It is interesting to see the remnants of a feudal society so prominently embedded into modern day culture, the concept of Lords and Ladies, the monarchy and the associated class system (which may be taboo to speak of .. not sure). I broached the subject the other day with a question ‘Do the British see the wealth which the monarchy has accumulated as taken from them, built on the backs of the labor of the common man or as a proud part of history and theirs?’

The response after an awkward silence: ‘The Queen protects those estates and wealth for us’.

To date the monarchy is worth an estimated £2.7Bn and cost the taxpayer £88m a year. The Center for Citizenship has some very interesting views on the monarchy and why it continues to exist:

The wildest excuse for the existence of the monarchy is that "it interprets the nation to itself!" If that is so, we are a dysfunctional people, who lack the confidence needed for self-government, and prefer inherited status to success achieved through talent and hard work.

The monarchy also is commonly said to be a unifying force.

This argument is in part based on the idea that a head of state who is not elected is, therefore, non-partisan. An elected president, it is said, would not have the support of those who voted for another candidate. She would be unable to act as a unifying force therefore. This argument has always lacked force for republicans in particular as they are necessarily alienated by an hereditary head of state. Monarchist law bars them from parliament, the judiciary, the police and some military posts.

What credibility was left for this part of the monarchist case was eliminated in September 2002 by none other than the heir to Britain’s chief public office, Charles Windsor. It was revealed that he had been making determined efforts to use his status as the monarch’s son to persuade the government to change a number of its policies to match his beliefs. He had taken partisan positions on such issues as human rights laws, government regulations and the proposed ban on hunting foxes. The idea that as head of state when his mother died he would united the people of Britain as no politician could was shown to be invalid.

Monarchists have also claimed that the monarchy holds together the nations that make up the United Kingdom

Monarchical Britain has in fact been coming apart at the seams for some time. Scotland has successfully demanded its own parliament and may be moving towards independence. Wales has a strong nationalist movement. And Northern Ireland spent many years until recently in a state of near-war because of the desire of many of its people to unite with the republican majority of Ireland. During the weekend of queen Windsor’s 2002 jubilee celebrations her most loyal followers in Northern Ireland were rioting and shooting at the police.

Read the rest of the article here – fascinating stuff. The site goes on to speak about the components of the British democracy that are decidedly undemocratic. As a Canadian this is not unlike that which I hold in the lowest of regard and the highest of contempt – the home of nepotism – the Canadian senate:

The early Americans said that "All men are created equal" but failed to live up to the ideal. The British, with their European cynicism, have never really believed that an ideal was worth aspiring to. Although they like to think of themselves as presenting a model of democracy, their characteristic mistaking of "class" for quality has left them satisfied with something well short of perfection.

The highest public office, that of head of state, is open only to the members of the Windsor-Mountbatten family, the "royal" family. Although Britain now has large numbers of citizens of Caribbean, African and Asian origins, no Briton of African or Asian ancestry may become head of state. The monarchy is, quite simply, a racist institution.

The British like to refer to the British Parliament as the "mother" of legislative bodies. They mean to imply that the democratic legislature is their country’s gift to the world.

But that is far from being the truth. Britain has no written constitution to guarantee the rights of the people. And in fact Britain’s Parliament is so grossly undemocratic that the truth is hard to believe. Its structure reflects not the spirit of government of the people by the people but the ancient division of British society into "commoners" and aristocracy.

The legislative chamber for the democratically elected representatives of the people is known significantly as the "lower house," or the House of Commons. The "upper" house, the House of Lords is unelected. The government of Britain is thus divided between the common people and the Lords. And the House of Lords is really composed of people who call themselves "Lords." They believe that they are entitled to privileges of esteem and power. And they are recognised by the law of the land as having them!

None of these so-called lords have been elected to their positions in the legislature. Some were put there by the ruling party of the time. Some, incredibly, inherited their seats in the legislature from their fathers, who sat there before them!

No prize for deciding whether a country that tolerates this at the start of the twenty-first century can make any claim to be able to teach the world about democracy.

It is true to say that when the House of Lords gets too out of line with the wishes of the Commons, its decisions may be over-ruled, with some time and trouble. Nonetheless, here is a crew who have no right in a democratic society to any special say in the legislative process. A crowd whose presumptions would rule out them of consideration in any society with a truly democratic spirit. Yet in the "mother of democracies" they are allowed to initiate legislation as if they had been elected by the people. And to amend, obstruct and delay the laws proposed by the representatives of the people.

Not even in its elective government is Britain free from the power of inherited privilege. Every member of Parliament (like every police officer) must swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch. Republicans whose sense of honour will not permit them to lie about whom they owe their duty to, are thus excluded from representing the people.

While all of this carries on, the BBC bemoans the decline of social mobility, where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer despite efforts to prop up the lower class who remain very much ‘classed’.

Social mobility is on the decline in Britain despite the expansion of higher education, says Tory David Willetts.

The shadow education secretary says opportunities have increased for middle-class women but not for the poorest in society.

In a speech to the National Extension College, Mr Willetts said the best way to help social mobility would be to get all primary children reading well.

He also stressed the importance of vocational training to encourage boys.

‘Reversing trend’

Explaining his fears about social mobility, Mr Willetts said: "Of course it is right to widen opportunities for women, but paradoxically at the same time this has strengthened some of the forces passing on income and wealth from one generation to the next.

"Increasing equality between the sexes has meant increased inequality between social classes."

Fascinating and perplexing personally. But that is why I am here, not to judge but to learn.