Is the term "commoners" disrespectful? Since we have no Royalty in America, we see no distinction between...?
those whom we elect to represent us and us. I know I'm mixing apples and oranges here as the Queen isn't elected, but is Royalty considered to be above being "common"? This is just an isolated American peeking into the world of the Brits, so forgive me if this appears ignorant or disrespectful.
2011-03-28T02:50:05Z
(((Thrylos))) um, no, not at all.
2011-03-28T03:27:22Z
@ Paco...Very enlightening. Thanks much
2011-03-28T08:44:06Z
@ Dart: I'm not applying it to anyone, Dear. I've just noticed it used by others, hence the question.
The Dark Side2011-03-28T08:13:32Z
Favorite Answer
It's just a description for anyone who isn't royal. As Paco and Lili say, it can get quite technical as to who is a commoner or not, but this is only of interest if you want to get geeky about it and makes no matter to the average Brit at all. I'm a British commoner (probably with noble ancestry somewhere but it's almost statistically impossible to be white British and not have that!) and I don't find it disrespectful. It's just what I am.
"Common" isn't the same word as "commoner" and saying someone is "common" doesn't mean the same thing.
And as you say, the USA has no royalty, so the word "commoner" has no practical use there.
You mention elections - it sort of comes up here in connection with that as our Parliament consists of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Congress in the USA has two Houses, one to represent the states and one to represent the people: we don't have states so the two Houses exist for a completely different reason - originally it was for one to contain all the Lords and one elected to represent commoners - hence the House of Commons. It's evolved over time - the House of Lords is now almost entirely an appointed House, like the Senate in Canada, and it's the elected Commons who have all the real power as the Lords can't block anything for more than a year. That got enacted after they tried to veto the Budget in 1908, and the elected government got the King to force them into line by threatening to appoint enough new Lords to vote through what the government wanted.
I rather like it - the power is with our elected representatives, and the Lords consists of people with real expertise from all walks of life who might never have thought of going into politics but have a real contribution to make. They make a lot of useful amendments to Bills which the Commons will often accept, recognising that they improve the wording and correct mistakes. Just once in a while the Lords will dig their heels in and make it really difficult for the Commons - and usually they're proved right. One of these close to my heart is the last government's plan for compulsory ID cards, which because it meant a computerised register of everyone in the UK was a totally daft idea because it would have been the biggest aid to ID theft ever - even Bill Gates said so - and the Lords delayed it for months. Our coalition government elected last year has just repealed the whole thing.
The Lords can debate legislation at more leisure than the Commons and the quality of debate there is extremely high. The Commons can get very rowdy while the Lords will sit and listen to each other respectfully in silence. You can find examples of this on youtube - try and find a video of Prime Minister's Questions. This happens for 30 minutes every Wednesday and while it doesn't produce any real answers, it really tests the Prime Minister and makes him "think on his feet". The US President is lucky that not being part of Congress, he doesn't have to go through that!
Every major British political party wants to replace the House of Lords with something elected, but this idea has been going on for the last 100 years and nobody is going to do anything about it because they can't think of a way to have an elected House that is distinctively different from the Commons.
"Commoners" is not disrespectful at all. It simply means someone not a Peer, or noble: i.e., someone with a title. In the UK, and Canada as well, the house of Parliament which is the equivalent of your Congress is called the House of Commons.
In the UK, something like 98 or 99 percent of people are commoners, so, everyone is in good company! Even some of the Queen's grandchildren have no titles, so they are technically commoners. If you look at the list of those in line to the throne, the 11th, and 12th spots are held by commoners (the children of Princess Anne, but who are technically commoners). The 18th and 19th spots are held by commoners as well, and so on.
The UK is a hierarchical system, with some people indeed over others, which tends to freak Americans out. Even though the USA has it's unofficial system, of rich people being above the poor, and celebrities above the rest of us. In the UK, it is simply a more formal system.
Not in the least, it is Honest language that we need to use more often. America is a "Classist" nation, always has been will continue to be until the 1%er's (Aristocrats) driving this country into an Oligarchy styled Aristocracy, are put into their proper place held accountable for their B(usiness) S(olutions) that to the same standards as the rest of us 99%.
Their "Good Old Day's" are the days of Barons and Peasants!
The vast number of people are common, and the term is classist, but not meant to be demeaning.
Since 1917, in Britain only a very select group of people are royal. They consist of the children of both sexes of the monarch, the grandchildren of a monarch through a male line, and the first son of the son of the heir (i.e. Prince William's first born son, but not Harry's).
A woman who marries a prince takes on the style of her husband. A man who marries a princess does not take on her style, and he will remain common.
But the monarch can ennoble anyone they want. Phillip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth was made royal by his father in law, and also a Duke, and then after almost 10 years of marriage, he was made a British Prince by his wife.
If William has a girl, she will not be royal automatically, but the Queen will probably make her a princess anyway.
The term "commoner" just refers to anyone who is not the monarch and not a peer. Technically, even princes who don't hold peerages are commoners -- which includes Prince William right now -- and so are the children of peers. Diana Spencer was a commoner. Her father was a peer, but she wasn't and held only a courtesy title.
Most people think of all royals as non-commoners, but that is not actually the case.
In other words, just about everyone in the UK is a commoner, save a very small group of people. The legislative body with the most power is, of course, the House of Commons, and its members, as the name implies, are all commoners.