RE: Nobility.... or not....

<<But as someone else has said the land belongs to the person, not the
title. >>

I beg to disagree, your honour.  With hereditary peerages, the eldest
son
(may be eldest child in these enlightened times) usually gains the
estate
with the title on his father's death. Of course, with death duties being
what they are, these may well be some attempt to offset these by the
Earl,
Baron, Duke or whatever passing control of some of the estate over
before
his death (good experience if nothing else); however the title itself
cannot
be transferred in this way.

Life peerages (the only sort that get handed out these days) only lasts
for
the lifetime of the person it is given to and the children do not
inherit
it.

Cheers,
   Iain.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of WJAL21@aol.com
  Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 2:40 PM
  To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
  Subject: 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

  .