Sure there’s the general problem of the rose of authoritarianism and populist authoritarianism. That’s really a different issue on my view than a constitutional creation of hereditary authority. Here are the thoughts of an American who has recently become a British citizen on questions touching on that matter: https://youtu.be/-ZNgODGw39s
This always confuses me - the Baron’s were the guys who forced Prince/King John to sign the Magna Carta, so in my mind’s instinctive ordering they are the most powerful/highest rank. I guess new ranks were created after that time so that Baron Greenback became Earl Greenback and could lord it over the mere Barons?
Earls existed in King John’s time, and were above barons, but they were generally expected to side with the King. The leader of the rebel barons was Simon de Monfort, Earl of Leicester.
The first Dukes were created by Edward III, a century later.
The problem is the morphing of the meaning of the word baron. It in the early 13th century it was not the precise hierarchical rank it represents in today’s peerage. Back then the baronage was a more general term for the nobility and included “greater barons” like the earls. So among the “barons” in rebellion against the king were figures like the earls of Winchester, Norfolk and Essex.
And it’s been used in modern times, usually disparagingly, as a metaphor for people with power - “trades union barons” was a regular trope in the rightwing papers.
Also for the other side, at least here, where "Industriebarone, “industry barons”, still is used sometimes by the rather left-leaning segment of the press. It’s barons all the way down…
Queens consort have always held a unique standing in English law. For example she was the only married woman in the realm not subject to coverture. This was later held to apply to queens regnant out of necessity as when Mary I came to the throne.
Likewise the late Elizabeth, Countess of Sutherland, and Diana, Countess of Erroll. When the latter’s son, Merlin Moncreiffe, inherited her titles, he changed his surname to Hay.
I don’t know enough about Scots heraldic law to say, but one difference between Scottish peerages like Mar, Erroll, and Sutherland, is that the holders are also chiefs of clans, legally-recognized offices in British law. And the Lyon Court, which regulates such things, has long held that women can succeed to chiefships.
I like it:
God save the King!
I’m puzzled why the crown in Charles III’s cypher looks different from the one in Elizabeth II’s, as per your linked article. Hers has those bendy, um, arches extending from the band to the top, while the arches on his are just simple curves. Does that mean that his official royal crown is actually a different object from the one she wore, or did the artist just decide to change up the picture a bit?
Personal choice.
Chuck is using the Tudor Crown:
Liz liked the St Edward’s Crown:
Carolus Rex
“Arches” is in fact the correct term.
Yeah, I looked it up and was surprised that what I was fuzzily thinking of as “arches” and a head “band” are actually the technical terms for those parts.
So ERII had a stylized picture of the actual crown in her cypher and CRIII is using a design that symbolizes the crown without depicting an actual physical crown. (blinks) I think I got it.
And in Scotland it will use their crown
The Tudor crown was an actual, physical crown, until it was destroyed.
(blinks again) Ah, I see, thanks. Wow, that Cromwell.
Say what you will about him, he really knew the value of a strong brand image.
Combine that with lines like “Warts and all” and “I conjure you in the bowels of Christ, consider you may be mistaken”, we can only conclude that he would have been an absolute top-grade social media poster. In this essay I will…
No one did branding better than the Nazis.
I’ve always wondered why they put fabric (I’m assuming velvet from the look) in the crown of, er, the crown. Is it to make it warmer for the wearer? Does it make the jewels sparkle more? Or?