Talk:Aristocracy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

False etymology, actual is from heiro-[edit]

The earliest uses of aristocrat and aristocracy should sort this out. It's actually a very recent bowdlerization of "heirocrat," meaning "hereditary rulership." It's a deliberate bowdlerization arising from the negative connotations of "heirocrat," for example"heirophant." -Tpol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9A5A:9D75:630A:A65E:2FCC:66A9 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

Allow me to quote "Democracy and aristocracy are incompatible as forms of government due to the hereditary nature of power in an aristocratic system". This seems rather odd given that in the United Kingdom Peers still inherit the right to a seat in parliament ultimately making the UK a democracy, aristocracy and monarchy! Any comments welcome, I just thought Id bring it up. --Camaeron 17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a contradiction if you think the UK is a democracy :) I don't know what the system of government in the uk should be called really, but I would say the contradiction was in the government of the uk.

Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except I think now only 78/c.1200 seats in the upper house are hereditary, taking the UK well below the US in terms of hereditary participation in Parliament/Congress. Johnbod 00:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I dont think a democracy can ever work under human rule I just thought Id bring up the point. If the UK had to be one of three Id say that'd be monarchy.

And by the way Johnbod aristocracy neednt be hereditry. Not nowadays anyway. The Queen appoints many "newbie aristocrats" to sit in parliament. --Camaeron 15:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you really don't know much about the UK! Johnbod 15:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should do, I am a subject of Her Majesty. I really didnt mean to offend incase it came accross rudely. On what do you ground your accusation? --Camaeron 17:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense are Life peers appointed by the Government "newbie aristocrats"? Are life-members of other upper-houses in Ireland etc aristoctrats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What youre saying amounts to this: "Life Peers are not aristocrats". Am I correct in thinking that is your opinion? If so I must disagree. All Peers are aristocrats but not all aristocrats are peers. Naturally Irelands Upper House members arent aristocrats. The British sense of Aristocracy differs from the international one. Aristocrats in Britain are members of the Peerage, Gentry, Nobilty or people of noble backgrounds. --Camaeron 11:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, whilst Life peers are only coincidentally these, and are politicians, businessmen, trade union leaders, minority "community leaders" & so on. Johnbod 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A titled elite is not nessarily an aristocracy. Most of the titled peerage left to day in the UK are simply plutocrats, who survive on the basis of their wealth & landownership. It is their ancestors who are aristocrats because they did something extremely worthwhile to be given a title by the monarch. Aristocacy is rule by the best (wise, strong, contributors) not merely people with titles. Very rarely are new, high profile titles create for "the best" today.

The United Kingdom is currently a plutocracy, idiocracy (Labour Party) and psuedo-monarchy (HM, although technically has the right to certain powers and at least she is not democratically elected or anything hideous like that, is effectively paralysed from doing so by the plutocracy). - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Aristocracy[edit]

There is alot of nonsense about the Greek aristocracy. About them leading their swords into battle... Nonsense! Aristo - crati means "rule of the best". The Greek nobility regarded itsself supperior towards the "normal" folk. Can someone please edit this??? --83.84.138.101 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 09:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks this is not NPOV. The writers seem to be anti aristocracy. Stephen W. Houghton II 96.26.177.229 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. The article is clearly "pro-democracy" and seems to try and make the point that democracy should not be "polluted" by aristocratic elements. Yet, notions of aristocracy (hereditary or non-hereditary) are an important part of any constitutional government - see Aristotle's Politics, or even the American constitution. The Founding Fathers fought to temper democracy with aspects of aristocracy (cf. the Federalist Papers - the Penguin Classics edition has an introduction by Isaac Kramnick that explains this very well). You can disagree, but it's certainly a contentious issue. --24.202.63.39 (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons...[edit]

Surely there are other forms of government to be considered for comparison to aristocracy. A republic (rule by elected leaders) comes readily to mind. 131.81.200.92 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I need more information. Im trying to do a project on this, and it doesn't seem to have very useful or good examples of what aristocracy really is.. then it starts talking about democracy.. WHAT'S UP WITH THIS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.164.38 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aristocracy and Theocracy[edit]

I'm not sure how to note this, but many Popes have been noted Aristocrats. Leo XIII was a noted Count at the end of the 19th Century. There were many Aristocratic families that gave Popes to the Church. Also, in other religions and nations, such as Egypt and Iran, many religious leaders are of Aristocratic origin. ADM (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC) aristocracy cannot be compared to theocracy because the aristocrats might not possibly be religious gurus but in theocracy, the leaders are and must be religious elite.aristoracy is the government of the few in theocracy,ther can possibly be many religious elite.that is why aristocracy cannot be compared to theocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.155.117.155 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what you say there is something right and something wrong. No Pope is precisely an aristocrat since he is as (vicariously) monarchical as you can wish for any (vicarious) monarch. The very clergy however is an aristocracy, namely the aristocracy of the Church ("bishop, clergy and people" runs the saying). That an at least notable number of high clerics comes from the (even the royal) aristocracy of Christian world, and respectively in other religions, is worth mentioning is well but not by "the Pope is an Aristocrat" since he is more. --93.133.226.70 (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is raj thackrey a good example of aristocratic leader...???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.237.144.20 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aristocracy[edit]

Aristocrasy is one where the aristocrats rule, who are the nobility, leaders in a long tradition. It is mostly associated with nobility, viscounts, counts, duke, nobles, sirs, madams. It is not democracy and in modern democratic institutions there are no aristocrats. It is an archaic term. It is not democracy and meritocracy. Aristocracy is where the "aristocrats" rule, or the people above the common people. It is a form of monarchism. The article has it all wrong. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noocracy ->> Aristocracy[edit]

Too very different concepts, why propose this? -- Secondat of Orange (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As no reasoning for the merge was posted on this talk page nor Talk:Noocracy, I'll remove the merge tags. --Inops (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely concur: there should be two distinct articles, the "aristocracy" concept is born in ancient Greece, while the "aristocratic class" is a term that appeared way later in the middle ages, and the two concepts are very different in their meaning. Gyll (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aristocracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aristocracy (class) - the term is sometimes used differently, but thats no reason to fork[edit]

There is sometimes the case where there is a false dichotomy between two slightly different uses of a word, and the idea of doing two different articles is not a solution. -Inowen (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Different notions, different categories. If there is some forking, move the content around, for proper subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article should be renamed/moved to philosopher king (which directs here).. Oppose move. However, I support merging the class article into this one here. prokaryotes (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Merging from the class article to this is the intended solution. -Inowen (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The relation between the two articles is not enough to support the merge. Its better for the reader to have a separate article for each subject to avoid confusing and have richer information. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its okay to have to articles if the two articles make it clear why there is a difference. I tried to start workin this differentiation into this article, but the existing text is quite confusing and repetitive that it is seldom clear which understanding of aristocracy is written about. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Best born"[edit]

A commenter at Wiktionary pointed out that the LSJ translates ἀριστοκρατία as "rule of the best-born", which is different from the idea of "rule of the best." -Inowen (nlfte) 23:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive[edit]

The article states in every chapter the conceptual history from greek "rule by the best" to modern understanding as a class. This needs to be adressed. I attempted to structure it clearer and give the differnetiation with the social class aristocracy an extra chapter.

Maybe instead of "Concept" and "History" it could be merged as "Conceptual history", or as such as sub-chapter of "History", maybe with another first sub-chapter of "Instances outside of classical antiquity", or something like that. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"concept" and "history" cover different material[edit]

There is a disjuncture between these two sections. "Concept" discusses the origins of the word in Ancient Greece whereas "History" jumps forward to the modern conception. Parts of History would be better off under Concept. Discussion of Ancient Greek aristocracy in practice (currently absent from the article) should be added to History. 49.184.68.149 (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aristocracy&oldid=1216891452"