Re: Nobility.... or not....

In a message dated 03/12/01 03:59:23 GMT Standard Time, 
johnmatkinson@yahoo.com writes:

> > > Always honorary.	You can't knight an American,
> > nor
> > > make him a baron et al without revoking his
> > > citizenship.  
> > 
> > And that's all the titles really are in the UK,
> > honorary.
> 
> That depends.  There's more than a few that are tied
> to some seriously sick chunks of land.

But as someone else has said the land belongs to the person, not the
title. 
And as far as I am aware America has no problem with inheriting
money/land.
Someone suggested handing out pockets of land with titles, and while
this 
obviously doesn't happen at present, there is no reason that a few acres
of a 
new world being colonised couldn't be given to a retiring officer to set
up 
home on. It ensures you have loyal citizens on planet, able to set up a 
reserve in case of invasion.
Contrary to one persons suggestion I have no urge to stomp all over 
Americans, and poke fun at them.
I'm just looking at some of the side effects of the NAC being a 
constitutional monarchy. I think honorary titles (which are not
hereditary) 
gives a little bit more to the background.
As has also been pointed out the monarch does not control the country,
they 
act as a figurehead that is a constant through changes in political 
leadership, and direction. And a rallying point in times of national
trouble.
John Atkinson said something I liked the sound of in relation to
military 
unit history. 

> Seriously, it's hard to explain.  Except that history,
> lineage, traditions, and honors are emphasised so much
> that you can't help it.  Rather like family--I might
> pick on a guy in my platoon, but damned if I'll let
> anyone else do so.  
> 
> 

Now put that on the scale of the NAC, and that's what I'm trying to put 
across about "Honours"
And of course if you don't like it you don't have to use it.

John Law

.