ARISTOCRACY/NOBILITY/MONARCHS/

Aristocracy (Greek ἀριστοκρατία aristokratía, from ἄριστος aristos “excellent”, and κράτος, kratos ‘rule’) is a form of government that places strength in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class. The term derives from the Greek aristokratia, meaning “rule of the best-born”. Aristocracy is a type of government, the term is synonymous with hereditary government, and hereditary succession is its primary philosophy, after which the hereditary monarch appoints officers as they see fit. At the time of the word’s origins in ancient Greece, the Greeks conceived it as rule by the best qualified citizens—and often contrasted it favourably with monarchy, rule by an individual. In later times, Aristocracy was usually seen as rule by a privileged group, the aristocratic class, and has since been contrasted with democracy. The idea of hybrid forms which have aspects of both aristocracy and democracy are in use in the parliament form.

CONCEPT

The concept evolved in Ancient Greece, whereby a council of leading citizens was commonly empowered and contrasted with representative democracy, in which a council of citizens was appointed as the “senate” of a city state or other political unit. The Greeks did not like the concept of monarchy, and as their democratic system fell, aristocracy was upheld.[1] In the 1651 book Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes describes an aristocracy as a commonwealth in which the representative of the citizens is an assembly by part only. It is a system in which only a small part of the population represents the government; “certain men distinguished from the rest”.[3] Modern depictions of aristocracy tend to regard it not as the ancient Greek concept of rule by the best, but more as an oligarchy or plutocracy—rule by the few or the wealthy.[citation needed]

The concept of aristocracy per Plato, has an ideal state ruled by the philosopher king. Plato describes these “philosopher kings” as “those who love the sight of truth” (Republic 475c) and supports the idea with the analogy of a captain and his ship or a doctor and his medicine. According to him, sailing and health are not things that everyone is qualified to practice by nature. A large part of the Republic then addresses how the educational system should be set up to produce these philosopher kings.

 

SEE ALSO:

• Caliphate
• Elitism
• Gentry
• Nobility
• Old money
• Timocracy
• Tyranny

REFERENCES:

“Aristocracy”. Oxford English Dictionary. December 1989. Archived from the original on June 29, 2011. Retrieved December 22, 2009.
A Greek–English Lexicon, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, Roderick McKenzie (editors). “ἀριστο-κρᾰτία, ἡ, A, rule of the best-born, aristocracy, ἀ. σώφρων Th.3.82, cf. Henioch.5.17, Isyll.1, etc.; rule of the rich, Pl.Plt.301a. II ideal constitution, rule of the best, Arist. Pol.1293b1 sqq., EN1160a33, Pl.Mx.238c, 238d, Plb.6.4.3.”

http://logeion.uchicago.edu/%E1%BC%80%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1

Thomas Hobbes (1 January 2010). Leviathan. Digireads.com Publishing. p. 81. ISBN 978-1-4209-3699-5.
FURTHER READING

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Aristocracy
History, John Cannon (Editor), Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 978-0-19-866176-4
Aristocracy in the Modern World, Ellis Wasson, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

MONARCHY

A Monarchy is a form of government in which a single person holds supreme authority in ruling a country, also performing ceremonial duties and embodying the country’s national identity. Although some monarchs are elected, in most cases, the monarch’s position is inherited and lasts until death or abdication. In these cases, the royal family or members of the dynasty usually serve in official capacities as well. The governing power of the Monarch may vary from purely symbolic (crowned republic), to partial and restricted (constitutional monarchy), to completely autocratic (Absolute Monarchy).

Richard I of England being anointed during his coronation in Westminster Abbey, from a 13th-century chronicle.
Monarchy was the most common form of government until the 20th century. Forty-five sovereign nations in the world have monarchs acting as heads of state, sixteen of which are Commonwealth realms that recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. Most modern monarchs are constitutional monarchs, who retain a unique legal and ceremonial role, but exercise limited or no political power under the nation’s constitution. In some nations, however, such as Brunei, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Eswatini, the Hereditary Monarch has more political influence than any other single source of authority in the nation, either by tradition or by a constitutional mandate.
NOBILITY

Nobility is a social class normally ranked immediately under royalty and found in some societies that have a formal aristocracy. Nobility possesses more acknowledged privileges and higher social status than most other classes in society. The privileges associated with nobility may constitute substantial advantages over or relative to non-nobles, or may be largely honorary (e.g., precedence), and vary by country and era. As referred to in the Medieval chivalric motto “noblesse oblige” (“nobility obliges”), nobles can also carry a lifelong duty to uphold various social responsibilities, such as honorable behavior, customary service,[clarification needed] or leadership positions. Membership in the nobility, including rights and responsibilities, is typically hereditary.

Membership in the nobility has historically been granted by a monarch or government, unlike other social classes where membership is determined by solely wealth, lifestyle, or affiliation. Nonetheless, acquisition of sufficient power, wealth, military prowess, or royal favour has occasionally enabled commoners to ascend into the nobility.

There are often a variety of ranks within the noble class. Legal recognition of nobility has been more common in monarchies, but nobility also existed in such regimes as the Dutch Republic (1581–1795), the Republic of Genoa (1005–1815), the Republic of Venice (697–1797), and the Old Swiss Confederacy (1300–1798), and remains part of the legal social structure of some non-hereditary regimes, e.g., Channel Islands, San Marino, and the Vatican City in Europe.

Hereditary titles and styles added to names (such as “Prince” or “Lord” or “Lady”), as well as honorifics often distinguish nobles from non-nobles in conversation and written speech. In many nations most of the nobility have been un-titled, and some hereditary titles do not indicate nobility (e.g., vidame). Some countries have had non-hereditary nobility, such as the Empire of Brazil or life peers in the United Kingdom.

The term derives from Latin nobilitas, the abstract noun of the adjective nobilis (“well-known, famous, notable”). In ancient Roman society, nobiles originated as an informal designation for the political governing class who had allied interests, including both patricians and plebeian families (gentes) with an ancestor who had risen to the consulship through his own merit (see novus homo, “new man”).

In modern usage, “nobility” is applied to the highest social class in pre-modern societies, excepting the ruling dynasty.
In the feudal system (in Europe and elsewhere), the nobility were generally those who held a fief, often land or office, under vassalage, i.e., in exchange for allegiance and various, mainly military, services to a suzerain, who might be a higher-ranking nobleman or a monarch. It rapidly came to be seen as a hereditary caste, sometimes associated with a right to bear a hereditary title and, for example in pre-revolutionary France, enjoying fiscal and other privileges.

While noble status formerly conferred significant privileges in most jurisdictions, by the 21st century it had become a largely honorary dignity in most societies, although a few, residual privileges may still be preserved legally (e.g., Netherlands, Spain, UK) and some Asian, Pacific and African cultures continue to attach considerable significance to formal hereditary rank or titles. (Compare the entrenched position and leadership expectations of the nobility of the Kingdom of Tonga.)

Nobility is a historical, social and often legal notion, differing from high socio-economic status in that the latter is mainly based on income, possessions or lifestyle. Being wealthy or influential cannot ipso facto make one noble, nor are all nobles wealthy or influential (aristocratic families have lost their fortunes in various ways, and the concept of the ‘poor nobleman’ is almost as old as nobility itself).

Various republics, including former Iron Curtain countries, Greece, Mexico, and Austria have expressly abolished the conferral and use of titles of nobility for their citizens. This is distinct from countries which have not abolished the right to inherit titles, but which do not grant legal recognition or protection to them, such as Germany and Italy, although Germany recognizes their use as part of the legal surname. Still other countries and authorities allow their use, but forbid attachment of any privilege thereto, e.g., Finland, Norway and the European Union, while French law also protects lawful titles against usurpation.

Although many societies have a privileged upper class with substantial wealth and power, the status is not necessarily hereditary and does not entail a distinct legal status, nor differentiated forms of address.
Not all of the benefits of nobility derived from noble status per se. Usually privileges were granted or recognised by the monarch in association with possession of a specific title, office or estate. Most nobles’ wealth derived from one or more estates, large or small, that might include fields, pasture, orchards, timberland, hunting grounds, streams, etc.
It also included infrastructure such as castle, well and mill to which local peasants were allowed some access, although often at a price. Nobles were expected to live “nobly”, that is, from the proceeds of these possessions. Work involving manual labour or subordination to those of lower rank (with specific exceptions, such as in military or ecclesiastic service) was either forbidden (as derogation from noble status) or frowned upon socially. On the other hand, membership in the nobility was usually a prerequisite for holding offices of trust in the realm and for career promotion, especially in the military, at court and often the higher functions in the government, judiciary and church.

Prior to the French Revolution, European nobles typically commanded tribute in the form of entitlement to cash rents or usage taxes, labour or a portion of the annual crop yield from commoners or nobles of lower rank who lived or worked on the noble’s manor or within his seigneurial domain. In some countries, the local lord could impose restrictions on such a commoner’s movements, religion or legal undertakings. Nobles exclusively enjoyed the privilege of hunting. In France, nobles were exempt from paying the taille, the major direct tax. Peasants were not only bound to the nobility by dues and services, but the exercise of their rights was often also subject to the jurisdiction of courts and police from whose authority the actions of nobles were entirely or partially exempt. In some parts of Europe the right of private war long remained the privilege of every noble.

During the early Renaissance, duelling established the status of a respectable gentleman, and was an accepted manner of resolving disputes.

Since the end of World War I the hereditary nobility entitled to special rights has largely been abolished in the Western World as intrinsically discriminatory, and discredited as inferior in efficiency to individual meritocracy in the allocation of societal resources. Nobility came to be associated with social rather than legal privilege, expressed in a general expectation of deference from those of lower rank. By the 21st century even that deference had become increasingly minimised.

ENNOBLEMENT

(Hungarian hussar troops set up by the Hungarian nobility, during the Austro–Turkish War of 1787–1791).

In France, a seigneurie (lordship) might include one or more manors surrounded by land and villages subject to a noble’s prerogatives and disposition. Seigneuries could be bought, sold or mortgaged. If erected by the crown into, e.g., a barony or countship, it became legally entailed for a specific family, which could use it as their title. Yet most French nobles were untitled (“seigneur of Montagne” simply meant ownership of that lordship but not, if one was not otherwise noble, the right to use a title of nobility, as commoners often purchased lordships). Only a member of the nobility who owned a countship was allowed, ipso facto, to style himself as its comte, although this restriction came to be increasingly ignored as the ancien régime drew to its close.

In other parts of Europe, sovereign rulers arrogated to themselves the exclusive prerogative to act as fons honorum within their realms. For example, in the United Kingdom royal letters patent are necessary to obtain a title of the peerage, which also carries nobility and formerly a seat in the House of Lords, but never came without automatic entail of land nor rights to the local peasants’ output.
RANK WITHIN THE NOBILITY

Nobility might be either inherited or conferred by a fons honorum. It is usually an acknowledged preeminence that is hereditary, i.e. the status descends exclusively to some or all of the legitimate, and usually male-line, descendants of a nobleman. In this respect, the nobility as a class has always been much more extensive than the primogeniture-based titled nobility, which included peerages in France and in the United Kingdom, grandezas in Portugal and Spain, and some noble titles in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Prussia and Scandinavia. In Russia, Scandinavia and non-Prussian Germany, titles usually descended to all male-line descendants of the original titleholder, including females. In Spain, noble titles are now equally heritable by females and males. Noble estates, on the other hand, gradually came to descend by primogeniture in much of western Europe aside from Germany. In Eastern Europe, by contrast, with the exception of a few Hungarian estates, they usually descended to all sons or even all children[8]

In France, some wealthy bourgeois, most particularly the members of the various parlements, were ennobled by the king, constituting the noblesse de robe. The old nobility of landed or knightly origin, the noblesse d’épée, increasingly resented the influence and pretensions of this parvenu nobility. In the last years of the ancien régime the old nobility pushed for restrictions of certain offices and orders of chivalry to noblemen who could demonstrate that their lineage had extended “quarterings”, i.e. several generations of noble ancestry, to be eligible for offices and favors at court along with nobles of medieval descent, although historians such as William Doyle have disputed this so-called “Aristocratic Reaction”.[9] Various court and military positions were reserved by tradition for nobles who could “prove” an ancestry of at least seize quartiers (16 quarterings), indicating exclusively noble descent (as displayed, ideally, in the family’s coat of arms) extending back five generations (all 16 great-great grandparents).
Hungarian count Nicholaus Eszterházy of Galántha (1583–1645)

This illustrates the traditional link in many countries between heraldry and nobility; in those countries where heraldry is used, nobles have almost always been armigerous, and have used heraldry to demonstrate their ancestry and family history. However, heraldry has never been restricted to the noble classes in most countries, and being armigerous does not necessarily demonstrate nobility. Scotland, however, is an exception. In a number of recent cases in Scotland the Lord Lyon King of Arms has controversially (vis-à-vis Scotland’s Salic law) granted the arms and allocated the chiefships of medieval noble families to female-line descendants of lords, even when they were not of noble lineage in the male line, while persons of legitimate male-line descent may still survive (e.g. the modern Chiefs of Clan MacLeod).

In some nations, hereditary titles, as distinct from noble rank, were not always recognised in law, e.g., Poland’s Szlachta. European ranks of nobility lower than baron or its equivalent, are commonly referred to as the petty nobility, although baronets of the British Isles are deemed titled gentry. Most nations traditionally had an untitled lower nobility in addition to titled nobles. An example is the landed gentry of the British Isles. Unlike England’s gentry, the Junkers of Germany, the noblesse de robe of France, the hidalgos of Spain and the nobili of Italy were explicitly acknowledged by the monarchs of those countries as members of the nobility, although untitled. In Scandinavia, the Benelux nations and Spain there are still untitled as well as titled families recognised in law as noble.

In Hungary members of the nobility always theoretically enjoyed the same rights. In practice, however, a noble family’s financial assets largely defined its significance. Medieval Hungary’s concept of nobility originated in the notion that nobles were “free men”, eligible to own land. This basic standard explains why the noble population was relatively large, although the economic status of its members varied widely. Untitled nobles were not infrequently wealthier than titled families, while considerable differences in wealth were also to be found within the titled nobility. The custom of granting titles was introduced to Hungary in the 16th century by the House of Habsburg. Historically, once nobility was granted, if a nobleman served the monarch well he might obtain the title of baron, and might later be elevated to the rank of count. As in other countries of post-medieval central Europe, hereditary titles were not attached to a particular land or estate but to the noble family itself, so that all patrilineal descendants shared a title of baron or count (cf. peerage). Neither nobility nor titles could be transmitted through women.

Some con artists sell fake titles of nobility, often with impressive-looking documentation. This may be illegal, depending on local law. They are more often illegal in countries that actually have nobilities, such as European monarchies. In the United States, such commerce may constitute actionable fraud rather than criminal usurpation of an exclusive right to use of any given title by an established class.
OTHER TERMS

“Aristocrat” and aristocracy, in modern usage, refer colloquially and broadly to persons who inherit elevated social status, whether due to membership in the (formerly) official nobility or the monied upper class.

Blue blood is an English idiom recorded since 1834 for noble birth or descent; it is also known as a translation of the Spanish phrase sangre azul, which described the Spanish royal family and other high nobility who claimed to be of Visigothic descent, in contrast to the Moors. The idiom originates from ancient and medieval societies of Europe and distinguishes an upper class (whose superficial veins appeared blue through their untanned skin) from a working class of the time. The latter consisted mainly of agricultural peasants who spent most of their time working outdoors and thus had tanned skin, through which superficial veins appear less prominently.
Robert Lacey explains the genesis of the blue blood concept:

It was the Spaniards who gave the world the notion that an aristocrat’s blood is not red but blue. The Spanish nobility started taking shape around the ninth century in classic military fashion, occupying land as warriors on horseback. They were to continue the process for more than five hundred years, clawing back sections of the peninsula from its Moorish occupiers, and a nobleman demonstrated his pedigree by holding up his sword arm to display the filigree of blue-blooded veins beneath his pale skin—proof that his birth had not been contaminated by the dark-skinned enemy.
EUROPE

European nobility originated in the feudal/seignorial system that arose in Europe during the Middle Ages.[17][18] Originally, knights or nobles were mounted warriors who swore allegiance to their sovereign and promised to fight for him in exchange for an allocation of land (usually together with serfs living thereon). During the period known as the Military Revolution, nobles gradually lost their role in raising and commanding private armies, as many nations created cohesive national armies.
The Battle of Tewkesbury in 1471. Large numbers of English nobility perished in the Wars of the Roses
This was coupled with a loss of the socio-economic power of the nobility, owing to the economic changes of the Renaissance and the growing economic importance of the merchant classes, which increased still further during the Industrial Revolution. In countries where the nobility was the dominant class, the bourgeoisie gradually grew in power; a rich city merchant came to be more influential than a nobleman, and the latter sometimes sought inter-marriage with families of the former to maintain their noble lifestyles.

However, in many countries at this time, the nobility retained substantial political importance and social influence: for instance, the United Kingdom’s government was dominated by the (unusually small) nobility until the middle of the 19th century. Thereafter the powers of the nobility were progressively reduced by legislation. However, until 1999, all hereditary peers were entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Since then, only 92 of them have this entitlement, of whom 90 are elected by the hereditary peers as a whole to represent the peerage.

The countries with the highest proportion of nobles were Castile (probably 10%)[citation needed], Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (15% of an 18th-century population of 800,000)[citation needed], Spain (722,000 in 1768 which was 7–8% of the entire population)[citation needed] and other countries with lower percentages, such as Russia in 1760 with 500,000–600,000 nobles (2–3% of the entire population), and pre-revolutionary France where there were no more than 300,000 prior to 1789[citation needed], which was 1% of the population (although some scholars believe this figure is an overestimate). In 1718 Sweden had between 10,000 and 15,000 nobles, which was 0.5% of the population[citation needed]. In Germany 0.01%.[citation needed]

In the Kingdom of Hungary nobles made up 5% of the population.[19] All the nobles in 18th-century Europe numbered perhaps 3–4 million out of a total of 170–190 million inhabitants.[20][21] By contrast, in 1707, when England and Scotland united into Great Britain, there were only 168 English peers, and 154 Scottish ones, though their immediate families were recognised as noble.[22]

Apart from the hierarchy of noble titles, in England rising through baron, viscount, earl, and marquess to duke, many countries had categories at the top or bottom of the nobility. The gentry, relatively small landowners with perhaps one or two villages, were mostly noble in most countries, for example the Polish landed gentry, but not in others, such as the English equivalent. At the top, Poland had a far smaller class of “magnates”, who were hugely rich and politically powerful. In other countries the small groups of Spanish Grandee or Peer of France had great prestige but little additional power.
ASIA

In the Indian Subcontinent during the British Raj, many members of the nobility were elevated to royalty as they became the monarch of their princely states and vice versa as many princely state rulers were reduced to zamindars. Hence, many nobles in the subcontinent had royal titles of Raja, Rai, Rana, Rao, etc. Other noble and aristocratic titles were Thakur, Sardar, Dewan, Pradhan, etc.

For the historical hierarchy of the Indian subcontinent, see princely state.
CHINA

In East Asia the system was often modelled on imperial China, the leading culture. Emperors conferred titles of nobility. Imperial descendants formed the highest class of ancient Chinese nobility, their status based upon the rank of the empress or concubine from which they descend maternally (as emperors were polygamous). Numerous titles such as Taizi (crown prince), and equivalents of “prince” were accorded, and due to complexities in dynastic rules, rules were introduced for Imperial descendants. The titles of the junior princes were gradually lowered in rank by each generation while the senior heir continued to inherit their father’s titles.

It was a custom in China for the new dynasty to ennoble and enfeoff a member of the dynasty which they overthrew with a title of nobility and a fief of land so that they could offer sacrifices to their ancestors, in addition to members of other preceding dynasties.

China had a feudal system in the Shang and Zhou dynasties, which gradually gave way to a more bureaucratic one beginning in the Qin dynasty (221 BC). This continued through the Song dynasty, and by its peak power shifted from nobility to bureaucrats.

This development was gradual and generally only completed in full by the Song dynasty. In the Han dynasty, for example, even though noble titles were no longer given to those other than the Emperor’s relatives, the fact that the process of selecting officials was mostly based on a vouching system by current officials as officials usually vouched for their own sons or those of other officials meant that a de facto aristocracy continued to exist. This process was further deepened during the Three Kingdoms period with the introduction of the Nine-rank system.

By the Sui dynasty, however, the institution of the Imperial examination system marked the transformation of a power shift towards a full bureaucracy, though the process would not be truly completed until the Song dynasty.

Titles of nobility became symbolic along with a stipend while governance of the country shifted to scholar officials.

In the Qing dynasty titles of nobility were still granted by the emperor, but served merely as honorifics based on a loose system of favors to the Qing emperor.

Under a centralized system, the empire’s governance was the responsibility of the Confucian-educated scholar-officials and the local gentry, while the literati were accorded gentry status. For male citizens, advancement in status was possible via garnering the top three positions in imperial examinations.

(The Qing appointed the Ming imperial descendants to the title of Marquis of Extended Grace).

The oldest held continuous noble title in Chinese history was that held by the descendants of Confucius, as Duke Yansheng, which was renamed as the Sacrificial Official to Confucius in 1935 by the Republic of China. The title is held by Kung Tsui-chang. There is also a “Sacrificial Official to Mencius” for a descendant of Mencius, a “Sacrificial Official to Zengzi” for a descendant of Zengzi, and a “Sacrificial Official to Yan Hui” for a descendant of Yan Hui.

The bestowal of titles was abolished upon the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, as part of a larger effort to remove feudal influences and practises from Chinese society.
ISLAMIC WORLD

In some Islamic countries, there are no definite noble titles (titles of hereditary rulers being distinct from those of hereditary intermediaries between monarchs and commoners). Persons who can trace legitimate descent from Muhammad or the clans of Quraysh, as can members of several present or formerly reigning dynasties, are widely regarded as belonging to the ancient, hereditary Islamic nobility. In some Islamic countries they inherit (through mother or father) hereditary titles, although without any other associated privilege, e.g., variations of the title Sayyid and Sharif. Regarded as more religious than the general population, many people turn to them for clarification or guidance in religious matters.

In Iran, historical titles of the nobility including Mirza, Khan, ed-Dowleh and Shahzada (“Son of a Shah), are now no longer recognised. An aristocratic family is now recognised by their family name, often derived from the post held by their ancestors, considering the fact that family names in Iran only appeared in the beginning of the 20th century. Sultans have been an integral part of Islamic history.

During the Ottoman Empire in the Imperial Court and the provinces there were many Ottoman titles and appellations forming a somewhat unusual and complex system in comparison with the other Islamic countries. The bestowal of noble and aristocratic titles was widespread across the empire even after its fall by independent monarchs. One of the most elaborate examples is that of the Egyptian aristocracy’s largest clan, the Abaza family.
JAPAN

Japanese samurai, 1798
Medieval Japan developed a feudal system similar to the European system, where land was held in exchange for military service. The daimyō class, or hereditary landowning nobles, held great socio-political power. As in Europe, they commanded private armies made up of samurai, an elite warrior class; for long periods, these held the real power without a real central government, and often plunged the country into a state of civil war. The daimyō class can be compared to European peers, and the samurai to European knights, but important differences exist.

Feudal title and rank were abolished during the Meiji Restoration in 1868, and was replaced by the kazoku, a five-rank peerage system after the British example, which granted seats in the upper house of the Imperial Diet; this ended in 1947 following Japan’s defeat in World War II.
PHILIPPINES

(Left to right: Images from the Boxer Codex illustrating ancient Filipino nobility wearing the distinctive colours of their social status: a Visayan noble couple; a Visayan royal couple dressed in colours distinctive of their class (gold or imperial yellow, red and blue), which are also used by royalty in Asia; a native princess; and a Tagalog royal and his consort.)

Like other Southeast Asian countries, many regions in the Philippines have indigenous nobility, partially influenced by Hindu, Chinese, and Islamic custom. Since ancient times, Datu was the common title of a chief or monarch of the many pre-colonial principalities and sovereign dominions throughout the isles; in some areas the term Apo was also used. With the titles Sultan and Rajah, Datu (and its Malay cognate, Datok) are currently used in some parts of the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei. These titles are the rough equivalents of European titles, albeit dependent on the actual wealth and prestige of the bearer.
RECOGNITION BY THE SPANISH CROWN

Upon the islands’ Christianisation, the datus retained governance of their territories despite annexation to the Spanish Empire. In a law signed 11 June 1594, King Philip II of Spain ordered that the indigenous rulers continue to receive the same honours and privileges accorded them prior their conversion to Catholicism. The baptised nobility subsequently coalesced into the exclusive, landed ruling class of the lowlands known as the Principalía.

On 22 March 1697, King Charles II of Spain confirmed the privileges granted by his predecessors (in Title VII, Book VI of the Laws of the Indies) to indigenous nobilities of the Crown colonies, including the Principales of the Philippines, and extended to them and to their descendants the preeminence and honors customarily attributed to the Hidalgos of Castile.
FILIPINO NOBLES DURING THE SPANISH ERA

The Laws of the Indies and other pertinent Royal Decrees were enforced in the Philippines and benefited many indigenous nobles. It can be seen very clearly and irrefutably that, during the colonial period, indigenous chiefs were equated with the Spanish Hidalgos, and the most resounding proof of the application of this comparison is the General Military Archive in Segovia, where the qualifications of “Nobility” (found in the Service Records) are attributed to those Filipinos who were admitted to the Spanish Military Academies and whose ancestors were caciques, encomenderos, notable Tagalogs, chieftains, governors or those who held positions in the municipal administration or government in all different regions of the large islands of the Archipelago, or of the many small islands of which it is composed. In the context of the ancient tradition and norms of Castilian nobility, all descendants of a noble are considered noble, regardless of fortune.

Current status questionis
Edit

Heraldic Crown of Hispanic Hidalgos.

A pre-colonial Tagalog couple belonging to the Datu class or nobility as depicted in the Boxer Codex of the 16th century.
The recognition of the rights and privileges accorded to the Filipino Principalía as Hijosdalgos of Castile seems to facilitate entrance of Filipino nobles into institutions of under the Spanish Crown, either civil or religious, which required proofs of nobility.[35](p235) However, to see such recognition as an approximation or comparative estimation of rank or status might not be correct since in reality, although the principales were vassals of the Crown, their rights as sovereign in their former dominions were guaranteed by the Laws of the Indies, more particularly the Royal Decree of Philip II of 11 June 1594, which Charles II confirmed for the purpose stated above in order to satisfy the requirements of the existing laws in the Peninsula.

It must be recalled that ever since the beginning of the colonialization, the conquistador Miguel López de Legazpi did not strip the ancient sovereign rulers of the Archipelago (who vowed allegiance to the Spanish Crown) of their legitimate rights. Many of them accepted the Catholic religion and were his allies from the very beginning. He only demanded from these local rulers vassalage to the Spanish Crown,[36] replacing the similar overlordship, which previously existed in a few cases, e.g., Sultanate of Brunei’s overlordship of the Kingdom of Maynila. Other independent polities which were not vassals to other States, e.g., Confederation of Madja-as and the Rajahnate of Cebu, were more of Protectorates/Suzerainties having had alliances with the Spanish Crown before the Kingdom took total control of most parts of the Archipelago. An interesting question remains after the cessession of the Spanish rule in the Philippines, that is, what is the equivalent of the rank of the Filipino Principalía, freed from vassalage yet not able to exercise their sovereignty within the democratic society in the Archipelago?

One logical conclusion would be the reassumption of their ancestral Royal and noble title as Datus while retaining the Hidalguía of Castile (their former protector State), as a subsidiary title, appears most suitable to the hispanized Filipino nobles. Besides, as stated in the above-mentioned Royal Decree of Charles II, the ancient nobility of the Filipino Principales “is still retained and acknowledged”.

Just like the deposed royal families elsewhere in the world, which still lay claim to their hereditary rights as pretenders to the former thrones of their ancestors, the descendants of the Principalía have the same de iure claims to the historical domains of their forebears.

(See also: Lakan of the island of Luzon).
AFRICA

Africa has a plethora of ancient lineages in its various constituent nations. Some, such as the numerous sharifian families of North Africa, the Keita dynasty of Mali, the Solomonic dynasty of Ethiopia, the De Souza family of Benin and the Sherbro Tucker clan of Sierra Leone, claim descent from notables from outside of the continent. Most, such as those composed of the descendants of Shaka and Moshoeshoe of Southern Africa, belong to peoples that have been resident in the continent for millennia. Generally their royal or noble status is recognized by and derived from the authority of traditional custom. A number of them also enjoy either a constitutional or a statutory recognition of their high social positions.
ETHIOPIA

Emperor Haile Selassie I (center) and members of the royal court

Ethiopia has a nobility that is almost as old as the country itself. Throughout the history of the Ethiopian Empire most of the titles of nobility have been tribal or military in nature. However the Ethiopian nobility resembled its European counterparts in some respects; until 1855, when Tewodros II ended the Zemene Mesafint its aristocracy was organised similarly to the feudal system in Europe during the Middle Ages. For more than seven centuries, Ethiopia (or Abyssinia, as it was then known) was made up of many small kingdoms, principalities, emirates and imamates, which owed their allegiance to the nəgusä nägäst (literally “King of Kings”). Despite its being a Christian monarchy, various Muslim states paid tribute to the emperors of Ethiopia for centuries: including the Adal Sultanate, the Emirate of Harar, and the Awsa sultanate.

Ethiopian nobility were divided into two different categories: Mesafint (“prince”), the hereditary nobility that formed the upper echelon of the ruling class; and the Mekwanin (“governor”) who were appointed nobles, often of humble birth, who formed the bulk of the nobility (cf. the Ministerialis of the ‘Holy Roman Empire’). In Ethiopia there were titles of nobility among the Mesafint borne by those at the apex of medieval Ethiopian society. The highest royal title (after that of emperor) was Negus (“king”) which was held by hereditary governors of the provinces of Begemder, Shewa, Gojjam, and Wollo. The next highest seven titles were Ras, Dejazmach, Fit’awrari, Grazmach, Qenyazmach, Azmach and Balambaras. The title of Le’ul Ras was accorded to the heads of various noble families and cadet branches of the Solomonic dynasty, such as the princes of Gojjam, Tigray, and Selalle. The heirs of the Le’ul Rases were titled Le’ul Dejazmach, indicative of the higher status they enjoyed relative to Dejazmaches who were not of the blood imperial. There were various hereditary titles in Ethiopia: including that of Jantirar, reserved for males of the family of Empress Menen Asfaw who ruled over the mountain fortress of Ambassel in Wollo; Wagshum, a title created for the descendants of the deposed Zagwe dynasty; and Shum Agame, held by the descendants of Dejazmach Sabagadis, who ruled over the Agame district of Tigray. The vast majority of titles borne by nobles were not, however, hereditary.

Despite being largely dominated by Christian elements, some Muslims obtained entrée into the Ethiopian nobility as part of their quest for aggrandizement during the 1800s. To do so they were generally obliged to abandon their faith and some are believed to have feigned conversion to Christianity for the sake of acceptance by the old Christian aristocratic families. One such family, the Wara Seh (more commonly called the “Yejju dynasty”) converted to Christianity and eventually wielded power for over a century, ruling with the sanction of the Solomonic emperors. The last such Muslim noble to join the ranks of Ethiopian society was Mikael of Wollo who converted, was made Negus of Wollo, and later King of Zion, and even married into the Imperial family. He lived to see his son, Iyasu V, inherit the throne in 1913—only to be deposed in 1916 because of his conversion to Islam.
MADAGASCAR

The nobility in Madagascar are known as the Andriana. In much of Madagascar, before French colonization of the island, the Malagasy people were organised into a rigid social caste system, within which the Andriana exercised both spiritual and political leadership. The word “Andriana” has been used to denote nobility in various ethnicities in Madagascar: including the Merina, the Betsileo, the Betsimisaraka, the Tsimihety, the Bezanozano, the Antambahoaka and the Antemoro.

The word Andriana has often formed part of the names of Malagasy kings, princes and nobles. Linguistic evidence suggests that the origin of the title Andriana is traceable back to an ancient Javanese title of nobility. Before the colonization by France in the 1890s, the Andriana held various privileges, including land ownership, preferment for senior government posts, free labor from members of lower classes, the right to have their tombs constructed within town limits, etc. The Andriana rarely married outside their caste: a high-ranking woman who married a lower-ranking man took on her husband’s lower rank, but a high-ranking man marrying a woman of lower rank did not forfeit his status, although his children could not inherit his rank or property (cf. morganatic marriage).

In 2011, the Council of Kings and Princes of Madagascar endorsed the revival of a Christian Andriana monarchy that would blend modernity and tradition.
NIGERIA

The Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II, on his throne in 2016
Contemporary Nigeria has a class of traditional notables whose titles are tied to those of its reigning monarchs, the Nigerian traditional rulers. Though their functions are largely ceremonial, their titles are often centuries old and are usually vested in the members of historically prominent families in the various subnational kingdoms of the country.

Membership of initiatory societies that have inalienable functions within the kingdoms is also a common feature of Nigerian nobility, particularly among the southern tribes, where such figures as the Ogboni of the Yoruba, the Nze na Ozo of the Igbo and the Ekpe of the Efik are some of the most famous examples. Although many of their traditional functions have become dormant due to the advent of modern governance, their members retain precedence of a traditional nature and are especially prominent during festivals.

Outside of this, many of the traditional nobles of Nigeria continue to serve as privy counsellors and viceroys in the service of their traditional sovereigns in a symbolic continuation of the way that their titled ancestors and predecessors did during the pre-colonial and colonial periods. Many of them are also members of the country’s political elite due to their not being covered by the prohibition from involvement in politics that governs the activities of the traditional rulers.

Holding a chieftaincy title, either of the traditional variety (which involves taking part in ritual re-enactments of your title’s history during annual festivals, roughly akin to a British peerage) or the honorary variety (which does not involve the said re-enactments, roughly akin to a knighthood), grants an individual the right to use the word “chief” as a pre-nominal honorific while in Nigeria.
LATIN AMERICA

In addition to a variety of indigenous peoples (such as the Aymara and the Quechua, who have long traditions of being led by nobles called Apu Mallkus and Mallkus), tribal connections exist among a number of other groups. Peerage traditions dating to the colonial period of such countries as Brazil, Cuba and Mexico have left noble families in each of them that have ancestral ties to those nations’ native tribes, while such figures as the Afro-Bolivian king and the high priestess of the Ile Maroia Laji sect of Brazilian Candomblé trace their ancestries to and derive their prestige from ancient monarchs and nobles of the pre-colonial African continent.

Brazil
Edit

Portrait of Marquis of Paraná, Prime Minister of Brazil.
The nobility in Brazil began during the colonial era with the Portuguese nobility. When Brazil became a united kingdom with Portugal in 1815, the first Brazilian titles of nobility were granted by the King of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves.

With the independence of Brazil in 1822 as a constitutional monarchy the titles of nobility initiated by the King of Portugal were continued and new titles of nobility were created by the Emperor of Brazil. However, according to the Brazilian Constitution of 1824, the Emperor conferred titles of nobility, which were personal and therefore non-hereditary, unlike its Portuguese and Portuguese-Brazilian predecessor, being inherited exclusively to the royal titles of the Brazilian Imperial Family.[citation needed]

During the existence of the Empire of Brazil 1211 noble titles were acknowledged. With the proclamation of the First Brazilian Republic, in 1889, the Brazilian nobility was extinguished. It was also prohibited, under penalty of accusation of high treason and the suspension of political rights, to accept noble titles and foreign decorations without the proper permission of the State. In particular, the nobles of greater distinction, by respect and tradition, were allowed to use their titles during the republican regime. The Imperial Family also could not return to the Brazilian soil until 1921, when the Banishment Law was repealed.
PACIFIC ISLANDS

Amongst the Polynesians of the Pacific the Ali’i occupied the traditional place of an Aristocratic class. The Kingdoms of Hawaii, Tahiti and presently the Kingdom of Tonga were all ruled by a ruling class known as the Ali’i

The Ali’i routinely provided the kings and nobles of various Polynesian Kingdoms; including the Kingdom of Hawaii prior to its dissolution 1893, and have served as a bastion of Native Hawaiian revivalism since its occurrence. In Tonga, after contact with Western nations, the traditional system of chiefs was developed into a Western-style monarchy with a hereditary class of “barons”, the Tongans even adopting that English title as a synonym for chief.
NOBILITY BY NATION

A list of noble titles for different European countries can be found at Royal and noble ranks.

For the proper address of holders of these titles, see Royal and noble title styles.
For the English Wikipedia category, see Category: Nobility by nation.
AFRICA

Botswanan Nobility
Kgosi
Burundian Nobility
Egyptian Nobility
Ethiopian Nobility
Ghanaian Nobility
Akan Chieftaincy
Malagasy Nobility
Malian Nobility
Nigerian Nobility
Emir
Hakim
Oba
Ogboni
Obi
Nze na Ozo
Rwandan Nobility
Somali Nobility
Zimbabwean Nobility
AMERICA

Canadian Peers & Baronets
Brazilian Nobility
Cuban Nobility
Mexican Nobility
Pipiltin
In the United States, (establishment of a nobility is prohibited by the Title of Nobility Clause of the Country’s Constitution).
ASIA

Armenian Nobility
Chinese Nobility
Filipino Nobility
Indian Peers & Baronets
Indonesian (Dutch East Indies) Nobility
Noblesse de Robe
Japanese Nobility
Kuge
Daimyō
Korean Nobility
Vietnamese Nobility
Malay Nobility
Mongolian Nobility
Ottoman Titles
Thai Royal and Noble Titles
EUROPE

Albanian Nobility
Austrian Nobility
Baltic Nobility (related to the modern area of Estonia & Latvia)
Belgian Nobility
British Nobility
British Peerage
English Peerage
Welsh Peers
Scottish Peerage
Barons in Scotland
Irish Peerage
Peerage of Great Britain
Peerage of the United Kingdom

Burmese Nobles & Servants
Byzantine Aristocracy & Bureaucracy
Phanariotes
Croatian Nobility
Czech Nobility
Danish Nobility
Dutch Nobility
Finnish Nobility
French Nobility
German Nobility
Freiherr
Graf
Junker
Hungarian Nobility
Icelandic Nobility
Irish Nobility
Chiefs of the Name
Italian Nobility
Black Nobility
Lithuanian Nobility
Montenegrin Nobility
Norwegian Nobility
Polish Nobility
Portuguese Nobility
Russian Nobility
Boyars
Serbian Nobility
Spanish Nobility
Swedish Nobility
Swiss Nobility
OCEANIA

Australian Peers & Baronets
Fijian Nobility
Polynesian Nobility
Samoan Nobility
Tongan Nobles
SEE ALSO:

Almanach de Gotha
Aristocracy (class)
Ascribed status
Baig
Caste (social hierarchy of India)
Debutante
False titles of nobility
Gentleman
Gentry
Grand Burgher (German: Großbürger)
Heraldry
Honour
King
List of Noble Houses
Magnate
Military elite
Military Revolution
Nobiliary particle
Noblesse oblige
Nze na Ozo
Ogboni
Pasha
Patrician (ancient Rome)
Patrician (post-Roman Europe)
Peerage
Petty nobility
Princely state
Raja
Redorer son blason
Royal descent
Social environment
Symbolic capital
REFERENCES:

References
Edit
“Move Over, Kate Middleton: These Commoners All Married Royals, Too”. Vogue. Retrieved 2018-10-24.
Oliver, Revilo P. (1978). “Tacitean “Nobilitas”” (PDF). Illinois Classical Studies. University of Illinois Press. 3: 238-261. hdl:2142/11694. JSTOR 23062619. Retrieved 15 September 2018.
Bengtsson, Erik; Missiaia, Anna; Olsson, Mats; Svensson, Patrick (12 June 2018). “The Wealth of the Richest: Inequality and the Nobility in Sweden, 1750–1900” (PDF). Taylor & Francis: 1-28. doi:10.1080/03468755.2018.1480538. Retrieved 15 September 2018 – via Lund University Libraries.
Lukowski, Jerzy (2003). Hall, Lesley; Lilley, Keith D.; MacMaster, Neil; Spellman, W. M.; Waite, Gary K.; Webb, Diana (eds.). The European Nobility in the Eighteenth Century (PDF). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 243. ISBN 0-333-74440-3 – via Zaccheus Onumba Dibiaezue Memorial Libraries.
Wikisource Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). “Nobility” . Encyclopædia Britannica. 19 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 728.
Jonathan, Dewald (1996). The European nobility, 1400-1800. Cambridge University Press. p. 117. ISBN 0-521-42528-X.
Pine, L.G. (1992). Titles: How the King became His Highness. New York: Barnes & Noble Books. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-56619-085-5.
The consolidation of Noble Power in Europe, c. 1600–1800
W. Doyle, Essays on Eighteenth Century France, London, 1995
An opinion of Innes of Learney differentiates the system in use in Scotland from many other European traditions, in that armorial bearings which are entered in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland by warrant of the Lord Lyon King of Arms are legally “Ensigns of Nobility”, and although the historical accuracy of that interpretation has been challenged, Innes of Learney’s perspective is accepted in the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia entry, ‘Heraldry’ (Volume 11), 3, The Law of Arms. 1613. The nature of arms.
Larence, Sir James Henry (1827) [first published 1824]. The nobility of the British Gentry or the political ranks and dignities of the British Empire compared with those on the continent (2nd ed.). London: T.Hookham — Simpkin and Marshall. Retrieved 2013-01-06.
Ruling of the Court of the Lord Lyon (26/2/1948, Vol. IV, page 26): “With regard to the words ‘untitled nobility’ employed in certain recent birthbrieves in relation to the (Minor) Baronage of Scotland, Finds and Declares that the (Minor) Barons of Scotland are, and have been both in this nobiliary Court and in the Court of Session recognised as a ‘titled nobility’ and that the estait of the Baronage (i.e., Barones Minores) are of the ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland”. This title is not, however, a peerage, thus Scotland’s noblesse ranks in England as gentry.
Ölyvedi Vad Imre. (1930) Nemességi könyv. Koroknay-Nyomda. Szeged, Hungary. 45p.
Ölyvedi Vad Imre. (1930) Nemességi könyv. Koroknay-Nyomda. Szeged, Hungary. 85.p
The politics of aristocratic empires by John Kautsky
Robert Lacey, Aristocrats. Little, Brown and Company, 1983, p. 67
Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites, p. 94 TFP.org
Karl Ferdinand Werner, Naissance de la noblesse. L’essor des élites politiques en Europe. Fayard, Paris 1998, ISBN 2-213-02148-1.
Jonathan, Dewald (1996). The European nobility, 1400–1800. Cambridge University Press. p. 25. ISBN 0-521-42528-X.
Jean, Meyer (1973). Noblesses et pouvoirs dans l’Europe d’Ancien Régime, Hachette Littérature. Hachette.
Jean-Pierre, Labatut (1981). Les noblesses européennes de la fin du XVe siècle à la fin du XVIIIe siècle. Presses universitaires de France.
Farnborough, T. E. May, 1st Baron (1896). Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George the Third, 11th ed. Volume I, Chapter 5, pp.273–281. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
The Olongapo Story, July 28, 1953 – Bamboo Breeze – Vol.6, No.3
“It is not right that the Indian chiefs of Filipinas be in a worse condition after conversion; rather they should have such treatment that would gain their affection and keep them loyal, so that with the spiritual blessings that God has communicated to them by calling them to His true knowledge, the temporal blessings may be added and they may live contentedly and comfortably. Therefore, we order the governors of those islands to show them good treatment and entrust them, in our name, with the government of the Indians, of whom they were formerly lords. In all else the governors shall see that the chiefs are benefited justly, and the Indians shall pay them something as a recognition, as they did during the period of their paganism, provided it be without prejudice to the tributes that are to be paid us, or prejudicial to that which pertains to their encomenderos.” Felipe II, Ley de Junio 11, 1594 in Recapilación de leyes, lib. vi, tit. VII, ley xvi. Also cf. Emma Helen Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands (1493–1898), Cleveland: The A.H. Clark Company, 1903, Vol. XVI, pp. 155-156.
SCOTT, William Henry (1982). Cracks in the Parchment Curtain, and Other Essays in Philippine History. Quezon City: New Day Publishers. ISBN 978-9711000004. OCLC 9259667, p. 118.
Recopilación de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias
Por cuanto teniendo presentes las leyes y cédulas que se mandaron despachar por los Señores Reyes mis progenitores y por mí, encargo el buen tratamiento, amparo, protección y defensa de los indios naturales de la América, y que sean atendidos, mantenidos, favorecidos y honrados como todos los demás vasallos de mi Corona, y que por el trascurso del tiempo se detiene la práctica y uso de ellas, y siento tan conveniente su puntual cumplimiento al bien público y utilidad de los Indios y al servicio de Dios y mío, y que en esta consecuencia por lo que toca a los indios mestizos está encargo a los Arzobispos y Obispos de las Indias, por la Ley Siete, Título Siete, del Libro Primero, de la Recopilación, los ordenen de sacerdotes, concurriendo las calidades y circunstancias que en ella se disponen y que si algunas mestizas quisieren ser religiosas dispongan el que se las admita en los monasterios y a las profesiones, y aunque en lo especial de que quedan ascender los indios a puestos eclesiásticos o seculares, gubernativos, políticos y de guerra, que todos piden limpieza de sangre y por estatuto la calidad de nobles, hay distinción entre los Indios y mestizos, o como descendentes de los indios principales que se llaman caciques, o como procedidos de indios menos principales que son los tributarios, y que en su gentilidad reconocieron vasallaje, se considera que a los primeros y sus descendentes se les deben todas las preeminencias y honores, así en lo eclesiástico como en lo secular que se acostumbran conferir a los nobles Hijosdalgo de Castilla y pueden participar de cualesquier comunidades que por estatuto pidan nobleza, pues es constante que estos en su gentilismo eran nobles a quienes sus inferiores reconocían vasallaje y tributaban, cuya especie de nobleza todavía se les conserva y considera, guardándoles en lo posible, o privilegios, como así se reconoce y declara por todo el Título de los caciques, que es el Siete, del Libro Seis, de la Recopilación, donde por distinción de los indios inferiores se les dejó el señorío con nombre de cacicazgo, transmisible de mayor en mayor, a sus posterioridades… Cf. DE CADENAS Y VICENT, Vicente (1993). Las Pruebas de Nobleza y Genealogia en Filipinas y Los Archivios en Donde se Pueden Encontrar Antecedentes de Ellas in Heraldica, Genealogia y Nobleza en los Editoriales de «Hidalguia», 19531–993: 40 años de un pensamiento (in Castellano). Madrid: HIDALGUIA, pp. 234-235.
Por ella se aprecia bien claramente y de manera fehaciente que a los caciques indígenas se les equiparada a los Hidalgos españoles y la prueba más rotunda de su aplicación se halla en el Archivo General Militar de Segovia, en donde las calificaciones de «Nobleza» se encuentran en las Hojas de Servicio de aquellos filipinos que ingresaron en nuestras Academias Militares y cuyos ascendientes eran caciques, encomenderos, tagalos notables, pedáneos, por los gobernadores o que ocupan cargos en la Administración municipal o en la del Gobierno, de todas las diferentes regiones de las grandes islas del Archipiélago o en las múltiples islas pequeñas de que se compone el mismo. DE CADENAS Y VICENT, Vicente (1993). Las Pruebas de Nobleza y Genealogia en Filipinas y Los Archivios en Donde se Pueden Encontrar Antecedentes de Ellas in Heraldica, Genealogia y Nobleza en los Editoriales de “Hidalguia”, 1953-1993: 40 años de un pensamiento (in Spanish). Madrid: HIDALGUIA. ISBN 9788487204548, p. 235.
Ceballos-Escalera y Gila, Alfonso, ed. (2016). Los Saberes de la Nobleza Española y su Tradición: Familia, corte, libros in Cuadernos de Ayala, N. 68 (Octubre-Diciembre 2016, p. 4
Por otra parte, mientras en las Indias la cultura precolombiana había alcanzado un alto nivel, en Filipinas la civilización isleña continuaba manifestándose en sus estados más primitivos. Sin embargo, esas sociedades primitivas, independientes totalmente las unas de las otras, estaban en cierta manera estructuradas y se apreciaba en ellas una organización jerárquica embrionaria y local, pero era digna de ser atendida. Precisamente en esa organización local es, como siempre, de donde nace la nobleza. El indio aborigen, jefe de tribu, es reconocido como noble y las pruebas irrefutables de su nobleza se encuentran principalmente en las Hojas de Servicios de los militares de origen filipino que abrazaron la carrera de las Armas, cuando para hacerlo necesariamente era preciso demostrar el origen nobiliario del individuo. DE CADENAS Y VICENT, Vicente (1993). Las Pruebas de Nobleza y Genealogia en Filipinas y Los Archivios en Donde se Pueden Encontrar Antecedentes de Ellas in Heraldica, Genealogia y Nobleza en los Editoriales de “Hidalguia”, 1953-1993: 40 años de un pensamiento (in Spanish). Madrid: HIDALGUIA. ISBN 9788487204548, p. 232.
También en la Real Academia de la Historia existe un importante fondo relativo a las Islas Filipinas, y aunque su mayor parte debe corresponder a la Historia de ellas, no es excluir que entre su documentación aparezcan muchos antecedentes genealógicos… El Archivo del Palacio y en su Real Estampilla se recogen los nombramientos de centenares de aborígenes de aquel Archipiélago, a los cuales, en virtud de su posición social, ocuparon cargos en la administración de aquellos territorios y cuya presencia demuestra la inquietud cultural de nuestra Patria en aquéllas Islas para la preparación de sus naturales y la colaboración de estos en las tareas de su Gobierno. Esta faceta en Filipinas aparece mucho más actuada que en el continente americano y de ahí que en Filipinas la Nobleza de cargo adquiera mayor importancia que en las Indias.DE CADENAS Y VICENT, Vicente (1993). Las Pruebas de Nobleza y Genealogia en Filipinas y Los Archivios en Donde se Pueden Encontrar Antecedentes de Ellas in Heraldica, Genealogia y Nobleza en los Editoriales de “Hidalguia”, 1953-1993: 40 años de un pensamiento (in Spanish). Madrid: HIDALGUIA. ISBN 9788487204548, p. 234.
Durante la dominación española, el cacique, jefe de un barangay, ejercía funciones judiciales y administrativas. A los tres años tenía el tratamiento de don y se reconocía capacidad para ser gobernadorcillo. Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada Europeo-Americana. VII. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, S.A. 1921, p. 624.
BLAIR, Emma Helen & ROBERTSON, James Alexander, eds. (1903). The Philippine Islands, 1493–1898. Volume 27 of 55 (1636-37). Historical introduction and additional notes by Edward Gaylord BOURNE; additional translations by Arthur B. Myrick. Cleveland, Ohio: Arthur H. Clark Company. ISBN 978-1-333-01347-9. OCLC 769945242. “Explorations by early navigators, descriptions of the islands and their peoples, their history and records of the catholic missions, as related in contemporaneous books and manuscripts, showing the political, economic, commercial and religious conditions of those islands from their earliest relations with European nations to the close of the nineteenth century, pp. 296-297.
BLAIR, Emma Helen & ROBERTSON, James Alexander, eds. (1903). The Philippine Islands, 1493–1898. Volume 27 of 55 (1636-37). Historical introduction and additional notes by Edward Gaylord BOURNE; additional translations by Arthur B. Myrick. Cleveland, Ohio: Arthur H. Clark Company. ISBN 978-1-333-01347-9. OCLC 769945242. “Explorations by early navigators, descriptions of the islands and their peoples, their history and records of the catholic missions, as related in contemporaneous books and manuscripts, showing the political, economic, commercial and religious conditions of those islands from their earliest relations with European nations to the close of the nineteenth century, pp. 329.
DE CADENAS Y VICENT, Vicente (1993). Las Pruebas de Nobleza y Genealogia en Filipinas y Los Archivios en Donde se Pueden Encontrar Antecedentes de Ellas in Heraldica, Genealogia y Nobleza en los Editoriales de “Hidalguia”, 1953-1993: 40 años de un pensamiento (in Spanish). Madrid: HIDALGUIA. ISBN 9788487204548.
FERRANDO, Fr Juan & FONSECA OSA, Fr Joaquin (1870–1872). Historia de los PP. Dominicos en las Islas Filipinas y en las Misiones del Japon, China, Tung-kin y Formosa (Vol. 1 of 6 vols) (in Spanish). Madrid: Imprenta y esteriotipia de M Rivadeneyra, p. 146
EXTERNAL LINKS:

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Nobility

Look up nobility in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Nobility.

Wikidata has the property:
Disc Plain blue dark.svg family (P53) (see uses)

Genealogy of Georgian Nobility
WW-Person, an on-line database of European noble genealogy
Nobiliary Law.

Genealogics, an extensive database of European nobles
Worldroots, a selection of art and genealogy of European nobility.

RoyalArk- ruling houses in many non-European countries.

The Russian Nobility Association in America

Italian dynastic genealogies (in Italian, with an introduction in English)

Worldwidewords
A Glossary of Titles in 35 Languages

Etymology OnLine
Friesian- Feudal Hierarchy (scroll down)

Heraldica.org – European Noble, Princely, Royal and Imperial Titles

Genesis of European Nobility

News about the nobility

OLIGARCHY

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning ‘few’, and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning ‘to rule or to command’) is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may be distinguished by; nobility, wealth, family ties, education corporate, religious, political, or military control. Such states are often controlled by families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
ETYMOLOGY

From Ancient Greek ὀλιγάρχης (oligárkhēs).
Surface analysis: olig- (“few”) +‎ -arch (“ruler, leader”)
PRONUNCIATION

(US) IPA(key): /ˈoʊlɪˌɡɑɹk/
Noun

Oligarch (plural Oligarchs)

A member of an ‘Oligarchy’; Someone who is part of a small group that runs a country.
(especially Russia, USA, Europe, or China) A very rich person, particularly with political power; a Plutocrat. (2016 December 6, Francis Fukuyama, “The Dangers of Disruption”, in The New York Times‎)

He will be an Oligarch in the Russian mold: a rich man who used his wealth to gain political power and who would use political power to enrich himself once in office. (cosmogony)
A protoplanet formed during oligarchic accretion.
SYNONYMS:

(rich and powerful person): plutocrat, tycoonocrat
RELATED TERMS:

• Oligarchic
• Oligarchical
• Oligarchy
TRANSLATIONS:

A member of an oligarchy =
A very rich person
Throughout history, Oligarchies have often been tyrannical, relying on public obedience or oppression to exist. Aristotele pioneered the use of the term as meaning rule by the rich, for which another term commonly used today is Plutocracy.

In the early 20th century Robert Michels developed the theory that democracies, as all large organizations, have a tendency to turn into Oligarchies. In his “Iron Law of Oligarchy” he suggests that the necessary division of labor in large organizations leads to the establishment of a ruling class mostly concerned with protecting their own power.

This was already recognized by the Athenians in the fourth century BCE: After the restoration of Democracy from Oligarchical coups, they used the drawing of lots for selecting government officers to counteract that tendency toward Oligarchy in government. They drew lots from large groups of adult volunteers to pick civil servants performing judicial, executive, and administrative functions (archai, boulē, and hēliastai). They even used lots for posts, such as judges and jurors in the political courts (nomothetai), which had the power to overrule the Assembly.
MINORITY RULE

The exclusive consolidation of power by a dominant religious or ethnic minority has also been described as a form of Oligarchy. Examples of this system include South Africa under Apartheid, Liberia under Americo-Liberians, the Sultanate of Zanzibar, and Rhodesia, where the installation of Oligarchic rule by the descendants of foreign settlers was primarily regarded as a legacy of various forms of colonialism.

The modern United States of America has also been described as an oligarchy, with its Republican Party representing a minority of the population but securing control of the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, while the Democratic Party has control of the House. Migration to cities will likely see the Republican Party’s hold over the Senate strengthen in subsequent elections, despite an expected demographic shift to a majority-minority population by 2045. And lifetime appointments of Supreme Court Justices, make that body’s conservative majority a likelihood for at least eight years.
PUTATIVE OLIGARCHIES

A business group might be defined as an ‘Oligarch’, if it satisfies the following conditions:

(1) Owners are the largest private owners in the country

(2) It possesses sufficient political power to promote its own interests

(3) Owners control multiple businesses, which intensively coordinate their activities.
RUSSIAN FEDERATION

(Main article: Russian Oligarch)

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and privatisation of the economy in December 1991, privately owned Russia-based multinational corporations, including producers of petroleum, natural gas, and metal have, in the view of many analysts, led to the rise of Russian oligarchs.
CHINA

An oligarchy took control of China after the death of Mao Tse-Tung. It is the 103 members of the families descended from the “Eight Elders”. They manage most of the State-owned enterprises, collaborate on business deals, and even intermarry.
UKRAINE

(Main article: Ukrainian Oligarchs)

The Ukrainian oligarchs are a group of business Oligarchs that quickly appeared on the economic and political scene of Ukraine after its independence in 1991. Overall there are 35 Oligarchic groups.
ZIMBABWE

The Zimbabwean Oligarchs are a group of liberation war veterans; who form the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front, a colonial liberation party. The philosophy of the Zimbabwean government is that Zimbabwe can only be governed by a leader who took part in the pre-independence war. ZANU-PF has a theme motto in Shona “Zimbabwe yakauya neropa” meaning Zimbabwe was born from the blood of the sons and daughters who died fighting for its independence. The born free generation (born since independence in 1980) has no birthright to rule Zimbabwe.
UNITED STATES

Further information: Wealth inequality in the United States and Income inequality in the United States § Impact on democracy and society
Some contemporary authors have characterized current conditions in the United States as oligarchic in nature. Simon Johnson wrote that “the reemergence of an American financial Oligarchy is quite recent”, a structure which he delineated as being the “most advanced” in the world. Jeffrey A. Winters wrote that; “Oligarchy and Democracy, operate within a single system, and American politics is a daily display of their interplay”. The top 1% of the U.S. population by wealth in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928. In 2011, according to Politics Fact and others, the top 400 wealthiest Americans “have more wealth than half of all Americans combined”.

In 1998 Bob Herbert of The New York Times referred to modern American plutocrats as “The Donor Class” (list of top donors) and defined the class, for the first time, as “a tiny group—just one-quarter of 1 percent of the population—and it is not representative of the rest of the nation. But its money buys plenty of access”.

French economist Thomas Piketty, states; in his 2013 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, that “the risk of a drift towards Oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed”.

A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University was released in April 2014, which stated that their “analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts”. The study analyzed nearly 1,800 policies enacted by the US government between 1981 and 2002 and compared them to the expressed preferences of the American public as opposed to wealthy Americans and large special interest groups. It found that wealthy individuals and organizations representing business interests have substantial political influence, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little to none. The study did concede that “Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise.” Gilens and Page do not characterize the US as an “oligarchy” per se; however, they do apply the concept of “civil oligarchy” as used by Jeffrey Winters with respect to the US. Winters has posited a comparative theory of “oligarchy” in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a “civil oligarchy” like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection.

Gilens says that average citizens only get what they want if wealthy Americans and business-oriented interest groups also want it; and that when a policy favored by the majority of the American public is implemented, it is usually because the economic elites did not oppose it. Other studies have questioned the Page and Gilens study.

In a 2015 interview, former President Jimmy Carter stated that the United States is now “an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery”, due to the Citizens United ruling, which effectively removed limits on donations to political candidates.
SEE ALSO:

• Aristocracy

• Dictatorship

• Inverted totalitarianism

• Iron law of oligarchy

• Kleptocracy

• Meritocracy

• Military dictatorship

• Nepotism

• Netocracy

• Oligopoly

• Oligarchical Collectivism

• Parasitism

• Plutocracy

• Political Family

• Power behind the throne

•Stratocracy

• Synarchism

• Theocracy

• Timocracy

THEOCRACY

Augustus as Jove, holding scepter and orb (first half of 1st century AD).

The Imperial cult of ancient Rome identified Roman Emperors and some members of their families with the divinely sanctioned authority (auctoritas) of the Roman State.

The official offer of cultus to a living emperor acknowledged his office and rule as divinely approved and constitutional: His Principate should therefore demonstrate pious respect for traditional Republican deities and mores..
Theocracy is a form of government in which a religious institution is the source from which all authority derives. The Oxford English Dictionary has this definition:

1. a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

1.1. the commonwealth of Israel from the time of Moses until the election of Saul as King.

An ecclesiocracy is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation: for example, the prince-bishops of the European Middle Ages, where the bishop was also the temporal ruler. Such a state may use the administrative hierarchy of the religion for its own administration, or it may have two “arms”—administrators and clergy—but with the state ‘Administrative Hierarchy”, subordinate to the ‘Religious Hierarchy’. Theocracy differs from theonomy, the latter of which is government based on divine law.

The Papacy in the Papal States, occupied a middle ground between Theocracy and Ecclesiocracy, since the Pope did not claim he was a prophet who received revelation from God and translated it into civil law.

Religiously endorsed Monarchies fall between Theocracy and Ecclesiocracy, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs.

Most forms of Theocracy are Oligarchic in nature, involving rule of the many by the few, some of whom so anointed under claim of divine commission.
ETYMOLOGY

The word; ‘Theocracy’, originates from the Greek θεοκρατία meaning “the rule of God”. This in turn derives from θεός (theos), meaning “god”, and κρατέω (krateo), meaning “to rule”. Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was “rule by god(s)” or human incarnation(s) of god(s).

The term was initially coined by Flavius Josephus in the first century A.D. to describe the characteristic government of the Jews. Josephus argued that while mankind had developed many forms of rule, most could be subsumed under the following three types: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. The government of the Jews, however, was unique. Josephus offered the term “theocracy” to describe this polity, ordained by Moses, in which God is sovereign and his word is law.

Josephus’ definition was widely accepted until the ‘Enlightenment era’, when the term started to collect more universalistic and negative connotations, especially in Hegel’s hands. The first recorded English use was in 1622, with the meaning “sacerdotal government under divine inspiration” (as in Biblical Israel before the rise of kings); the meaning “priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power” is recorded from 1825.
SYNOPSIS

In some religions, the ruler, usually a king, was regarded as the chosen favorite of God (or gods) who could not be questioned, sometimes even being the descendant of, or a god in their own right. Today, there is also a form of government where clerics have the power and the supreme leader could not be questioned in action. From the perspective of the theocratic government, “God himself is recognized as the head” of the state,[6] hence the term theocracy, from the Koine Greek θεοκρατία “rule of God”, a term used by Josephus for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Taken literally, Theocracy, means; – ‘rule by God/Gods’, and refers primarily to an internal “rule of the heart”, especially in its biblical application. The common, generic use of the term, as defined above in terms of rule by a church or analogous religious leadership, would be more accurately described as an Ecclesiocracy.

In a pure Theocracy, the civil leader is believed to have a personal connection with the civilization’s religion or belief.
For example, Moses led the Israelites, and Muhammad led the early Muslims. There is a fine line between the tendency of appointing religious characters to run the state and having a religious-based government. According to the Holy Books, Prophet Joseph was offered an essential governmental role just because he was trustworthy, wise and knowledgeable (Quran 12: 54–55). As a result of the Prophet Joseph’s knowledge and also due to his ethical and genuine efforts during a critical economic situation, the whole nation was rescued from a seven-year drought (Quran 12: 47–48).

When religions have a “Holy Book”, it is used as a direct message from God. Law proclaimed by the ruler is also considered a divine revelation, and hence the law of God. As to the Prophet Muhammad ruling, “The first thirteen of the Prophet’s twenty-three year career went on totally apolitical and non-violent. This attitude partly changed only after he had to flee from Mecca to Medina. This hijra, or migration, would be a turning point in the Prophet’s mission and would mark the very beginning of the Muslim calendar. Yet the Prophet did not establish a theocracy in Medina. Instead of a polity defined solely by Islam, he founded a territorial polity based on religious pluralism. This is evident in a document called the ’Charter of Medina’, which the Prophet signed with the leaders of the other community in the city”.

According to the Quran, Prophets were not after power or material resources. For example in surah 26 verses (109, 127, 145, 164, 180), the Koran repeatedly quotes from Prophets, Noah, Hud, Salih, Lut, and Shu’aib that: “I do not ask you for it any payment; my payment is only from the Lord of the worlds.” While, in Theocracy many aspects of the holy book are overshadowed by material powers. Due to be considered divine, the regime entitles itself to interpret verses to its own benefit and abuse them out of the context for its political aims. An Ecclesiocracy, on the other hand, is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation. For example, the prince-bishops of the European Middle Ages, where the bishop was also the temporal ruler. Such a state may use the administrative Hierarchy of the religion for its own administration, or it may have two “arms”—administrators and clergy—but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. The Papacy in the Papal States, occupied a middle ground between Theocracy and Ecclesiocracy, since the pope did not claim he was a prophet who received revelation from God and translated it into civil law.

Religiously endorsed Monarchies fall between these two poles, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs.

Theocracy is distinguished from other, secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are influenced by theological or moral concepts, and Monarchies held “By the Grace of God”. In the most common usage of the term, some civil rulers are leaders of the dominant religion (e.g., the Byzantine emperor as patron and defender of the official Church); the government proclaims it rules on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion, and divine approval of government institutions and laws. These characteristics apply also to a ‘caesaropapist regime’. The Byzantine Empire however was not Theocratic since the patriarch answered to the emperor, not vice versa; similarly in Tudor England the crown forced the church to break away from Rome so the royal (and, especially later, Parliamentary) power could assume full control of the now Anglican Hierarchy and confiscate most church property and income.

Secular governments can also co-exist with a state religion or delegate some aspects of civil law to religious communities. For example, in Israel marriage is governed by officially recognized religious bodies who each provide marriage services for their respected adherents, yet no form of civil marriage (free of religion, for atheists, for example) exists nor marriage by non-recognized minority religions.
CURRENT THEOCRACIES
CHRISTIAN THEOCRACIES
● HOLY SEE (Vatican City)
(Main article: Politics of Vatican City)

(Further information: Christian state)

Following the Capture of Rome on 20 September 1870, the Papal States including Rome with the Vatican were annexed by the Kingdom of Italy. In 1929, with the Lateran Treaty signed with the Italian Government, the new state of Vatican City (population 842) – with no connection with the former Papal States – was formally created and recognized as an independent state. The head of state of the Vatican is the pope, elected by the College of Cardinals, an assembly of Senatorial-princes of the Church. They are usually clerics, appointed as Ordinaries, but in the past have also included men who were not bishops nor clerics. A pope is elected for life, and either dies or may resign. The cardinals are appointed by the popes, who therefore choose the electors of their successors.

Voting is limited to cardinals under 80 years of age. A Secretary for Relations with States, directly responsible for international relations, is appointed by the pope. The Vatican legal system is rooted in canon law but ultimately is decided by the pope; the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Pontiff, “has the fullness of legislative, executive and judicial powers”. Although the laws of Vatican City come from the secular laws of Italy, under article 3 of the Law of the Sources of the Law, provision is made for the supplementary application of the “laws promulgated by the Kingdom of Italy”. The government of the Vatican can also be considered an ecclesiocracy (ruled by the Church).
Mount Athos (Athonite State)

(Main article: Mount Athos)

Mount Athos is a mountain peninsula in Greece which is an Eastern Orthodox autonomous region consisting of 20 monasteries under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. There has been almost 1,800-years of continuous Christian presence on Mount Athos and it has a long history of monastic traditions, which dates back to at least 800 A.D. The origins of self-rule are originally from an edict by the Byzantine Emperor Ioannis Tzimisces in 972, which was later reaffirmed by the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos in 1095. After Greece’s independence from the Ottoman Empire, Greece claimed mount Athos but after a diplomatic dispute with Russia the region was formally recognised as Greek after World War 1.

Mount Athos is specifically exempt from the free movement of people and goods required by Greece’s membership of the European Union and entrance is only allowed with express permission from the monks.
The number of daily visitors to Mount Athos is restricted, with all visitors required to obtain an entrance permit. Only men are permitted to visit and Orthodox Christians take precedence in permit issuing. Residents of Mount Athos must be men aged 18 and over who are members of the Eastern Orthodox Church and also either monks or workers.

Athos is governed jointly by a ‘Holy Community’ consisting of representatives from the 20 monasteries and a Civil Governor, appointed by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Holy Community also has a four-member executive committee called the ‘Holy Administration’ which is led by a Protos.
ISLAMIC THEOCRACIES:
IRAN

Iran has been described as a “theocratic republic” (by the CIA World Factbook), and its constitution a “hybrid” of “theocratic and democratic elements” by Francis Fukuyama. Like other Islamic states, it maintains religious laws and has religious courts to interpret all aspects of law. According to Iran’s constitution, “all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria”.

In addition, Iran has a religious ruler and many religious officials in powerful government posts. The head of state, or “Supreme Leader”, is a faqih (scholar of Islamic law), and possesses more power than Iran’s president. The Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts: The commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the powerful major religious foundations, the chief justice, the attorney general (indirectly through the chief justice), special tribunals, and members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs. He also co-appoints the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council.[19]

The Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts[15][20] which is made up of mujtahids,[21] who are Islamic scholars competent in interpreting Sharia.

The Guardian Council, has the power to veto bills from majlis (parliament), approve or disapprove candidates who wish to run for high office (president, majlis, the Assembly of Experts). The council supervises elections, and can greenlight or ban investigations into the election process.[15] Six of the Guardians (half the council) are faqih empowered to approve or veto all bills from the majlis (parliament) according to whether the faqih believe them to be in accordance with Islamic law and customs (Sharia). The other six members are lawyers appointed by the head of the judiciary (who is also a cleric and also appointed by the Leader).[22]

An Islamic republic is the name given to several states that are officially ruled by Islamic laws, including the Islamic Republics of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Mauritania. Pakistan first adopted the title under the constitution of 1956. Mauritania adopted it on 28 November 1958. Iran adopted it after the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty. Afghanistan adopted it in 2004 after the fall of the Taliban government. Despite having similar names the countries differ greatly in their governments and laws.

The term “Islamic republic” has come to mean several different things, some contradictory to others. To some Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East and Africa who advocate it, an Islamic republic is a state under a particular Islamic form of government. They see it as a compromise between a purely Islamic caliphate and secular nationalism and republicanism. In their conception of the Islamic republic, the penal code of the state is required to be compatible with some or all laws of Sharia, and the state may not be a monarchy, as many Middle Eastern states are presently.[citation needed]

Central Tibetan Administration
Edit
The Central Tibetan Administration, colloquially known as the Tibetan government in exile, is a Tibetan exile organisation with a state-like internal structure. According to its charter, the position of head of state of the Central Tibetan Administration belongs ex officio to the current Dalai Lama, a religious hierarch. In this respect, it continues the traditions of the former government of Tibet, which was ruled by the Dalai Lamas and their ministers, with a specific role reserved for a class of monk officials.

On March 14, 2011, at the 14th Dalai Lama’s suggestion, the parliament of the Central Tibetan Administration began considering a proposal to remove the Dalai Lama’s role as head of state in favor of an elected leader.

The first directly elected Kalön Tripa was Samdhong Rinpoche, who was elected August 20, 2001.[23]

Before 2011, the Kalön Tripa position was subordinate to the 14th Dalai Lama[24] who presided over the government in exile from its founding.[25] In August of that year, Lobsang Sangay polled 55 percent votes out of 49,189, defeating his nearest rival Tethong Tenzin Namgyal by 8,646 votes,[26] becoming the second popularly elected Kalon Tripa. The Dalai Lama announced that his political authority would be transferred to Sangay.[27]

Change to Sikyong
Edit
On September 20, 2012, the 15th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile unanimously voted to change the title of Kalön Tripa to Sikyong in Article 19 of the Charter of the Tibetans in exile and relevant articles.[28] The Dalai Lama had previously referred to the Kalon Tripa as Sikyong, and this usage was cited as the primary justification for the name change. According to Tibetan Review, “Sikyong” translates to “political leader”, as distinct from “spiritual leader”.[29] Foreign affairs Kalon Dicki Chhoyang stated that the term “Sikyong” has had a precedent dating back to the 7th Dalai Lama, and that the name change “ensures historical continuity and legitimacy of the traditional leadership from the fifth Dalai Lama”.[30] The online Dharma Dictionary translates sikyong (srid skyong) as “secular ruler; regime, regent”.[31] The title sikyong had previously been used by regents who ruled Tibet during the Dalai Lama’s minority.
STATES WITH OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION

(Main article: State religion)

Having a state religion is not sufficient to be a theocracy in the narrow sense. Many countries have a state religion without the government directly deriving its powers from a divine authority or a religious authority directly exercising governmental powers. Since the narrow sense has few instances in the modern world, the more common usage is the wider sense of an enforced state religion.
HISTORIC STATES WITH THEOCRATIC ASPECTS:
● ANCIENT EGYPT

The pharaoh was the offspring of the sungod.
● JAPAN

The emperor was the offspring of the sun goddess.
● WESTERN ANTIQUITY

Further information: Imperial Cult, State Church of the Roman Empire, and Israelites
The imperial Cults in Ancient Egypt and the Roman Empire, as well as numerous other Monarchies, deified the ruling Monarch. The state religion was often dedicated to the worship of the ruler as a deity, or the incarnation thereof.

Early Israel was ruled by Judges before instituting a Monarchy. The Judges were believed to be representatives of YHVH Yahweh (also translated as, Jehovah).

In ancient and medieval Christianity, Caesaropapism is the doctrine where a head of state is at the same time the head of the church.
● TIBET

Unified religious rule in Tibet began in 1642, when the Fifth Dalai Lama allied with the military power of the Mongol Gushri Khan to consolidate the political power and center control around his office as head of the Gelug school. This form of government is known as the dual system of government. Prior to 1642, particular monasteries and monks had held considerable power throughout Tibet, but had not achieved anything approaching complete control, though power continued to be held in a diffuse, ‘Feudal System’, after the ascension of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Power in Tibet was held by a number of traditional elites, including members of the Nobility, the heads of the major Buddhist sects (including their various tulkus), and various large and influential ‘Monastic Communities’.

Political power was sometimes used by monastic leaders to suppress rival religious schools through the confiscation of property and direct violence. Social mobility was somewhat possible through the attainment of a monastic education, or recognition as a reincarnated teacher, but such institutions were dominated by the traditional elites and governed by political intrigue. Non-Buddhists in Tibet were members of an outcast underclass.

The Bogd Khaanate period of Mongolia (1911–19) is also cited as a former Buddhist Theocracy.
● CHINA

Further information: Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors and Chinese emperor
Similar to the Roman Emperor, the Chinese sovereign was historically held to be the Son of Heaven. However, from the first historical Emperor on, this was largely ceremonial and tradition quickly established it as a posthumous dignity, like the Roman institution. The situation before Qin Shi Huang Di is less clear.

The Shang Dynasty essentially functioned as a Theocracy, declaring the ruling family the sons of heaven and calling the chief sky god Shangdi after a word for their deceased ancestors. After their overthrow by the Zhou, the ‘Royal Clan of Shang’, were not eliminated but instead moved to a ceremonial capital where they were charged to continue the performance of their rituals.

The titles combined by Shi Huangdi to form his new title of emperor were originally applied to god-like beings who ordered the heavens and earth and to culture heroes credited with the invention of agriculture, clothing, music, astrology, &c. Even after the fall of Qin, an emperor’s words were considered sacred edicts (聖旨) and his written proclamations “directives from above” (上諭).

As a result, some Sinologists translate the title ‘Huangdi’, (usually rendered “emperor”) as Thearch. The term properly refers to the head of a Thearchy (a kingdom of gods), but the more accurate “Theocrat” carries associations of a strong priesthood that would be generally inaccurate in describing imperial China. Others reserve the use of “Thearch” to describe the legendary figures of Chinese prehistory while continuing to use “emperor” to describe historical rulers.

The Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace in 1860s Qing China was a heterodox Christian theocracy led by a person who said that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ, Hong Xiuquan. This theocratic state fought one of the most destructive wars in history, the Taiping Rebellion, against the Qing dynasty for fifteen years before being crushed following the fall of the rebel capital Nanjing.
● CALIPHATE

The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that, as a head of state, a Caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives. Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a Caliph should be an Imam chosen by God from the Ahl al-Bayt (the “Family of the House”, Muhammad’s direct descendants).
● BYZANTINE EMPIRE

(Main article: Byzantine Empire § Religion).

The Byzantine Empire (a.d. 324–1453) operated under caesaropapism, meaning that the emperor was both the head of civil society and the ultimate authority over the Ecclesiastical Authorities, or Patriarchates. The Emperor was considered to be God’s omnipotent representative on Earth and he ruled as an Absolute Autocrat.

Jennifer Fretland VanVoorst argues, “the Byzantine Empire became a Theocracy in the sense that Christian values and ideals were the foundation of the empire’s political ideals and heavily entwined with its political goals”. Steven Runciman says in his book on The Byzantine Theocracy (2004):

The constitution of the Byzantine Empire was based on the conviction that it was the earthly copy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Just as God ruled in Heaven, so the Emperor, made in His image, should rule on earth and carry out his commandments…. It saw itself as a universal empire. Ideally, it should embrace all the peoples of the Earth who, ideally, should all be members of the one true Christian Church, its own Orthodox Church. Just as man was made in God’s image, so man’s kingdom on Earth was made in the image of the Kingdom of Heaven.
● GENEVA & ZURICH

Historians debate the extent to which Geneva, Switzerland, in the days of John Calvin (1509–64) was a Theocracy. On the one hand, Calvin’s theology clearly called for separation between church and state. Other historians have stressed the enormous political power wielded on a daily basis by the clerics.

In nearby Zurich, Switzerland, Protestant reformer Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), built a political system, that have been called a Theocracy, by many scholars, while other scholars have denied it.
● DESERET

(Main articles: State of Deseret and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

(See also: Theodemocracy)

The question of theocracy has been debated at extensively by historians regarding the Mormon communities in Illinois, and especially in Utah.

Joseph Smith, mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, and founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, ran as an independent for president in 1844. He proposed the redemption of slaves by selling public lands; reducing the size and salary of Congress; the closure of prisons; the annexation of Texas, Oregon, and parts of Canada; the securing of international rights on high seas; free trade; and the re-establishment of a national bank. His top aide Brigham Young campaigned for Smith saying, “He it is that God of Heaven designs to save this nation from destruction and preserve the Constitution”. The campaign ended when Smith was killed by a mob while in the Carthage, Illinois, jail on June 27, 1844.

After severe persecution, the Mormons left the United States and resettled in a remote part of Utah, which was then part of Mexico. However the United States took control in 1848 and would not accept polygamy. The Mormon State of Deseret was short-lived. Its original borders stretched from western Colorado to the southern California coast. When the Mormons arrived in the valley of the Great Salt Lake in 1847, the Great Basin was still a part of Mexico and had no secular government. As a result, Brigham Young administered the region both spiritually and temporally through the highly organized and centralized Melchizedek Priesthood. This original organization was based upon a concept called theodemocracy, a governmental system combining Biblical theocracy with mid-19th-century American political ideals.

In 1849, the Saints organized a secular government in Utah, although many ecclesiastical leaders maintained their positions of secular power. The Mormons also petitioned Congress to have Deseret admitted into the Union as a state. However, under the Compromise of 1850, Utah Territory was created and Brigham Young was appointed governor. In this situation, Young still stood as head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) as well as Utah’s secular government.

After the abortive Utah War of 1857–1858, the replacement of Young by an outside Federal Territorial Governor, intense federal prosecution of LDS Church leaders, and the eventual resolution of controversies regarding plural marriage, and accession by Utah to statehood, the apparent temporal aspects of LDS theodemocracy receded markedly.
● PERSIA

During the Achaemenid Empire, Zoroastrianism was the state religion and included formalized worship. The Persian kings were known to be pious Zoroastrians and also ruled with a Zoroastrian form of law called ‘Asha’. However, Cyrus the Great, who founded the empire, avoided imposing the Zoroastrian faith on the inhabitants of conquered territory. Cyrus’s kindness towards Jews has been cited as sparking Zoroastrian influence on Judaism.

Under the Seleucids, Zoroastrianism became autonomous. During the Sassanid period, the Zoroastrian calendar was reformed, image-use was banned, Fire Temples were increasingly built and intolerance towards other faiths prevailed.
● OTHERS

The short reign (1494–1498) of Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican priest, over the city of Florence had features of a Theocracy. During his rule, “un-Christian” books, statues, poetry, and other items were burned (in the Bonfire of the Vanities), sodomy was made a capital offense, and other Christian practices became law.
SEE ALSO:
● GENERAL:

• Divine Law
• Divine Command Theory
• Philosopher King
• Religious Law
● CHRISTIAN:

• Christian Reconstructionism
• Divine Right of Kings
• Dominionism
• National Catholicism
• Temporal power (papal)
• Theonomy
● ISLAMIC:

• Iranian Revolution
• Islamic banking
• Islamic republic
• Islamic state
• Islamism
• Political aspects of Islam
• Religious police
• Qutbism
• Taliban
• Wahhabi
● OTHER:

• Divine Right of Kings
• Khalistan
• State Shinto (Japan)
• State Religion
● FICTIONAL:

• List of fictional theocracies
• Religion in science fiction
PLUTOCRACY
PLUTARCHY (PLUTONOMY)

A plutocracy (Greek: πλοῦτος, ploutos, ‘wealth’ + κράτος, kratos, ‘power’) or plutarchy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income. The first known use of the term in English dates from 1631. Unlike systems such as democracy, capitalism, socialism or anarchism, plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy. The concept of plutocracy may be advocated by the wealthy classes of a society in an indirect or surreptitious fashion, though the term itself is almost always used in a pejorative sense.
USAGE

PROPAGANDA TERM

In the political jargon and propaganda of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the Communist International, western democratic states were referred to as plutocracies, with the implication being that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals were controlling the countries and holding them to ransom. Plutocracy replaced democracy and capitalism as the principal fascist term for the United States and Great Britain during the Second World War. For the Nazis, the term was often a code word for “the Jews”.
SEE ALSO:

• Aristocracy
• Anarcho-Capitalism
• Banana Republic
• Corporatocracy
• Corporate Republic
• Elitism
• Meritocracy
• Kleptocracy
• Neo-Feudalism
• Oligarchy
• Overclass
• Plutonomy
• Timocracy
• Upper Class
• Wealth Concentration
KLEPTOCRACY

This article is about the term for systematic corruption and thievery by the state or state-sanctioned corruption. For a state with ties to or aid from organized crime syndicates, see Mafia state.

Kleptocracy (from Greek κλέπτης kléptēs, “thief”, κλέπτω kléptō, “I steal”, and -κρατία -kratía from κράτος krátos, “power, rule”) is a government with corrupt leaders (kleptocrats) that use their power to exploit the people and natural resources of their own territory in order to extend their personal wealth and political powers. Typically, this system involves embezzlement of funds at the expense of the wider population.

Kleptocracy is different from a Plutocracy; A kleptocracy is a government ruled by corrupt politicians who use their political power to receive kickbacks, bribes, and special favors at the expense of the populace. Kleptocrats may use political leverage to pass laws that enrich them or their constituents and they usually circumvent the rule of law.

TIMOCRACY

A Timocracy (from Greek τιμή timē, “price, worth” and -κρατία -kratia, “rule”) in Aristotle’s Politics is a state where only property owners may participate in government. The more extreme forms of Timocracy, where power derives entirely from wealth with no regard for social or civic responsibility, may shift in their form and become a plutocracy where the wealthy rule.
TIMOCRACY & PROPERTY

Solon introduced the ideas of timokratia as a graded oligarchy in his Solonian Constitution for Athens in the early 6th century BC. His was the first known deliberately implemented form of timocracy, allocating political rights and economic responsibility depending on membership of one of four tiers of the population. Solon defined these tiers by measuring how many bushels of produce each man could produce in a year, namely:

Pentacosiomedimni – “Men of the 500 bushel”, those who produced 500 bushels of produce per year, could serve as generals in the army
Hippeis – Knights, those who could equip themselves and one cavalry horse for war, valued at 300 bushels per year
Zeugitae – Tillers, owners of at least one pair of beasts of burden, valued at 200 bushels per year, could serve as Hoplites
Thetes – Manual laborers
N. G. L. Hammond supposes Solon instituted a graduated tax upon the upper classes, levied in a ratio of 6:3:1, with the lowest class of thetes paying nothing in taxes but remaining ineligible for elected office.

Aristotle later wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics (Book 8, Chapter 10) about three “true political forms” for a state, each of which could appear in corrupt form, becoming one of three negative forms. Aristotle describes timocracy in the sense of rule by property-owners: it comprised one of his true political forms. Aristotelian timocracy approximated to the constitution of Athens, although Athens exemplified the corrupted version of this form, described as democracy.
TIMOCRACY, COMPARABLE VALUES, & PLATO’S FIVE REGIMES

(Main article: Plato’s five regimes).

In The Republic, Plato describes five regimes (of which four are unjust). Timocracy is listed as the first “unjust” regime. Aristocracy degenerates into timocracy when, due to miscalculation on the part of its governed class, the next generation of guardians and auxiliaries includes persons of an inferior nature (the persons with souls made of iron or bronze, as opposed to the ideal guardians and auxiliaries, who have souls made of gold and silver). A timocracy, in choosing its leaders, is “inclining rather to the more high-spirited and simple-minded type, who are better suited for war”. The city-state of Sparta provided Plato with a real-world model for this form of government. Modern observers might describe Sparta as a totalitarian or one-party state, although the details we know of its society come almost exclusively from Sparta’s enemies. The idea of militarism-stratocracy accurately reflects the fundamental values of Spartan society.
REFERENCES:

Harper, Douglas (November 2001). “”Timocracy” etymology”. Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2008-10-25.
Rep. 8.547e; Cahn, Steven M., Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2002. ISBN 0199791155
3. Websters New World Dictionary “of the American Language” second college edition page 1490
DEMOCRACY

For a democracy that protects the rights of individuals, see Liberal democracy. For other uses, see Democracy and Democrat.

A person casts vote in the second round of the 2007 French presidential election.
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally “Rule by ‘People'”) is a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting. In a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body and vote directly on each issue. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature. In a constitutional democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or freedom of association. “Rule of the majority” is sometimes referred to as democracy. Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.

The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.[4] Western democracy, as distinct from that which existed in pre-modern societies, is generally considered to have originated in city-states such as Classical Athens and the Roman Republic, where various schemes and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were observed before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late antiquity. The English word dates back to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.

According to American political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; protection of the human rights of all citizens; a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. Todd Landman, nevertheless, draws our attention to the fact that democracy and human rights are two different concepts and that “there must be greater specificity in the conceptualisation and operationalization of democracy and human rights”.

The term appeared in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens, to mean “rule of the people”, in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning “rule of an elite”. While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically. The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class, until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[8] are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.
CHARACTERISTICS

Most democratic (closest to 10)

Least democratic (closest to 0)

Democracy’s de facto status in the world as of 2017, according to Democracy Index by The Economist.

Democracy’s de jure status in the world as of 2018; only Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Brunei, and the Vatican officially admit to be undemocratic
No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal equality, political freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics. These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes.[citation needed] For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, [according to whom?] and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties which are typically protected by a constitution.[13][14] Other uses of “democracy” include that of direct democracy.

One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: upward control (sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority), political equality, and social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality.

The term “democracy” is sometimes used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative democracy that may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government. Roger Scruton argues that democracy alone cannot provide personal and political freedom unless the institutions of civil society are also present.

In some countries, notably in the United Kingdom which originated the Westminster system, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty, while maintaining judicial independence. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute. In India, parliamentary sovereignty is subject to the Constitution of India which includes judicial review. Though the term “Democracy” is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles also are applicable to private organisations.

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the “tyranny of the majority” in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an “ideal” representative democracy is competitive elections that are substantively and procedurally “fair,” i.e., just and equitable. In some countries, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and internet democracy are considered important to ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote according to their own interests.

It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of all voters to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[22] With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of all the voters, democracy can also be characterised as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in lawmaking.

While representative Democracy is sometimes equated with the republican form of government, the term “republic” classically has encompassed both democracies and Aristocracies. Many democracies are constitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom.
HEGEL

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (/ˈheɪɡəl/, German: [ˈɡeːɔɐ̯k ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈheːɡl̩]; August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was a German philosopher and an important figure of German idealism. He achieved wide recognition in his day and—while primarily influential within the continental tradition of philosophy—has become increasingly influential in the analytic tradition as well. Although Hegel remains a divisive figure, his canonical stature within Western philosophy is universally recognized.
FULL NAME:
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

BORN: August 27, 1770
Stuttgart, Duchy of Württemberg

DIED: November 14, 1831 (aged 61), Berlin, Kingdom of Prussia

RESIDENCE: Germany

NATIONALITY: German

EDUCATION:
Gymnasium illustre zu Stuttgart
Tübinger Stift, University of Tübingen (MA, 1790)[1]
University of Jena (PhD, 1801)

ERA:
19th-century philosophy

REGION:
Western philosophy
School
Continental philosophy
German idealism
Objective idealism
Absolute idealism
Hegelianism
Historicism
Naturphilosophie
Epistemic coherentism
Conceptualism
Empirical realism
Coherence theory of truth

INSTITUTIONS:
University of Jena
(1801–1806)
University of Heidelberg
(1816–1818)
University of Berlin
(1818–1831)
THESIS
Dissertatio Philosophica de Orbitis Planetarium (Philosophical Dissertation on the Orbits of the Planets) (1801)
Academic advisors
Johann Friedrich LeBret [de] (MA advisor)
Notable students
Johann Eduard Erdmann
Main interests
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Naturphilosophie
Philosophy of history
Political philosophy
Logic
Aesthetics
Notable ideas
Absolute idealism
Hegelian dialectic
Master–slave dialectic
Aufheben (“sublation”)
Geist (“mind/spirit”)
Sittlichkeit (“ethical order”)
Alienation[8]
Dialectical phenomenology
The three moments
of the concept: universality,
particularity, and individuality[9]
(Allgemeinheit, Besonderheit,
Einzelheit)[10]
Abstract particularity[11]
The abstract–concrete distinction[12]
Judgement of history
“The true is the whole”[13]
Rationality alone is real[14]
Logical holism
Panlogism
Distinction between
critical Verstandesmetaphysik[15]
(metaphysics of Understanding) and
speculative Vernunftsmetaphysik
(metaphysics of Reason)

Inferentialism

The Negative/Positive Liberty Distinction

The civil society/state distinction
Volksgeist
INFLUENCES:

Aristotle Böhme Diderot Ferguson Fichte Heraclitus Herder Kant Rousseau Spinoza Schelling Schiller Smith
INFLUENCED:
Adorno Barth Bauer Bosanquet Bradley Brandomde Beauvoir Butler Chalybäus Chicherin Collingwood Cousin Croce Derrida Dilthey Engels Feuerbach Fischer Fukuyama Gentile Gore Green Hyppolite Kaufmann Kierkegaard Kojève Küng Lenin Lukács Marcuse Marx Morin McDowell Nietzsche Pippin Rose Rosenkranz Russon Sartre Singer Stein Stirner Strauss Taylor Žižek

Hegel’s principal achievement was his development of a distinctive articulation of idealism, sometimes termed absolute idealism, in which the dualisms of, for instance, mind and nature and subject and object are overcome. His philosophy of spirit conceptually integrates psychology, the state, history, art, religion and philosophy. His account of the master–slave dialectic has been highly influential, especially in 20th-century France. Of special importance is his concept of spirit (Geist, sometimes also translated as “mind”) as the historical manifestation of the logical concept and the “sublation” (Aufhebung, integration without elimination or reduction) of seemingly contradictory or opposing factors: examples include the apparent opposition between nature and freedom and between immanence and transcendence. Hegel has been seen in the 20th century as the originator of the thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad, but as an explicit phrase it originated with Johann Gottlieb Fichte.

Hegel has influenced many thinkers and writers whose own positions vary widely. Karl Barth described Hegel as a “Protestant Aquinas” while Maurice Merleau-Ponty wrote that “all the great philosophical ideas of the past century—the philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche, phenomenology, German existentialism, and psychoanalysis—had their beginnings in Hegel”.
SOCIALISM

SHADOW GOVERNMENT

“To the Rockefellers, socialism is not a system for redistributing wealth – especially not for redistributing their wealth -but a system to control people and competitors. Socialism puts power in the hands of the government. And since the Rockefellers control the government, government control means Rockefeller control. You may not have known this, but you can be sure they do!” …The Rockefeller File by Gary Allen

Control necessitates a static society. A growing, competitive, and free society gives new people a chance to make their fortune and replace some of those already at the top. So legislation is promoted to restrict entrepreneurial effort and tax away capital accumulations not protected in the tax-free foundations of the Establishment insiders. Every effort is made to press medium-size business to the wall and allow it to be swallowed up by the Establishment giants……But the fact is that socialism is only a system for control, and the members of the Establishment elite operating out of New York and Washington understand socialism much better than do the Marxists……. the Establishment insiders know that socialism is not a humanitarian system for redistributing wealth, but a system for concentrating wealth and controlling people. Socialism is nothing more or less than a power system — a power system with quasi-mystical and demonstrably false philosophical premises.
The suggestions of the Trilateral report, “The Crisis of Democracy,” are just about the most cultured and genteel proposals for socialist dictatorship I’ve ever seen. Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are illiterate boors by comparison.
The great international bankers and industrialists do not favor competition. What they favor is the formation of cartels and monopolies to control world finance, markets, and natural resources. The Communists, led by the Soviet Union, have basically identical goals on the level of world power. What is more natural than for the Western monopolists to divvy up these spheres with the Communist monopolists of the East? There is a great deal more to it than that, but I think I’ve made my point. An Interview with Gary Allen by John Rees

Committee of 300 (aka Olympians)
Shadow government

Targets of the Illuminati and the Committee of 300 By Dr. John Coleman.

Thanks to the sworn testimony of Guerzoni, Italy and Eu- rope but not the U.S. learned that Kissinger was behind the death of Aldo Moro. This tragic affair demonstrates the ability of the Committee of 300 to impose its will upon any government without exception. Secure in his position as a member of the most powerful secret society in the world, and I am not talking about Freemasonry, Kissinger not only terrified Moro, but carried through on his threats to “eliminate” Moro if he did not give up his plan to bring economic and industrial progress to Italy. In June and July of 1982, the wife of Aldo Moro testified in open court that her husband’s murder came about as a result of serious threats against his life, made by what she called “a high ranking United States political figure.” Mrs. Eleanora Moro repeated the precise phrase reportedly used by Kissinger in the sworn testimony of Guerzoni: “Either you stop your political line or you will pay dearly for it.” Recalled by the judge, Guerzoni was asked if he could identify the person Mrs. Moro was talking about. Guerzoni replied that it was indeed Henry Kissinger as he had previously intimated.- John Coleman, The Story of The Committee of 300, p. 7

The Order of the Garter is the secret inner group which is an elite group within the Order of St. John of Jerusalem which is the British part of the Knights of Malta. The Knights of the Garter are the leaders of the Committee of 300. They are diabolical men. Lord Peter Carrington, who is a member of the satanic Order of Osiris and other demonic groups is a member of the Order of the Garter. Lord Palmerston is an example from history of another similar example of a Knight of the Garter who was totally corrupt, pretended to be a Christian, and practiced Satanism. Bloodlines of the Illuminati 4. DuPonts

To bring about depopulation of large cities according to the trial run carried out by the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. It is interesting to note that Pol Pot’s genocidal plans were drawn up in the US by one of the Club of Rome’s research foundations, and overseen by Thomas Enders, a high-ranking State Department official. It is also interesting that the committee is currently seeking to reinstate the Pol Pot butchers in Cambodia. Targets of the Illuminati and the Committe of 300 By Dr. John Coleman.

http://www.geocities.com/lord_visionary/committeof300.htm

This committee of 300 is modeled after the British East India Company’s Council of 300, founded by the British aristocracy in 1727. Most of its immense wealth arose out of the opium trade with China. This group is responsible for the phony drug wars here in the U.S. These phony drug wars were to get us to give away our constitutional rights. Asset forfeiture is a prime example, where huge assets can be seized without trail and no proof of guilt needed. Also the Committee of 300 long ago decreed that there shall be a smaller-much smaller-and better world, that is, their idea of what constitutes a better world.

The myriads of useless eaters consuming scarce natural resources were to be culled. Industrial progress supports population growth. Therefore the command to multiply and subdue the earth found in Genesis had to be subverted. This called for an attack upon Christianity; the slow but sure disintegration of industrial nation states; the destruction of hundreds of millions of people, referred to by the Committee of 300 as “surplus population, ” and the removal of any leader who dared to stand in the way of the Committee’s global planning to reach the foregoing objectives. Not that the U.S. government didn’t know, but as it was part of the conspiracy, it helped to keep the lid on information rather than let the truth be known. Queen, Elizabeth II, is the head of the Committee of 300.

The Committee of 300 looks to social convulsions on a global scale, followed by depressions, as a softening-up technique for bigger things to come, as its principal method of creating masses of people all over the world who will become its “welfare” recipients of the future. The committee appears to base much of its important decisions affecting mankind on the philosophy of Polish aristocrat, Felix Dzerzinski, who regarded mankind as being slightly above the level of cattle. As a close friend of British intelligence agent Sydney Reilly (Reilly was actually Dzerzinski’s controller during the Bolshevik Revolution’s formative years), he often confided in Reilly during his drinking bouts. Dzerzinski was, of course, the beast who ran the Red Terror apparatus. He once told Reilly, while the two were on a drinking binge, that “Man is of no importance. Look at what happens when you starve him. He begins to eat his dead companions to stay alive. Man is only interested in his own survival. That is all that counts. All the Spinoza stuff is a lot of rubbish”. 
http://fourthdimension.freeyellow.com/Committee300.htm