commonwealth (ie Australia, Canada etc... may also use the title 'sir'.) You must appreciate in Canada, the Queen is also our head of state. Still, it sucks for Bill Gates. I would have loved to see "Sir Gates" on future Microsoft products :P .


I'm not sure if this is the case in Canada anymore. At least not with regards to knighthood. I KNOW that Canadians can no longer hold lordships. (Example, R.B. Bennett, our PM back in the 30s, was a Viscount, but Conrad Black had to give up his Canadian citizenship to become Lord Black.)

I'm not positive if this extends to knighthood or not, but I rather suspect that it does. What Canadians do you know of lately that are called "Sir"?
Because everyone needs another LEGO blog to follow:
Grandfather's Tales
User avatar
Formendacil
Knight Templar
Knight Templar
 
Posts: 4189
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Framingham, MA

Postby Blueandwhite » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:38 pm

Formendacil wrote:I'm not sure if this is the case in Canada anymore. At least not with regards to knighthood. I KNOW that Canadians can no longer hold lordships. (Example, R.B. Bennett, our PM back in the 30s, was a Viscount, but Conrad Black had to give up his Canadian citizenship to become Lord Black.)

I'm not positive if this extends to knighthood or not, but I rather suspect that it does. What Canadians do you know of lately that are called "Sir"?


Actually, this is only partially true. There is NO law prohibiting a Canadian from being 'knighted'. Simply put, this convention was passed on motion in 1919(the Nickle motion). This motion prevented further peerage in Canada. In 1935, MacKenzie King (then opposition leader) brought a similar motion dealing with titles (Knight Dame etc.). This is simply parliamentary convention.

Chances are, if you were ever up for a Knighthood, parliament would prohibit you from accepting that honour. If you did recieve your title, you would be able to affix the title "Sir" before your name (Ironically, Former Prime Minister Chretien was up for a knighthood, but he turned it down fearing a backlash after denying Conrad Black peerage).

So IF a Canadian were to receive a knighthood, he would be referred to as "Sir".

For a more detailed explanation, go here


Later.
User avatar
Blueandwhite
CC Mascot Maker
 
Posts: 1417
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:12 pm
Location: Bolton, Ontario

Postby Dragon Master » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:55 pm

It’s a shame how knighthoods are given away nowadays. It seems that it doesn't matter if you are brave, support the king, and are righteous members of society (not to mention other religious, gender, and social class standards). It seems that only the rich and famous get knighthoods now.

I really wish there was a modern way to train for legitimate knighthood, i.e. page @ 7 squire @ 14 Knight @ 21.

Knighthood just doesn't have the meaning it once did, it’s a shame, knights of old would be appalled by some of the people being "knighted" today.

DM
"I have looked for you. Now you have come to me. And I thank you." -Pope John Paul II
User avatar
Dragon Master
Merchant
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:30 pm
Location: USA

Postby Jojo » Fri Mar 04, 2005 7:03 pm

Hello!


Image
(Coat of arms of Emperor Heinrich VI., son of Friedrich I. Barbarossa)

I'm pretty sure many knights in the middle ages didn't deserve the title, either. They did not just rescue virgins in danger, kiss awake beautiful princesses and fight dragons the whole day. They also subjugated their thralls, guzzled the tithe, raped virgins (ius primae noctae) and behaved profane altogether. And that's what peers did all the time. For this there were revolutions every once in a while, because the nobility didn't behave noble. The concept of nobilty served well in the early middle ages but it got corrupted later on. So you should be glad there is no nobility in the US of A.


Image
(Pennant of the German Emperor since 1871)

In Germany there ain't regnant dynasties since 1919. The German and Austrian Nobility had failed, they had lead their peoples into a war that was waged for the emperors' egos alone, and they had lost this war. While e.g. Charlesmagne was able to claim the "divine right" a thousand years later this divine right wasn't sufficient enough to legitimate the regency of an emperor or king. Even less so since the war was lost. After WWI the Emperor abdicated and flew to the Netherlands, and so did the souvereign princes of the German federal states (except they didn't flee to the Netherlands).


Image
(Pennant of the Bundespräsident of the Federal Republik of Germany)

Now we don't have an emperor anymore but we have a president. There are still peers in Germany but they don't have any gouvernmantal function. They kept their titles, though, and the descendants of the last German Emperor still are addressed "imperial higness", but that's it. In Austria even the titles got prohibited. The descendants of the Habsburg dynasty that reigned Germany and Austria for 600 years are addressed "Mr Habsburg" now, not even the "von" = "of" (Robin of Locksley, Richard von Weizsäcker) is allowed. Nobility in Germany now is meaningless, they don't even get invitations to any wedding ceremonies in the surrounding monarchies :-)


Bye
Jojo
 This is just the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.
Winston Churchill
User avatar
Jojo
Master
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 4:26 am
Location: Westfalen

Postby Assassin » Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:21 am

Hey guys, here's absolute proof that they give knighthoods to just about any dork.

Did you see that the "Prince Of Darkness" himself (Bill Gates) has been knighted ? ? ? ? ?
Assassin
Villein
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:01 am
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Medieval Life

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest