It's Good to Be the King ... or Is It?

Back in the good old days, when Richard Nixon was president, commentators often fretted about the rise of the "imperial presidency." Indeed, all the way back to the founding of the Republic, concern over the rise of a king or queen in America - after we'd just fought a war to get rid of one - was widespread, at least among the political classes. Even George Washington was accused of wanting to be a king, although he tried (and succeeded, I would say) to disprove that accusation.

Today, in the seat once occupied by Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, we have Donald Trump - a man with no experience in government and ill-suited by education, experience, background, or temperament to be president*. Indeed, Mr Trump's background as a businessman and CEO probably works against him, as he is used to being able to snap his fingers and make things happen ... as the chief executive of the country, he has to deal with a lot of people and institutions who, when he snaps his fingers, ignore him. He may believe himself to have kingly powers, but that nasty thing called the Constitution keeps getting in his way, much to his frustration.

Is it really good to be the king, as Mel Brooks once alleged in his film, History of the World, Part 1?

In some ways, it probably isn't, at least after a reading of this interesting article by Ruby Buddemeyer from Marie Claire: 50 Strict Rules the Royal Family Has to Follow. I won't bore you with all 50 of the occasionally onerous rules, but these few seem particularly interesting, and I sort them into two general categories - good and bad - in the view of the attitudes and behavior of the present resident of the White House. First, on the bad side:

Members of the royal family are not allowed to express political views. I don't think this is all bad, though ... I just can't see the Queen calling someone a loser.

Members of the royal family are not permitted to play Monopoly. Mr Trump likes to play it with real hotels. I wonder if they can play Risk or Scrabble?

Members of the royal family are not allowed to run for office. This limits career opportunities for lesser members of the family, but when you're already related to the King or Queen, I guess you can live with it.

Members of the royal family are expected to learn multiple languages. Well, that would pretty much disqualify most Americans, who tend to believe everyone should speak English.

And,

Members of the royal family may not use nicknames. I don't know how Mr Trump would be able to talk to people if he couldn't call them crooked, little, lyin', or whatever.

On the plus side, though:

When the Queen stands, everybody stands. I'm sure this would appeal to Mr Trump's sense of pride and dignity.

Men must bow and women curtsey to the King or Queen. It might keep you from being called an idiot or a loser, but I wouldn't count on it.

No public displays of affection, especially while traveling. This would prevent those embarrassing moments when Melania swats away Donald's attempts to hold hands.

And finally,

There's a strict dress code. Members of the royal family are always expected to look well-dressed and dignified, and never wear casual dress in public. This would certainly appeal to Mr Trump, who invariably wears a suit** and his wife, who has a beautiful wardrobe.

So, is it good to be the king? I suppose that's a question each king must answer for himself ... although on balance, I guess it would be nice most of the time***.

Have a good day. More royal thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* You may recall one-time Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr's, description of Franklin Roosevelt as a man with "a second-class intellect but a first-class temperament." One wonders how he would describe Mr Trump.

** Although there would probably have to be a rule requiring the bottom end of neckties to reach no lower than the knees.

*** Especially if you could send your political opponents to the rack when they crossed you.

Acknowledging the American Aristocracy

We all know there's no such thing as an American aristocracy, right? Unlike, say, England, we do not have kings, queens, dukes, earls*, counts, barons, viscounts, lords, ladies, princes, or whatever. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution spells it out pretty clearly -

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States..."

Less clear is the rest of that section, the much-cited and disputed "emoluments clause," which goes on to state that -

"... 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."

We won't talk about the emoluments issue here ... that's a topic for another post. For the time being, let's just talk about whether or not we have an American aristocracy.

Hint: the answer is yes.

Of course, we don't call our betters by hifalutin' titles like people with official aristocracies do. We have a president, not a king, although Donald Trump seems not to comprehend the difference. The American aristocracy is based not on a happy accident of birth, but on a combination of wealth, success in business, and political influence (which is often an outgrowth of the first two). American aristocratic families, albeit without formal titles, include the Rockefellers, the Astors, the Kennedys, the Clintons, and the Roosevelts. We even have an American court jester, although at the moment he doubles as the president, and not everyone thinks he's funny.

But let's consider this: why don't we just go ahead and acknowledge that there really is an American aristocracy? After all, it seems to work for our British cousins and, Constitutional restrictions notwithstanding, it seems as if we might as well go ahead and accept reality. I propose the following Constitutional amendment to rectify the problem:

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution is deleted and replaced with the following: "Titles of Nobility may be granted by the United States or by the several States as acknowledgement of achievement in business or finance, significant accumulation of wealth, or great political influence from whatever source derived. Persons bearing titles of nobility shall be exempt from laws governing taxation, conflict of interest in government service, and transparency of records and actions in public service.**"

Section 2.
The following officers of the federal government shall hold the indicated Titles of Nobility:

The President of the United States shall henceforth hold the title “King” or “Queen,” and be addressed as “Your Majesty.”***

The Vice President of the United States shall henceforth hold the title “Grand Duke” or “Grand Duchess,” and be addressed as, “Your Highness.”

Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall henceforth hold the title “Lord” or “Lady,” and be addressed as “Your Lordship” or “Your Ladyship.” In writing, they shall be addressed as “The Right Honorable _____” (for Republicans), “The Left Honorable _____” (for Democrats), and “The Halfway Honorable” (for Independents).

Cabinet Members other than the Secretary of the Treasury shall henceforth hold the title “Lord” or "Lady," and be addressed as “Your Lordship/Ladyship.”

Justices of the Supreme Court shall have the title of “Lord” or "Lady," and be addressed as “The High and Honorable Justice _____”. The Chief Justice shall be addressed as “The Most High and Honorable Justice _____.”

Section 3.
Other titles of nobility to be applied to lesser positions in the federal government shall be decided and bestowed by the incumbent President, except for the Director of the Bureau of the Census, who shall henceforth hold the title "Count" or "Countess," and be addressed as "Your Lordship/Ladyship the Most High Enumerator."^†

Section 4.
Family members of individuals bearing titles of nobility, who have been appointed by their parents or siblings to government positions, shall henceforth hold a title appropriate to the position. If they are appointed to a position for which no title has been established, the family member who appointed them shall select an appropriate title.

Section 5.
Individual States, Cities, Counties, Parishes, or other political subdivisions of the United States may establish their own Titles of Nobility.

Section 6.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This takes care of the issue of aristocracy in government, but what about the need for an aristocracy that recognizes the political and economic disparities among other Americans? This one's a little harder, but I have (as you would suspect) a few suggestions:

CEOs of major corporations would hold titles based on the economic worth of their holdings, with "Lord" or "Lady" being the top tier.

Heads, presidents, or directors of major political and national special interest organizations would hold the rank of Lord. The heads of the Republican and Democratic National Committees would be addressed, like Senators and Representatives, as "His/Her Lordship/Ladyship the Right/Left Honorable _____" (depending on the party to which they belong). Heads of national special interest organizations would be addressed according to the focus of their organization. For example, the head of the National Rifle Organization might hold the title Lord High Master of Arms, and be addressed as "Lord/Lady the Most High Caliber _____."

I think it's time we recognized and accepted the existence of an American aristocracy, and I believe my suggestions are a good start toward that recognition and acceptance. What do you think? Should we use the same aristocratic titles as other countries (kings, queens, lords, etc) or come up with some that are uniquely American, particularly at the state level? Leave a comment and let's get your ideas.

Have a good day, and be comfortable with the title you will always hold under any system - "serf."

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Although we do, of course, have a Duke of Earl, a King of the Road, and a Queen of the Silver Dollar.

** Mr Trump has already made this a fait accompli, so we might as well live with it.

*** A transgendered incumbent would be permitted to choose his or her title.

† It just seems more appropriate.

And You Thought Your Job Was Terrible

We all like to complain about our jobs from time to time. Of course, in times like these, when we're lucky just to have jobs, it doesn't make a lot of sense to complain, but we do it anyway. Some jobs leave us with more to complain about than others ... Mike Rowe introduced us to many of them on his show "Dirty Jobs," which you may have seen on the Discovery Channel. There are not many jobs he tried on that show that I'd want to do, I can tell you.

Now I am, as you know, a history buff, and am fascinated by the ways in which we used to do things in the so-called "good old days." And if you think we have some pretty nasty jobs nowadays, you can thank your lucky stars that you weren't seeking employment in medieval times, where there were jobs that gave new meaning to the term yucky.

Not long ago, in reading an article about the lives of royalty in medieval England, I learned about one of the least attractive jobs I can imagine having: that of the "Groom of the King's Close Stool" (or just "Groom of the Stool" for short) - a position on the royal support staff created during the reign of King Henry VIII to monitor and assist with the king's bowel movements. The word stool referred to the portable commode which accompanied the royal personage at all times, along with water, towels and a wash basin. The Groom of the Stool was responsible for maintaining the stool and providing water, towels, and other supplies needed by the king for the comfortable and timely evacuation of his bowels. The Groom also monitored the king’s diet and mealtimes for maximum efficiency of his bowel movements, and his (the Groom’s) day was organized around his predictions of the royal poops.

The Royal Stool

Oddly enough from our perspective today, the job tended to be coveted because of the … um … close access it afforded the incumbent to the king, and the position often went to the young sons of noblemen or members of the landed gentry. Grooms of the Stool sometimes moved on other jobs in the royal household which afforded better pay and benefits.

The position of Groom of the Stool (later known as Groom of the Stole, perhaps because it looked better on resumes) existed until it was abolished by King Edward VII in 1901.

And you complain about your job.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo