Comparing Imperial Nobility with medieval/fantasy Nobility

[dragoner]

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

 

[Condottiere]

Bush, Kennedy, Rockefeller. Lifetime peer, Jobs, Gates, Clinton.

 

[Rick]

Exactly. Despite all protestations in America that everybody is equal and judged solely on their ability, some are more equal than others. Some older and/or moneyed families have all of the characteristics of an hereditary nobility just without the titles.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Exactly. Despite all protestations in America that everybody is equal and judged solely on their ability, some are more equal than others. Some older and/or moneyed families have all of the characteristics of an hereditary nobility just without the titles.

Actually Jobs, Gates, and Clinton are self-made, that would disqualify them from Nobility. Nobles are supposed to inherit their wealth, they look down on new money. New Money in turn scoffs at the fools with inherited old money. Two examples from celebrity culture:

Paris Hilton: Old Money

Taylor Swift: New Money
Can you tell the difference? Who is more talented?

 

[Condottiere]

A friend of mine once described Paris as one of the most hardest workers he knew, from reputation. Of course, she first leveraged her family name for that initial exposure.

You could say she built up her brand, and that required awareness from the targetted demographic.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

A friend of mine once described Paris as one of the most hardest workers he knew, from reputation. Of course, she first leveraged her family name for that initial exposure.

You could say she built up her brand, and that required awareness from the targetted demographic.

True but she started with an advantage, Taylor Swift was born on a Christmas Tree Farm.

 

[Rick]

Tricky. By British standards, the Hilton's are probably still Nouveau Riche; the family is still in trade and had their fortune for less than a hundred years.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Tricky. By British standards, the Hilton's are probably still Nouveau Riche; the family is still in trade and had their fortune for less than a hundred years.

The United States is only 232 years old, 100 years in America's history is a long time! Generally speaking in Traveller terms Chelsea Clinton would be "Nobility" while Bill and Hillary Clinton would not be! (They got rich by making speeches or so I heard, more or less capitalizing on their name, but that is still self-made in my book, whether by the sweat of one's brow or otherwise.) If a person inherits his or her wealth from "Mummy and Daddy" then it is old money as far as I'm concerned, if one is a self-made billionaire then that person is not "Nobility", though I don't understand a society that looks down on people who make their own riches as compared to people who inherit them. As far as natural talent is concerned, I think I am more like Paris Hilton than Taylor Swift, though without Paris's inheritance. There had to have been something unusual about Taylor Swift to have made her fortune so quickly, something that gave her an edge over all her competition. Bein g born rich is an advantage as well, but that is one of circumstance rather than raw talent as is the case of Taylor.

 

[Condottiere]

Ex-presidents are proconsular, and Hillary is senatorial.