Among Europe’s Ex-Royals | Hacker News Reader

Among Europe’s Ex-Royals

theatlantic.com

75 pointslordylord60 comments

Small correction to the article - Alexander Karađorđević is not crown Prince of Serbia, but of Yugoslavia. I went to school with his sons, we were in the same house, same year - they went by “Prince” rather than Karađorđević - quite a few kids had fictitious surnames to avoid attention. They were regular and likeable dudes, liked skating, cars, hip-hop, bad 80’s movies, games. Nobody cared that they were princes, or treated them differently, as it wasn’t all that unusual at the school, and typically, the higher your rank, the less airs and graces and nobbery you bothered with.

Me, I’m a baronet - not that I ever use the title, or even tell anyone (these days - as a kid rubbing shoulders with outranking aristos it mattered far more to me) - I’ve grown to think the whole thing bloody stupid, as my politics careened wildly off to the left after a tumultuous start to adulthood - and as I realised I really didn’t want all the perceived responsibilities and expectations of an aristo - there are only so many balls and parties and royal enclosures you can go to before you’re sick to the eye teeth of it.

I guess the main thing that I saw among those heirs who were expected to actually take a throne, or were the primogeniture of a non-ruling family, was an overwhelming sense of obligation, the anticipation of a life run on rails, the desire to live absolutely wild here and now because later is a gilded cage. It’s hard to be an isolated and aloof aristo in the modern world - nobody is raised in court any more.

I can tell you that the millennial heirs of several European thrones are seriously sitting on the fence over whether they’ll take the baton - one, I know, definitely won’t - another probably will, but intends to fundamentally reshape the monarchy.

As a bona-fide commoner, I'll say that it's been at least a couple of centuries since European royalty has been more than at-will employees of the republics ruling the land.

The English went first, poor Charles I was terminated with extreme prejudice when he got ideas.

'Tis a pity, us commoners could use a good monarch to keep the blood-sucking senators in line.

Thanks for this post. Not standard fare for HN. May I ask - do you ever laugh at the weirdness of it all? That hundreds or even thousands of years ago, a bunch of cut throats and thugs started to give themselves cute names, and - cut to the present - all of the United Kingdom bows and scrapes in deference to their descendants who still sport those made up titles? From the inside - which more or less is your position as a baronet - does this feel more or less peculiar? Do you ever just think, WTF? How did we get to this?

>> do you ever laugh at the weirdness of it all?

Incessantly, to the extent that I find it hard to believe in society in any meaningful fashion, as it’s all just reified concepts stacked atop one another. It isn’t such a leap from “why aristocrats?” to “why states? Why employment? Why three meals a day?”.

The best answer I’ve been able to come up with is security/fear. At almost every scale from PNG tribes to federalised blocs of nations, people rally around the strong man, the protector who exacts a fee, and they follow the rules and expectations set by them. These days, aristos are generally superseded by democratic governance, but the underlying principle, the Leviathan, remains the same.

If anything, it gives you a close-up view of man’s ability to enchant others with stories and narrative; and for you to exit the fiction where you want to. Although nihilism is a risk as you point out, the upside might be the realisation that meaning can be constructed.

One reason I don’t expect millennial princes to exit the monarchy, in the UK at least, is that they won’t be allowed to. Because their presence is a cornerstone to the entire fiction that is British social and economic culture, in which many have valuable vested interests.

Very much so. I not only came to understand this through my own experiences, but also came to realise that much of what I was being taught at school was how to wrest control of any narrative, and make it mine.

It was a useful skill in building a business, and it’s a useful skill in understanding the human world - practically everything is a battle of narratives, of finding the better story, the tale which speaks to the heart and ensnares rapt listeners, eager to repeat the story to others.

It’s also useful in understanding markets. I don’t buy or sell based on any objective reality, rather what the dominant narrative in the minds of others is.

Most are oblivious to this. They take the world at face value, and never even consider that they are principally a bit player in another’s story - and that lack of knowledge keeps them trapped in the fairytale.

On the other hand, those like me who are, wittingly or not, trained in setting the scene, inevitably end up being the authors of our collective destinies. Sadly, many of the stories are very repetitive, uninventive, and cast villains as heroes.

One last question: do you think your level of awareness is commonplace? I appreciate a baronet is not on a par with a Norman robber baron, but do you ever encounter a sense of shame amongst your peers (sorry for the pun).

No. There definitely are others from that circle who have gone down the same path as me, but it’s a distinct minority. Most end up completely inured within that world, and reinforce and justify each other’s values and prejudices.

Very interesting. Your comment opens more questions than is probably polite. But can I ask, what are the core tenets of this weltanschaung (the values and prejudices) and would you say there is an ethnic dimension to it? I ask because (whilst fuzzy at the edges) there’s a fair argument that British aristocrats are essentially ethnic Normans. Is there a sense of different ethnicity?

For full disclosure, I’m exploring my hypothesis that Norman conquest of Britain created a template for colonisation for the next thousand years. And in which a key component of colonisation was an inculcation of locals with a belief that one’s colonizers were superior beings by virtue of their ethnicity.

I very much salute your reflection and insight. I’m reminded of David Graeber’s quote: “the ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently”. But the first step must be awareness.

I wouldn’t say there’s a sense of different ethnicity, quite, but there’s definitely a view of inherent superiority. Behind closed doors, you’ll hear terms like “plebs” and “proles” and “chavs” thrown around frequently, to refer to everyone from the working classes - which from the perspective of the aristocracy is practically everyone who isn’t part of the aristocracy.

There’s also a distinct disdain for the “nouveau riche” - they are seen as well-to-do merchants (urgh, how bourgeois!) - but will mostly forever be on the outside - mostly, because there are exceptions, but you don’t get into the circle due to wealth, but due to class - which is something you pretty much have to be educated into from birth, as what you see from the outside is not how it works on the inside, and if you try to enter being all polite and humble and ever so nice you will be seen - as an imposter. The aristocracy are not polite - they have no need to be - you demonstrate that you are “one of us” by putting your feet up on the kitchen table, lighting a cigarette, and getting smashed (but not obviously so) before supper, and then throwing the croquet set in the reflecting pool.

So… it’s not so much ethnicity as it is culture - and it’s a pretty closely guarded and distinct culture, which I think your hypothesis of being Norman in origin is absolutely spot on - it’s even in the language - beef/cow, venison/deer, mutton/sheep, pork/pig and so-forth - the words of those who consume the product versus the words of those who produce the product. The proactive disdain for niceties is distinctly Norman.

Perfect use of Graeber, and I couldn’t agree more. If you’re interested in the topic of manufactured reality, Hobbes and Baudrillard both had some pretty stonking insights into it.

Thanks for the Baudrillard recommendation. Not someone I’d heard of.

Your choice of words (beef/cow, venison/deer, mutton/sheep, pork/pig) is interesting because they are all of either French or Germanic origin according to your consumption/production logic - likely Norman or Saxon I guess.

I found your comments on being “trained in setting the scene” to be curious, as it has seems to have more in common with a magical or mystical training than the familiarization with brute logic and scientific process that was my own education. In anthropological terms I should not be surprised, every culture has its Brahmin class adept in the use of secret knowledge.

It’s been enjoyable exchanging and given me much to think about.

>How did we get to this?

You haven't read Macbeth? It's about pride and legacy.

Whilst I view Democracy as just mob rule, and Religion as psychological warfare, Royalty was/is ultimate psychopath.

Some of it can be explained by science, like aged wines (red more than white) has a higher histamine content which can increase certain types of IQ, its been used to double the IQ of people with Downs in six months, but one of its personality side effects is it makes people extremely aggressive.

Other dietary and lifestyle elements also contribute to personality characteristics which will be seen in upper classes, but modern living is breaking those characteristics so unless wise to it, you could see Royalty die out in a few generations time. Look at Kate before her marriage and after, I'd say the UK Crown is wise to these dietary elements.

I also think technology has caught everyone with their pants down and some jobs are no longer wanted unless they have an extremely extrovert personality.

You might know this bloke! https://jamescasey.net/images/20210907_192640.jpg

I am grandson to some polish count who lost all titles and wealth when eastern poland became Ukraine post ww2. My father used to tell me our ancestor generals saved Vienna from the Ottomans. I cannot empathize as much, as I never believed my father till I started receiving letters to receive compensations from polish government.

>they went by “Prince”

Just reinforced my opinion that nobility in modern Europe is a bad joke.

If you ever find yourself in company of these self-described nobles, leave.

highly recommend Noble Blood podcast if you like this kind of stuff. totally changed my views on history. the narrator does a great job of showing that people are, and always have been, people - noble or not. part of the reason so many nobles died in the past is that people then didn't know what to do with ex-nobles either

https://noblebloodtales.com/

https://archive.ph/20220418100835/https://www.theatlantic.co...

The second HN article in a week in which I can refer to John Steinbeck's work "The Short Reign Of Pippin IV" (1957)

"what do the ex-royals have to offer Europe?" tldr: nothing, for the most part, with the exception of a long profile in the middle of the Albanian pretender, which discusses his argument that Albania is still so impoverished and shattered by the legacy of Communism that some sort of constitutional monarchy would help repair it and enable it to recover and reach its potential. That part is interesting.

Friends don’t let friends get into neo-monarchism

Reply on news.ycombinator.com