Nobility and "The Crown"

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

No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility

Titles of nobility were so disfavored that in 1810 (note: before the War of 1812) the Congress passed amendment that held that accepting or merely retaining such a title (or any present etc., but this time without congressional approval) would result in stripping of one's citizenship.  The amendment is technically still pending.  On that front, the ERA remarkably might be one state away (if the last two states ratified count so far after the original time limit passed; which I believe they should not -- see that thread).

Dignities and high sounding names have different effects on different beholders. The lustre of the Star and the title of My Lord, over-awe the superstitious vulgar, and forbid them to inquire into the character of the possessor: Nay more, they are, as it were, bewitched to admire in the great, the vices they would honestly condemn in themselves. This sacrifice of common sense is the certain badge which distinguishes slavery from freedom; for when men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.

Thomas Paine, who made a potshot regarding the source of the British monarchy in his Common Sense,  suggests the length of distaste some have (and still have) regarding a special nobility as compared to an equal citizenship. There continues to be various means to differentiate classes of people in this country, de facto "nobilities" still a thing. We also use various labels and ranks (including use of even honorary military ranks in civilian contexts, down to even referring to the Attorney General as "General").

It can be debated how horrible this is, especially if (as is even the case in the UK now in some cases, such a Sir. Paul McCartney) the labels are earned.  The problem involved in the Nobility Clauses concerns traditional nobility, hereditary especially, with special rights and privileges above and beyond what a regular person obtained. Someone elsewhere challenged the idea of a right to "dignity" because he argued this was a violation of our basic understanding of not providing special rights to people. But, this is a misunderstanding. The concept of "dignity" might have traditionally been a privilege of privilege, but in our system, in fact in human rights law generally, it is a basic right of all.

The reason this post directly arose is because I have just finished watching the first season (on DVD) of The Crown.  I have noticed a few things. One, their children rarely pop up -- was this actually what happened, was the queen nearly never around her children once she became a royal? Two, probably a touch of realism regarding the lack of artificial illumination, things seemed pretty dark much of the time. And, the performances on the whole are very good, including an American actor playing Winston Churchill (who did have an American mother, which never came up).

The show suggests that there is some value in having a monarchy to represent the nation as a whole and this aspect is a repeat theme, including the conflicts (sister v. queen, for example) arising for the participants. We need not do it quite like this. The monarchy has baggage with the whole issue of hierarchy being a rather imperfect method (even if a certain family alone is involved, the person chosen from them ala the priest tribe of Israel) as is having a general nobility class. So, e.g., there can be a separate "president" that is largely symbolic with a prime minister.  We have a mixture, the office of president having some special meaning but also "merely" a partisan political role.

A final word. Hallmark Channel has had various movies involving European (per the "white woman lead" rule; they easily could be African -- see, e.g., A United Kingdom, or Asian) royals from some fictional tiny country marrying Americans. Reference to duty are made though some bending done to allow them to marry Americans (after all, traditionally, marriages were done to unite nations!).  It's only a Hallmark movie, so we aren't really talking deep thoughts here, but The Crown shows how some sacrifices are made.  Which occurs in all cases, of course, and sometimes not enough is recognized on that front.