Stephie Pahlavi Zan
My esteemed friends and colleagues, please allow that I begin quickly and briefly by first introducing nobility, as nobility and Royalty are much related there is a distinction between the two designations it is very prudent of me to make.
The term ‘nobility’ is used in two ways. The general usage in Europe for example, is where knights, earls, and younger children of 'peers' are included. In Great Britain, nobility in a restricted sense is applied only to the aforesaid peers and their wives and often their offspring too.
So I am pointing toward particular ranks of society, termed 'nobility', and I refer to those who originally did enjoy certain hereditary privileges, the wealth of nobility being mostly accrued from their ownership of land. In many societies until here in the twenty-first century, nobility did provide the requisite elite personnel of government and also the military. In Great Britain, there exists a very long line of nobility to scrutinize. During this present time members of the ‘peerage
Throughout the countries of Europe, the proof of nobility (sometimes named ‘gentility’) is and please allow me to offer a definition: ‘Lawful possession of armorial bearings, or paternal descent from an ancestor who the crown has ennobled by such a grant or recognized as already noble’.
Let me say in addition that nobility has been regarded as a sign of owning as many types of superiority as there are, thus have become useful political tools and conferrment as rewards for certain services rendered. Yes, it is so.
The early Roman Patriciate for example, was comprised of who were thought to be descendants of Romulus, the founder of Rome itself, thus from very early in the history of Rome certain very important offices were always given to a Patrician and no other.
In the case of the Republic of Venice, the nobility emerged via a commercial plutocracy and gradually engulfed and kept hold of all political power in the Republic.
Let me just return to the English nobility and to the Middle Ages and to say that nobility was essentially feudal and military and grounded in the foundations of landed property, its origins were in the relationship between lord and vassal and by which the lord, in return for the allegiance and military services of his vassal, awarded land and guarantees of protection from attack.
Permit me to say the English baronial nobility was at odds in certain respects from the nobility of the rest of Europe. With the English, one member only (the eldest son or next heir) of a family was deemed to be noble in the sense of being a member of the peerage. In the case of European nobility the whole kin of certain families enjoyed privileges from the fact of their emergemce from an oligarchic aristocracy.
The present day nobility of England looks like the old feudal nobility only in that it might still own land estates and for the rest it comprises an assorted body of peers, some of whom own patents entitling them to sit in the governmental House of Lords and some who do not, and baronets and knights, the great majority of whom possess titles of more recent creation and awarded for political or other public services. Only a few of the existing English peerages reach back to before the era of William Pitt the Younger (Prime Minister between 1783 and 1806).
In England, noble emphasis has been laid on lineal descent fixed firmly to wealth and intense training in the 'public' (elite private) school system. In Scotland and elsewhere in Europe less importance has been attached to ‘proof of nobility’ (16 quarterings, ie. 16 noble great-great-grandparents, or 8 noble great-grandparents) which the individual should be able to display. In other words, the continental nobility attempted a continuation of itself as a privileged caste, a fact that brought it into direct conflict with the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The English system has been to take care of the peers and their immediate children as 'high nobility' and to allow their children to acquiesce into the middle class stratum of society.
During the period of later feudalism a new hierarchy emerged within the nobility in feudal absolutist nations. The authority and significance of the court aristocracy increased and the nobility was reinforced by new members from the bourgeoisie. (In France a distinction was drawn between the ‘noblesse de la robe’, or new nobility, and the ‘noblesse de l’épée’, or old nobility.)
The ridding of the nobility as a privileged status and the cessation of its political supremacy were among the ambitions of the French bourgeois revolution as you know. The nobility was, however, able to keep some of its privileges, especially where the consolidation of the capitalist system had occurred without a radical breakdown of the old regime and the bourgeoisie had agreed to some kind of compromise with the old ruling class. The noble privileges such as for example, the caste nature of the army, leadership of the political controlling apparatus, the diplomatic corps and noble titles survived for an especially long time. In Great Britain’s agrarian system the monopoly in land owned by the aristocratic ruling class became the foundation for 'landlordism'.
Among the Oriental countries the clearest class differentiation of the nobility took place in Japan (the daimyo and samurai).
Please allow that I now introduce Royalty as being the highest class of all, in fact the uppermost of the upper class. Royals transcend class status, yes they do, because their position is not at all dependent on the same economic trends . Not only are Royals usually extremely wealthy, they are intrinsically bound to the government of the country in which they reside. Royals may rule the country, they may perform in its legislative process, or simply perform ceremonial duties. Royals may even be considered a part of the country itself.
It is the case that different countries have their own individual ways of deciding who is Royalty and who is not so adorned. One of the most common accusations made against Royalty is that they are out of time, but the fact that so many Royal houses continue to exist into our century has to be demonstration of their
flexibility.
Allow me to explain that each country employs a different method for deciding who is to become King or Queen. Often it is the elder male heir to the former King who receives the crown. This is referred to by the term 'agnatic succession' and is the current practice in Japan. Other countries allow female heirs to take the crown. In certain nations several potential heirs may be qualified, for example all male children. A 'committee of nobles' then elects the next King, thus choosing the most suitable.
When a line ceases to exist and there is no suitable heir , the rules and procedures in place can be disregarded. The one eventually taking the crown might not be who owns the most distinct bloodline, but the person who successfully navigates the surrounding and often turbulent political context.
In certain cases Royalty is merely comprised of members of a ruling family who are Royalty to begin with and every single other person other than they is deemed to be a 'commoner'. There may be others with royal titles such as duke, earl and so forth but they are not deemed Royal.
In certain countries there may be several Royal families, referred as ‘houses’. They might all be considered Royal even though only one family is in line for the crown. If no one in the current line meets the requirements one of the other royal families could lay claim to the crown. Needless to say there have been countless succession conflicts fought over the centuries. Problemmatic are those times when no viable heir was around to inherit the crown when the King dies.
At the top of the royal hierarchy sits the King and Queen, who may alternately be called Emperor and Empress. Relatives of the King and Queen in line to take the crown at a future time are usually known as ‘princes’ and ‘princesses’. This group can include siblings, children and grandchildren, or even cousins. The specifics vary from one country to the next, depending on the country's rules of succession.
Allow me to state that a Prince is not necessarily the male son of a King. The designation is also used as a generic term for a person of Royal blood.
It is the case that during the past, Royals enjoyed far more political authority than they do now though there are exceptions. The King was the head of the country, commander of the military, law maker, appointer of officials and in general did govern over the nation. However, a monarch's power was usually not absolute because other nobles, as well as church officials if there was a state church (and there usually was one), met regularly with the King to advise him, deliver their grievances and so on. The King could do whatever he chose to do, though doing so incurred a balancing act. The lesser nobles, as discussed earlier, usually had their own private armies and were also responsible for collecting taxes in their part of the kingdom. If the King alienated these nobles and lost their patronage, they could upset the status quo and to a great extent. This is what lead to the English Civil War and the temporary collapse of the British monarchy under King Charles I.
The political responsibilities of lesser nobles were eventually made more formal. The regular meetings of dukes and bishops in England did evolve into what is now referred to as the House of Lords and, as I said, constitutes the upper house of the British government. Even today, the House of Lords is made up of several dozen hereditary nobles and a large number of life peers who are appointed by HM the Queen.
What then might one justifiably ask is a 'pretender'? I mean a pretender to the crown? I will explain that a pretender is not a false King, though there have been examples. A pretender is one who lays claim to ownership of a crown but does not hold it, ie. because another already holds it (falsely so, in the pretender's opinion). It could be because a Royal Family has been kicked out and that country no longer has a monarchy. These claims may be substantiable but still, the defunct King is unable to hold the crown and everything that goes with it.
Many sovereigns now form part of 'constitutional monarchies', ie. a form of government in which they are officially recognized and given limited and varying amounts of political power. The Emperor of Japan enjoys hardly any political power (mostly ceremonial) and is subject to approval. The Queen of England enjoys greater power than the Emperor of Japan though in practice she is a figurehead. HM the Queen consults with both the Prime Minister and with Parliament before making appointments or signing laws into effect. The Queen is the head of state, representing the British nation at special functions.
Canada is an example where the power of a Queen is diluted. Canada exists as a separate constitutional monarchy from Great Britain, but by agreement with Britain, Canada's succession rules are the same so they will always have the same Queen. Australia is part of this very same agreement. HM Queen Elizabeth II is not Empress of a worldly ‘British Empire’, rather, she is simultaneously Queen of England, Australia and Canada and to a variety of other, smaller territories. This reaches back to the time when Canada was a part of the British Empire and the British crown did then rule Canada. The Canadian constitution places HM the Queen as head of state, thereby all Canadian laws must be approved by her. In practice her appointed governor acts as representative and whatever decisions are made by the Canadian parliament are never opposed. HM the Queen employs virtually no political authority over Canada.
Jordan is a constitutional monarchy and it has to be said that the King of Jordan enjoys an amount of political power akin to that of the President of The United States and as is the case in the USA, the King of Jordan appoints judges and signs laws into effect and can also be overruled by Jordan's legislative body, the National Assembly.
One might ponder whether Royals do enjoy extravagant lifestyles by owning opulent palaces with servants on hand to cater for their every requirement? One might also imagine striking country manor houses, luxury cars, yachts, jewel
encrusted head attire and the best custom made clothes. Well, I have to say that if you do imagine this, it turns out you are mostly correct. The lives of Royalty are indeed, extremely privileged, although the Royals of the Scandinavian countries are known for a more basic life style than the rest. The Royals of Great Britain certainly do their bit to keep up the Royal reputation for absolutely splendid lifestyles.
Why is this? Let's have examples. Queen Elizabeth II together with her family and entourage frequently take vacations on board the royal yacht, Britannia which is one of, if not the, most opulent and large yachts in the world. It takes six tons of luggage on a sailing and in excess of 300 domestics and crew. If they feel like a vacation and want to travel over land the English royal family can ensconse at Balmoral, a country house which in sooth comprises a 56,000 acre estate. Buckingham Palace, in the heart of the city of London, is a 260 bedroom 'house' needing in excess of 400 domestics. In addition there is also Windsor Castle, which is HM Queen Elizabeth II’s opulent 660 room family retreat.
There is more opulence, yes! This is because the Middle Eastern monarchies are capable of much, much, much. Brunei for example, is home to the largest palace in the entire world, brandishing 1,700 rooms. The ‘throne room’ is adorned in solid gold of the highest caliber and the 16 ceiling chandeliers cost $1 million each
It is expected that modern royal children are educated at the world’s best and most exclusive private schools, however this was not always the case. During the past there were examples of royal families being spoon fed and their children discouraged from doing anything deemed ‘work’, including becoming educated. This resulted in quite a few Kings taking control of a nation even though barely literate, without any military training and with at best, a very meager comprehension of requisite economic and fiscal matters.
While all monarchs relied on advisers to some extent, those who took the crown while still very young were assisted in their tasks by ‘regents’. Regents could act as advisers, or they could act as governors representing the crown until the rightful King came of age, ie. was sufficiently mature to be taken seriously.
Let’s just take a moment to look at Royal behavior during this present time because it is interesting for what it reveals. Very recently German tabloids featured a story regarding the British Prince Harry and his attending a party dressed as a Nazi Officer. The British media are notorious for reporting Royal behavior in its entirety. Thus the ‘sucking of toes photograph’ attributed to the then Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson now very much a former member of the British Royal Family. (She was married to Queen Elizabeth II's second son, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, from 1986 to 1996). Diana Spencer was also shown in the British tabloid press during compromising sexual moments. There is also speculation regarding the red haired Prince Harry with regard to the identity of his biological father.
Royals are often referred to as being ‘blue bloods’. Yes! This has been because for centuries European Royal families have married almost exclusively in an effort to protect their bloodline and keep them ‘pure.’ These family trees have become very intricate and marrying into different royal families has not helped because not only were other families inbred too, but the families had intermarried to such an extent that the same genetic predispositions that accrue from intermarriage had been passed on for generations.
The British Queen Victoria did actually pass on an inclination toward hemophilia to her later generations of British royals.
What has been the impact of Royal behavior? Well, Royal MIS-behavior has
been dealt with most harshly and during the French Revolution as you must know. The behavior of Royals cannot be blamed on genetics alone, obviously. Even when sane and healthy, Royals can become embroiled in very bad decision making indeed. Thus modern Royal scandals can appear trivial to us when being compared to the scandals of the past. King Henry VIII banished his wife of 20 years, then proceeded to have several more wives beheaded in public display only after incarcerating them in the infamous Tower of London.
Modern Royalty has its own scandals of course. The British Princess Diana and husband Prince Charles suffered rumors of infidelity and saw their marriages fragment and fall to pieces while under heavy public scrutiny. In Belgium, a more recent scandal has begun erupting, because Prince Laurent was subpoenaed to testify in a fraud case. It is being alleged that the Prince and his close associates actually swindled the Belgian military for over two million euros and to finance Laurent’s lavish lifestyle.
Certain Royal stories are very tragic affairs. Diana spencer's death in Paris due to an automobile accident was the biggest news story of this century. The talented and beautiful American movie star Grace Kelly became Princess Grace of Monaco when in 1956 she married Prince Rainier. In 1982 she was killed when losing control of her sports car while driving on the winding highway into Monaco.
Please allow that I continue to focus upon one certain living monarch, Elizabeth II because we all know of her. Elizabeth, born in 1926, is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, other realms and territories and Head of the Commonwealth. Elizabeth became Queen in 1952 upon the death of her father, King George VI. She was then barely 26 years of age.
Elizabeth ascended to the throne during a precarious time for Great Britain because since the end of World War II Britain had granted whole or partial freedom to many of its Colonies of The Empire, certain of which became voluntary members of what subsequently is known as the Commonwealth of Nations. Their only subsequent tie with Great Britain was in their allegiance to the Crown and which Elizabeth represented. Her assignment thus became one of holding and consolidating that loyalty. In doing this, Elizabeth has actually traveled the world more than any monarch in history to meet with the people of The Commonwealth.
It was Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary who was born in London on April 21, 1926. She was the first child of the Duke of York. Elizabeth’s father became George VI in 1936 upon the abdication of his famous (or somewhat infamous) brother, Edward VIII. From an early age Elizabeth, because she was the ‘Heiress Apparent’ was trained and disciplined in all the requisite duties of Royalty.
Princess Elizabeth and her younger sister, Margaret Rose, were educated by a Scottish governess, Marion Crawford, who later wrote about the royal sisters in the book, The Little Princesses (1950). Tutors taught Elizabeth German and French. Elizabeth was a serious student and, when 13 years old, began training in constitutional history with a specialist from the elite, Eton College. She became an active member of the Sea Rangers and of the Girl Guides (The British equivalent of the Girl Scouts of America). During World War II, Elizabeth served in London as a military vehicle mechanic and driver in The Auxiliary Services. At 18 she was empowered to replace her father in The Council of State when necessary and she first served as such during 1944 while King George was inspecting British forces stationed at the Italian front.
In 1947 Elizabeth was married to a distant cousin, Prince Philip of Greece, a descendant of HM Queen Victoria. (Philip had become a British subject after World War II and had taken his mother's family name of Mountbatten). Elizabeth's first child, Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, was born on November 14, 1948. A daughter, Princess Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise, was born on August 15, 1950.
During the late 1940’s and with Philip, Elizabeth toured several European and Commonwealth countries. Following a tour of Canada in 1951, the couple visited the US President, Harry S. Truman in Washington, D.C.
Please allow that I say a little about the coronation because it exists as a historical landmark in our subject of Royalty. On January 31, 1952, Elizabeth and Philip left Gt. Britain to tour Australia and New Zealand. On 6
As reigning Queen, Elizabeth continued her tours to the countries of The Commonwealth, including Fiji, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and Uganda. In June, 1959, she and Philip traveled to Canada. With US President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Elizabeth dedicated the St. Lawrence Seaway. This one assignment in the United States was completed in Chicago, at the western end of the seaway.
Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward was born February 19, 1960, and Prince Edward Antony Richard Louis was born March 10, 1964.
In 1969 Elizabeth severed with the tradition of privacy in regard to the domestic life of Britain's Royalty by allowing a movie to be made showing the informal activities of herself, her husband, and their children. The movie, titled, ‘Royal Family’, was broadcast by television in England and elsewhere.
Throughout the 1960's, the 1970's, and the 1980's, Elizabeth continued to tour The Commonwealth countries and other parts of the world. In 1976 Elizabeth and Philip visited The United States during its Bicentennial. In 1977 Britain celebrated Elizabeth's Silver Jubilee, her 25th anniversary as Queen. In 1979, Elizabeth, accompanied by Philip, toured the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. In 1982 she and Philip traveled to Canada, where she announced The Constitution Act, which removed the remaining vestiges of British political authority in Canada. In 1986, while in Australia, she proclaimed a similar act appertaining to that country. Also in 1986, Elizabeth became the first British monarch to visit communist China.
During the early 1990's, as I said earlier and following the marital problems of Elizabeth's children, the Royal Family received a wide amount of
adverse publicity and it has to be said that support for the monarchy became weakened as a result. In 1992 Elizabeth removed the names of several family members from the ‘civil list’, a list of people who receive public money. In addition and during that year, she volunteered to pay income tax on her own considerable personal income.
Please allow that I very briefly in my summation look at my own country, Iran, the native name for Persia.
It was during 1935 that The Shah (I refer to The King), Riza Khan Pahlavi, insisted the country be named ‘Iran.’
At the outbreak of World War II, Iran announced its neutrality, however the Shah was widely believed to be pro-Nazi. The Allies feared Germany might seize Iran's considerable oil resources and concurrent with this fear, a logistic route to the Soviet Union was badly needed. In 1941 the militaries of Great Britain and the Soviet Union attacked Iran, quickly overcoming resistance. The Shah abdicated in favor of Crown Prince Mohammed Riza Pahlavi. American troops entered Iran in 1942. The Allies made the Trans-Iranian Railway a major logistic route to the Soviet Union. During 1943, Iran declared war on Germany, and Allied leaders Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met in the Iranian capitol, Tehran.
It was at the end of the war that Iran became one of the first areas of cold war conflict because the Soviet Union, which had set up a secessionist regime in the province of Azerbaijan, refused to withdraw troops it had stationed there. Pressure from The United Nations finally resulted in the troops being removed in 1946. Iranian forces then moved into Azerbaijan, putting an end to the secessionist attempt.
In 1951 Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry. In 1953 he forced the Shah into exile but within a week was overthrown by the Shah's supporters. The Shah, who previously had been little more than a figurehead, then began to exercise his authority to a fuller extent.
It was during the 1960's, that the Shah introduced wide-ranging economic, political and social reforms. Huge estates were divided up and the land distributed to the ‘peasants’. New programs helped develop industry, improve health conditions, provide more educational opportunities and thus considerably increase prosperity. Women were given the right to enjoy equal rights with men. During 1961 to 1963 opposition to these reforms led the Shah to suspend parliamentary government in order to suppress all the opposition.
During 1967, with prosperity increasing and political stability restored, the Shah allowed himself to be formally crowned and so, 26 years following his accession to the throne. The 2,500th anniversary of the founding of The Persian Empire was celebrated in 1971, 10 years after the actual anniversary date.
During the 1970's, large increases in oil prices made it possible for the Shah to accelerate the modernization of Iran and to build up the country's military strength on an absolutely huge scale.
It was during 1978 that protests over the Shah's rule began to boil. Much of the opposition came from the conservative religious leaders, led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had opposed modernization because it was, according to him, contrary to traditional Islamic ways. Many opponents, however, some of them socialists and Communists, demanded a more equal distribution of wealth and an end to dictatorial rule.
During 1979 the Shah lost the support of the army and his regime immediately collapsed. He went into exile and the Ayatollah Khomeini became supreme ruler of Iran. When the Shah visited The United States for medical treatment in October, 1979, militants seized the American embassy in Tehran and its personnel, demanding the United States turn over the Shah in exchange for the release of the hostages. The United States refused and a diplomatic crisis ensued. In July 1980, the Shah died of natural causes however the hostages were not released until January, 1981.
In September 1980, neighboring Iraq invaded Iran in an attempt to regain border territory it had relinquished during 1975. Seven years later and after Iran had driven Iraqi forces out of most of the invaded territory, the war turned into a impasse. In 1988 the two nations conceded to a cease-fire and a tentative peace settlement in 1990.
Khomeini died in 1989. He left the country in the hands of other conservative religious leaders, like himself. Thus very little changed politically until 1997 when a religious ‘moderate’ Seyed Mohammad Khātamī, an Iranian scholar and politician was elected president by a large majority.
In 2004, conservatives regained control of the Majlis in parliamentary elections after The Council of Guardians had disqualified many reformist candidates. In 2005, voters elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was the mayor of Tehran and a political conservative, as president. In 2005, as in 2004, the Council of Guardians had disqualified large numbers of reformist candidates before the election took place.
It has to be said that during the early twenty-first century, tensions rose between Iran and other countries, especially The United States. The US government accused Iran of supporting terrorism and seeking to develop and own nuclear weapons. Subsequently Iran did deny the accusations. In 2003, United Nations (UN) atomic energy inspectors began touring Iran in order to try and ascertain the form of the country's nuclear program. The inspectors criticized Iran for concealing certain nuclear activities. In 2004, under international pressure, Iran agreed to suspend its enrichment of uranium, one of the steps involved in preparing uranium for use as a nuclear fuel. Also in 2005, during talks with France, Germany, and Gt. Britain, Iran announced that it would resume nuclear fuel work. In December, 2006, the Security Council passed a resolution banning Iran from trading nuclear-related materials and the following year imposed additional economic sanctions on Iran because of its continued enrichment of uranium.
Please allow that I now conclude on a humorous note! I will quickly go back in history and return to England because the country owns a longer line of nobles and royals than do others and many of them were alive long before countries such as The United States came into existence.
Allow me to introduce Godiva, who as the serious history books have it, was Lady, the wife of Leofric, the 11th century English earl of Mercia and lord of Coventry. (Remember that I introduced nobles as tax collectors among other responsibilities). According to legend of that country, Leofric's taxes were so very burdensome on the poor people of the city of Coventry that Godiva begged him incessantly to remit them. He consented but with the provision that she ride on horseback, naked and astride through the town. Godiva accepted and rode through the town as promised on horseback. In certain versions of the story, the townspeople were asked to remain indoors with their shutters closed during the occasion of her ride because seeing female nobility in the nude was not the done thing. Only one person, it is said, a maker of clothes, a pervert, since known as ‘Peeping Tom,’ looked out at her voluptuous naked body. (Who wouldn't?) The man was immediately struck blind.
th February and during a brief sojourn in Kenya, King George died during his sleep. Elizabeth returned to England, and on February 8 was proclaimed as Queen. She declared that she, her children, and their descendants would retain the name Windsor. Philip kept the name Mountbatten. (However, in 1960, Elizabeth announced that any of her descendants not bearing the title ‘Royal Highness’ would be surnamed ‘Mountbatten-Windsor’.) On 2nd June 1953 at Westminster Abbey, Elizabeth's coronation was held amidst much extravagant splendor.
Stephie Pahlavi Zan
