Chapter 24

Feudalism in Britain

Whenever I talked about the lack of hierarchical attributes in the English, I have been confronted by some of my indignant listeners by the question that if it was so, why is there so much feudal institutions in Britain. Whereas, in places, where I claim there is so much feudalism in the language, the feudal lords have been abolished. And there are the words like Your Highness etc. in the English language. How do I account for that when my claim is that there is no hierarchical manner of communication in the English language?

It would seem a difficult question to answer, as the whole continued existence of the British aristocracy points to a major defect in my theorising. Yet, there is no incongruity, in their existence and their acceptance by the British public.

There are the words like King, Queen, Lord, Lordship, Lady etc. in the English language. These are the terms meant for addressing a specific person in a specific position. No one other than that specific person can be addressed or alluded to by these words. As such, there comes into play, no issue of competition or claim to these terms or to the hierarchy indicated by them. As such, the feudal terms mentioned here do not contaminate the communication of the common man.

Then what about the Monarch, Lords, Ladies, Dukes, Duchess etc? They exist as the vestige of the ancient connection of Britain with the European world, and to the fact that like all nations, Britain also had a sovereign in whose name all codes of civilised social and political living was conducted. It is a necessity of any political entity.

The immensity of aristocracy was indeed due to the fact that being near to the European continent, many of the feudal institutions were common. But, what is arresting is that the British aristocracy could be reined in progressively by the common folk with increasing power along the course of the centuries. And because of the wonderful nature of the English language, there was no essential breaking point in the communication between the aristocracy and the common citizenry; a fact with stands in conspicuous contrast to what happened in France*.

It must be admitted that in the ancient world, feudal aristocracy did have a role to play in acting as the pillars of the nation. It is my contention that how well and with what level of benign intentions, they performed their job, did in many parts, depend on the nature of their language. If it had such a feudal nature as was in the case of India, then it would be a history of fleecing exploitation.

It is my belief that the British aristocracy has performed well, their expected part much beyond expectations. For, they have remained as an impartial and enduring think-tank for the nation on many occasions. When thinking about the abolishing of these social structures, I would like to put in that in Kerala, where once the Communists came to power through elections, there has been land reforms enforced, and abolishing of feudal landlordism done with extreme speed, yet the persons who benefited from this gesture have not turned the place into a place of social liberation. Rather, the new landlords have replaced the old landlords. Now, they are in the higher indicant levels, and in many cases, it has been just a reversal of roles with the basic ancient social structure continuing without any change. And there is no change in the ancient stunted intellectual and physical demeanour, of the persons who did benefit from this reform, other than existing as the new force of dominance.

For, the language program on which social functions, interactions, understanding, relations, efficiency, communications, and many other things depends on, is still the same old feudal one.

Another factor to be reckoned on when thoughts go in for sweeping changes is that Britain is having a very stable political system, which has withstood the onslaught of many historical events. It is a record, which many other nations can only match with envy. And as such, it would be a shame to garner one's argument by looking at another nation's brief political experiences. And even USA, which is actually a British creation, is going through a time, when it is really going into tangential directions, heedless of what makes a nation homogenous, and hence with the capacity to withstand years of enduring uncertainty. In fact, America does need something like the British aristocracy to keep the nation from being a playground of immigrant lobbyists.

And also, the British people should have a sense of what they are. Not superior in any divine manner, but historically endowed with a language, which is simply wonderful. They should see that vile elements, who have a mental competition with them, not because of any doing of theirs, but because of their own inherent negativity, should never be given a chance or even a psychological advantage to bring disparagement to their nation, and its institutions. In this wide world, with so many complex emotions, and violent engagements, it is imperative that an expressive support to age tested institutions is extended, against the deliberate vilification and slander of sinister men, whose only aim would be to see the vanishing of the English and its superb institutions from the horizon. And among the institutions, that need this emotive support is the institution of monarchy. It has served its purpose well, and in future also, it would serve well. And as a focus of emotional appeal for the people in a period of crises, there can be nothing to replace it. Persons, who harp about democracy in other nations, really do not know what they are talking about.

And in times to come, when there is failure on the part of the politicians, let there be a place to appeal to. Yet, the monarchy needs pruning. It is not in my rights to comment on that. Yet, even without any rights I would force myself to say that let there be a deep communication between the people and the Monarchy on what needs to be done, to make it fit and healthy.

Persons who are connected to the Monarchy should also see that their deeds do not cause pain to persons all round the world who visualise the Monarchy of Britain with reverence. There are emotional problems in all families, and between husbands and wife, yet as a member of a household that is a symbol of the English culture everywhere, it is not a condonable thing if anyone takes on himself or herself to do acts, with a sense of vengeance, that not only are scandalous, but also against the very instincts of decent behaviour. Any man or woman who chance to don an attire of this royal blood should understand what they represent, in history and in the minds of many persons.

And I may conclude this theme with the pray that anyone who has to join the British Royal family should be given adequate training and understanding of what they are going to represent, and asked to ponder on whether they would fit the bill. For, joining this institution is not a joke or an occasion for a pleasant picnic. It is a vocation that should come as a spiritual volition.

Times are changing, and there is need to change according to the requirements of the times. In Britain, even though the Monarchy and aristocracy still exists as positive pillars of the nation, the fact remains that the feudal content of the English language is embedded in association with them. A lot of terms of address, reference, title, position etc. connected to the monarchy and aristocracy are very feudal, even though they do not have the same negative sting that many Asian feudal words do have. As such, as the nation moves forward to the future, it might be a good thing to give deep thought on the need for removing as many such words, and phrases as possible. And to minimise the number of persons who are entitled to bear such titles. In many way, the very persons who get relieved of these burdensome titles may feel a very amazing mental freedom once they are removed.

And in the case of monarchy, there is no need for a vast array of persons, all in line for royal titles. A severe limiting of the number of persons who should stand in the limelight of royal ranking can bring in a new level of professionalism to the monarchy.

Britain has four divisions: England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales. Naturally, all of them have different languages. Even though I do not know much about them, I do think that all the other languages, other than English do have some level of feudal inputs in them. I have not done much study; yet, I think possibly Irish is feudal, taking into account of their fierce clannish social structure. Also, possibly the Scottish language also might have a great deal of feudal structure. If that be the case, it is possible that the defeat of the Bonnie Prince Charlie was due to the feudal language of the feudal lords, who accompanied him on his tragic march to London.

It was a march in which he was dependant on the benevolence of the feudal, clannish lords, who were a power unto themselves. When a group of powerful, feudal language speaking persons, with outstanding, yet natural, ego, go together, they can function only if there is a strong overriding authority over them, who can put a leash on their mutually antagonistic mental energy.  Naturally, a person who depends on their goodwill is not an ideal person to lead them. At the same time, such a group will never be able to discuss and reach a united course of action, as at any point of discussion, a play of destructive ego clash is, more or less, inevitable. This, in times of emergencies, or when intelligent conduct is required, will act as a superb negative force, which will annul all the positive qualities of the cooperative action.

Another factor that can point to feudalism in language, is a feeling that ones social system is very family oriented. Also, there is a factor generally in feudal language systems, that induces the individual to move to either highly populated cities, or to English speaking areas. Do the Scots display such attitudes? I do not know.

If the Irish language is feudal, then their attitude to the Black Slaves in the USA may have been at variance to the English attitude to slaves. Yet, I do not have any information in this regard to say anything conclusively.

At the moment, there is nothing more I can add to this with regard to the other constituents of the British nation.

I think that I can write on Diana, Princesses of Wales, because I have seen so many persons in India write in very disparaging terms about her. Many of them were persons, who would not dare go to a local village office or police station and talk to the officials there with a dignified and assertive demeanour, if they are not accompanied by some clout of higher levels. When such persons were using mean terms to describe her, with indicant words not suiting that of a Princess, it was disturbing.

One of the main sufferings of the present day British Crown family would be that they have to exist in a feudal language, and setting which are not their creations, but handed down to them. The problem is that all around them the whole language is pure, unbridled English. If they were in a country like India, where even a Sonia Gandhi cannot be addressed by name, other than as Madam, Madamji, Soniaji etc. and all other connected indicants have feudal appendages, it would have been easy. But, in Britain where the popular language of English has given the people so much liberty, the feudal language of the aristocracy is a very negative feature for them. For, it creates a barrier for them to interact with the common crowd of wonderful men and women. For, the common crowd of Britain is not like the common crowd of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Africa, China, South America, or India.

Once a person enters this world of aristocracy in Britain, there is a definite subduing of ability to move around freely as a common Englishman, and to interact with the common man, who is not at all unattractive. Monarchy, since it naturally has feudal intonations, would be engulfed with negativity, if persons not from that social level enter its premises on a level of equality. It is a natural component of feudal language situations. But in these modern times, it is not possible for the Monarchy to isolate itself from the common crowd. Hence, a lot of understanding of the basic facts that I have dealt with may be taken into consideration, in all matters connected to the intermingling of Monarchy with the subjects.

Apart from all that, there is a psychological indoctrination, which would be a real stumbling block for whoever enters the higher feudal levels from a lower class, which is very much visible in all feudal areas. That is that the persons who enter into the precincts of a feudal class at a high level, from a lower level would carry a mental visualisation of social structure, which is very much different from that of the higher class. In the case of Diana, Princess of Wales, it is possible that she would carry a mental program of admiration for so many careers and social positions, which actually exists very much below the social levels of a Prince, but would be very attractive from where she came from.

A subordinate connection with persons of feudal language social situations cannot be condoned in a person who has a natural superior link to the heights of the British ruling family. For, once such a link is allowed to mature, then the stature of the British Royal Family, and naturally of all British citizens, is dragged to abysmal depths, in the meanest social areas, all round the world. The appalling significance of this scenario may not be immediately comprehensible to an Englishman. But, any man from a feudal language nation may discern the implications in its deepest sense.

I do not want to go further, as I feel awkward to discuss at that levels on institutions that are of enduring value, for years to come.