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

Thomas Barclay wrote:

>
>While I suspect that in the re-assembled NAC,
>the Americans would still reject the idea of the
>inequality of some citizens by virtue of birthright
>(at least insofar as their right to govern goes),
>this would probably only be an attitude that the
>NAC powers-that-be would work around.

I seriously doubt it.  Sadly, it's so popular to lampoon Americans these

days, no one really takes time to pay attention to what we're really
like. I 
wonder if anyone who holds to the American NAC nobility line actually 
understands just how deeply ingrained in the American psyche is the 
resistance to any sort of imposed perrage/nobility/monarchy.  Good God,
we 
almost rejected our first and arguably most beloved president because
some 
people thought he acted too much like a king.  That's why the official 
address of a US Pres is "Mr. President," not, His Honorness or His 
worshipfulness or some other folderol.

>Remember, the UK is a democracy. There is a
>Queen, but when was the last time she went out
>and declared a war on someone? (It has been
>some time). Canada, while retaining the Queen
>as titular head of state, actually leaves little or
>no place for her in public policy (yes, the
>Governor General basically counts as "little or
>no").

>- Recognizing "Honour Nobles" (Peerages
>granted for service) for what they are - simply
>some people given a minor reward (a modifier
>to their name, a bit of land maybe)

And from where is this land acquired?  Try taking someone's property to
give 
it to Lord Fauntleroy of Denver, and see how fast the buckshot flies. 
Try 
annexing it from a national forest, and you have a whole different set
of 
protesters.

for public
>service (always a good thing to encourage and
>no different than granting land for military
>service, a time honoured tradition).

One not used in America in a LONG time.

>Yes, some former Americans may dislike this.
>Gee, I wonder if the NAC might have insurgent
>movements? Seems likely. American Militias who
>can't abide the idea of a foreign King (even if
>the country really is run by a Prime Minister....)
>but who are fine with families of huge hereditary
>wealth and power (Rockafellers, Fords, etc) or
>who live in a priveledged status due to there
>presence on the TriD (entertainers) or who are
>effectively more powerful than royalty due to
>consolidation of huge amounts of economic
>power in various sectors (Wm. Gates "call me
>Bill", Larry Elison, the head of GE, etc).
>
>And some would stay and fight about it. The
>SAS has, I note, had plenty of practice dealing
>with internal insurgencies.

I'm not talking about insurgent movements.  I'm talking about us ever 
accepting the arrangements in the first place.	Unless of course, the 
"Invitation" to come help end the Civil war was the same kind of 
"Invitation" the Afghans gave the Soviets.  In which case, it would be 
interesting to see the reception for the first Brit troops that attended
the 
party they were "invited" to.  SAS putting down US insurgents is one
thing.	
It would be interesting to see the SAS put down insurgents that included

Rangers, SEALS, Spec. Forces, etc.

And the British have a
>certain talent (fails at times, but far better than
>their peers in this regard) at maintaining a light
>hand in the Colonial power game (

Tell that to Mahatma Gandhi.

contrast with
>France or the Dutch....). And some of the
>former United States citizens who really could
>not abide life in the NAC could either 1) Go join
>the UNSC, 2) Go live in FCT, or 3) Go live on
>some outrim world where they can revive the
>US Constitution, the Republic, and all that stuff.
>Gee, another NAC splinter group.....

Yes, well, apparently even that isn't allowed these days.  Even though
it's 
so very likely, if not certain.

>People can play this however they like, but
>canon shows us: The NAC is still a
>Kingdom/Monarchy. The NAC has absorbed a
>destroyed and torn-down former-American
>republic and has captured and integrated all of
>Central and South America.

Any America so torn down and destroyed would be a nuclear wasteland not 
worth owning to begin with.  That's the only way I see the NAC as canon
has 
it existing.

The only seemingly
>willing (and still whole and structurally sound)
>volunteer was Canada (AFAIK), and that may
>have been as much an acknowledgement of the
>way the winds were blowing and who protects
>who and trades with them as it was any
>idealistic fascination for Monarchy. But I think
>the canon is pretty clear that the NAC is still a
>Monarchy and the US, Canada, and the rest of
>the Americas are now part of that Monarchy.
>
>You are, of course, free to toss this out.

Actually, that's a good idea.

>But if
>you are operating within the strictures of canon,
>you need to look for reasons for why this _will_
>work, rather than will not, because in the canon
>universe, even if it is as likely as a pink flying
>elephant, this IS the situation that exists.
>
>Deal with it. We all know it is an unlikely fiction
>developed by a kindly man with a twisted sense
>of humor who spent too long in his cups (St.
>Jon^3). So what? Now all we have to do if we
>want to rationalize it is find a sufficient
>"justification" (read: thin tissue which papers
>over the obvious and patent unlikelihood of the
>whole thing). I'm sure Russians and Chinese
>would find the ESU about as unlikely. Welcome
>to Silly Games 101. Live with it, or live without it,
>but (to help out Mr. Beast), let us stop railing
>about how unlikely it is. There is no dispute
>there. That was _never_ the question, really....

All of which merely reinforces my sense of urgency in developing a
non-canon 
universe.

Brian B2

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp