Titles

Suggested clause:

'The use of all historic titles used by hereditary heads of state, hereditary rulers and members of the aristocracy of the [UK] and elsewhere in the world is prohibited in public life in the [UK] and all privileges attached to such titles are abolished'

 

Reasoning behind the idea which has come through to this phase:

Titles such as Dame, Baron, Sir etc, are antiquated and unhelpful as official forms of address in political and public spheres  

They will be abolished as forms of address in political and public life (along with the abolition of the monarchy).

This abolition will not prevent individuals calling themselves what they like, including king and queen, in their private lives.

(The organisers have asked me to re-post this idea in this section as I first posted it in the head of state section)

 

edited on Apr 18, 2015 by Ian Smith

Ian Smith Apr 5, 2015

Dear All,

I am posting a quick comment here and in my other ideas.

Firstly, I want to say how much I have enjoyed seeing all of your contributions on this and other ideas and how impressed I am with the range of expertise and erudition which has filled these debates.

Secondly, I wish to put forward a couple of suggestions as to a way forward at this stage.  They are:

A.   I suggest that we all refrain from further voting until the ideas have been refined and represented and have then been debated for a while.  My thinking here is that we will want to see the reshaped ideas and see the comments on those refined ideas before we decide whether they are to be voted up or down,  I do not think that we should refrain from voting on comments but perhaps try not to vote to hastily on them.

B.  Now that the hurly burly of the "Hacking" phase (some of it quite savage) has passed, I hope and wish that we will adopt a more collaborative and less combative approach in our commentary, so that commentary is given a chance to be constructive and really do the job of refining the ideas in question.

C.  I would hope that we can refrain from attacking the very existence of the idea under discussion in this phase or the fact that it has successfully gone through to this phase against the wishes of those who voted it down.  I sincerely hope that the previous critics of an idea, will still respect that it found favour with the crowd and now help to refine the idea in this phase.

Thirdly, I will try my best not to introduce any more typos and mangled phrases! 

Best wishes for the holiday week end!

Ian 

Ian Smith Apr 7, 2015

Dear All,

Before I draft a suggested clause for the constitution, I should be very grateful if you would let me have any further thoughts on this idea and in particular the form of a constitutional clause.

Kind regards,

Ian

Cecilia Rossler Apr 8, 2015

How about 'titles should not be used in public life' as a starting point?

Users tagged:

Ian Smith Apr 8, 2015

Hi Cecilia. I like that. Perhaps it could be expanded to:

'The use of titles by individuals in political and public life in the [UK] is prohibited.  This prohibition does not preclude the continued use of name titles (for example Ms and Mr) or occupational titles (for example, Prime Minister, Chancellor, Professor, Dr, Mayor, Counsellor, Captain, Ambassador) and religious titles (for example, Vicar, Priest, Imam, Rabbi) but does preclude the use of all historic titles used by hereditary heads of state, hereditary rulers and members of the aristocracy of the [UK] and elsewhere in the world.'

This may raise a couple questions. One that I have is this: is "public life" clear enough?

kind regards, ian

Cecilia Rossler Apr 10, 2015

It seems that this could be shortened to "the use of all historic titles used by hereditary heads of state, hereditary rulers and members of the aristocracy of the [UK] and elsewhere in the world is prohibited in public life"?

I see what you mean about 'public life' but I can't think of a term that would be clearer?

Users tagged:

Ian Smith Apr 9, 2015

Dear Cecilia and All,

I have now included my suggested clause in the idea above.

Kind regards,

Ian

Users tagged:

Tom Austin Apr 10, 2015

I did have a pop at something like this. Creating 'public' honours, as opposed to signals of favour doled out by the privileged few. But I'm in the middle of something else just now. "I'll be back."

Ian Smith Apr 10, 2015

Dear All,

I really like Cecilia's suggested shorter version and now show that as option A above, with a brief addition.

Unless I soon here objection to the option A version, I will soon do away with option B so that we are left with one draft clause to vote on.

Kind regards,

Ian 

Users tagged:

Cecilia Rossler Apr 17, 2015

IanSmith1, as we only have one day left, please could you pick one of the drafts? Thanks!

Users tagged:

Cecilia Rossler Apr 18, 2015

less than 12 hours left - please pick a draft!

Users tagged:

Fiona Condon Apr 18, 2015

I favour option A mainly on the grounds of brevity, but also because if any of the excluded titles happened to be hereditary, then they should also be abolished.

Share