Rank

Steven Jones wrote:
> Who would have higher GURPS rank, Australia's Prime Minister or its
> Governor-General?
> While the GG's role is mostly ceremonial, he can sack the PM (and vice
> versa). This famously occured in 1975 when GG John Kerr sacked PM Gough
> Whitlam and appointed then opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as PM.

Whatever rank you pick should be about the same as any monarch in a
constitutional monarchy, since that's pretty much what a GG is aside
from how s/he is appointed. Status would be lower, though -- I can only
remember the names of a few of the Canadian GG's I've lived through.
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

On Dec 23, 4:51 am, mcv <mcv....DeleteThis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> David Alex Lamb <dal....DeleteThis@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
> > Steven Jones wrote:
> >> Who would have higher GURPS rank, Australia's Prime Minister or its
> >> Governor-General?
> >> While the GG's role is mostly ceremonial, he can sack the PM (and vice
> >> versa).  This famously occured in 1975 when GG John Kerr sacked PM Gough
> >> Whitlam and appointed then opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as PM.
>
> > Whatever rank you pick should be about the same as any monarch in a
> > constitutional monarchy, since that's pretty much what a GG is aside
> > from how s/he is appointed.  Status would be lower, though -- I can only
> > remember the names of a few of the Canadian GG's I've lived through.
>
> It sounds like the Australian GG has more power than the Dutch queen.
> The only political power that our queen has is to listen to all party
> leaders and based on that advice, appoint a new formator for a new
> government after elections.
>
> Nevertheless, she has much higer status than the PM, despite this
> almost complete lack of political power (although she actually has
> quite a bit of financial power, being one of the richest women in the
> world).

How free is the Dutch queen to _exercise_ her financial power? Are
there any legal or customary limits on how she uses it?

>
> Status is a bit fuzzy, I'm afraid. It often amounts to comparing
> apples and oranges.

It also depends on the audience. A highly anti-monarchical republican
culture might regard a President as higher status than a mere Queen
because he was elected (in some manner or other) while the Queen was
born in the right place and the right time. A highly theocratic
society might question either's Divine right of power, or not. (Does
the Dutch queen have any theoretical religious role?)

It even depends on the details of the individual, depending on the
audience, a general who 'came up from the ranks' might be seen as
higher Status than an equivalent rank who was never an enlisted man.
Other audiences might be more impressed by whatever connections got
him started and see 'coming up from the bottom' as lower-status.

It's _very_ slippery to put a number to.
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

David Alex Lamb <dalamb.TakeThisOut@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> Steven Jones wrote:
>> Who would have higher GURPS rank, Australia's Prime Minister or its
>> Governor-General?
>> While the GG's role is mostly ceremonial, he can sack the PM (and vice
>> versa). This famously occured in 1975 when GG John Kerr sacked PM Gough
>> Whitlam and appointed then opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as PM.
>
> Whatever rank you pick should be about the same as any monarch in a
> constitutional monarchy, since that's pretty much what a GG is aside
> from how s/he is appointed. Status would be lower, though -- I can only
> remember the names of a few of the Canadian GG's I've lived through.

It sounds like the Australian GG has more power than the Dutch queen.
The only political power that our queen has is to listen to all party
leaders and based on that advice, appoint a new formator for a new
government after elections.

Nevertheless, she has much higer status than the PM, despite this
almost complete lack of political power (although she actually has
quite a bit of financial power, being one of the richest women in the
world). And in formal occasions, she has higher status than the
president of the US, but in GURPS terms I think she's his equal or
one step lower.

Status is a bit fuzzy, I'm afraid. It often amounts to comparing
apples and oranges. (Considering our queen is from the house of Orange,
does that make George Bush an apple?)


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

mcv wrote:
> Status is a bit fuzzy, I'm afraid. It often amounts to comparing
> apples and oranges. (Considering our queen is from the house of Orange,
> does that make George Bush an apple?)

Since at least Jimmy Carter, American presidents have been nuts.
George Bush looks like a pistachio to me.

--
Jefferson
http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

On Dec 23, 2:51 am, mcv <mcv....TakeThisOut@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> David Alex Lamb <dal....TakeThisOut@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
> > Steven Jones wrote:
> >> Who would have higher GURPS rank, Australia's Prime Minister or its
> >> Governor-General?
> >> While the GG's role is mostly ceremonial, he can sack the PM (and vice
> >> versa).  This famously occured in 1975 when GG John Kerr sacked PM Gough
> >> Whitlam and appointed then opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as PM.
>
> > Whatever rank you pick should be about the same as any monarch in a
> > constitutional monarchy, since that's pretty much what a GG is aside
> > from how s/he is appointed.  Status would be lower, though -- I can only
> > remember the names of a few of the Canadian GG's I've lived through.
>
> It sounds like the Australian GG has more power than the Dutch queen.
> The only political power that our queen has is to listen to all party
> leaders and based on that advice, appoint a new formator for a new
> government after elections.
>
> And in formal occasions, she [The Queen of the Netherlands] has higher status than the
> president of the US,

How so? They're both heads of state. One might make a case for a
Euorpean PM having less status than a US President, being, nominally,
only the head of the monarch's govenrment.
Possibly she'd have precedence on formal occaisions *in the
Netherlands*, similar to how at the US base I was stationed at in
England, "God Save the Queen" was played before "The Star-Spangled
Banner" at retreat.


> but in GURPS terms I think she's his equal or
> one step lower.
>

Tough call. I'd give all heads of state the same status, and european
PMs one level lower, equivalent to US cabinet members and
Congressional leadership. Being the leader of a superpower might be
treated as both a very powerful Patron (The US goverment & military),
and a significant Reputation bonus and/or penalty ("Leader of the free
world").

--
Oly
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

Ken Oleson <oleansvenknut.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2:51?am, mcv <mcv....RemoveThis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> David Alex Lamb <dal....RemoveThis@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > Steven Jones wrote:
>> >> Who would have higher GURPS rank, Australia's Prime Minister or its
>> >> Governor-General?
>> >> While the GG's role is mostly ceremonial, he can sack the PM (and vice
>> >> versa). ?This famously occured in 1975 when GG John Kerr sacked PM Gough
>> >> Whitlam and appointed then opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as PM.
>>
>> > Whatever rank you pick should be about the same as any monarch in a
>> > constitutional monarchy, since that's pretty much what a GG is aside
>> > from how s/he is appointed. ?Status would be lower, though -- I can only
>> > remember the names of a few of the Canadian GG's I've lived through.
>>
>> It sounds like the Australian GG has more power than the Dutch queen.
>> The only political power that our queen has is to listen to all party
>> leaders and based on that advice, appoint a new formator for a new
>> government after elections.
>>
>> And in formal occasions, she [The Queen of the Netherlands] has higher status than the
>> president of the US,
>
> How so? They're both heads of state.

But one is a monarch, and the other is not. Note that I said for formal
occasions. Perhaps I should have said *extremely* formal occasions, but
I know that on funerals of heads of state, emperors/empresses come first,
then kings and queens, and then presidents. The fact that a president
is more powerful than any emperor is irrelevant on such occasions.

> One might make a case for a
> Euorpean PM having less status than a US President, being, nominally,
> only the head of the monarch's govenrment.
> Possibly she'd have precedence on formal occaisions *in the
> Netherlands*,

In their own country, ofcourse the local head of state is more important
than a foreign one. But if the kind of Sweden dies, at the funeral the
emperor of Japan will have the highest status, then all kings, queens
and other noble heads of state, and all presidents, including the one
of the US, come last. Royal funerals tend to be pretty old fashioned in
that regard.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

On Dec 24, 3:25 am, mcv <mcv....RemoveThis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> In their own country, of course the local head of state is more important
> than a foreign one. But if the king of Sweden dies, at the funeral the
> emperor of Japan will have the highest status, then all kings, queens
> and other noble heads of state, and all presidents, including the one
> of the US, come last. Royal funerals tend to be pretty old fashioned in
> that regard.
>

Not surprising, I guess.

Hm. I wonder if Akihito is the only actual Emperor left? That butcher
Bokassa's safely dead, and Elizabeth II was a few years to late to be
"Empress of India".

And the Pope? Head of state (The Vatican), nominally elected, but
aren't high-level chuchmen considered noble, if not royal?

--
Oly.
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

Ken Oleson <oleansvenknut DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 3:25?am, mcv <mcv... DeleteThis @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>> In their own country, of course the local head of state is more important
>> than a foreign one. But if the king of Sweden dies, at the funeral the
>> emperor of Japan will have the highest status, then all kings, queens
>> and other noble heads of state, and all presidents, including the one
>> of the US, come last. Royal funerals tend to be pretty old fashioned in
>> that regard.
>
> Not surprising, I guess.
>
> Hm. I wonder if Akihito is the only actual Emperor left? That butcher
> Bokassa's safely dead, and Elizabeth II was a few years to late to be
> "Empress of India".

As far as I know, he is indeed the last remaining emperor.

> And the Pope? Head of state (The Vatican), nominally elected, but
> aren't high-level chuchmen considered noble, if not royal?

I can't recall. I doubt he'd be considered royal. Clergy is a different
class than nobility, so if we stick to the medieval system (and why not?),
I'd expect him to come between royalty (kings and queens) and bourgeoisie
(presidents).


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

mcv wrote:
> Ken Oleson <oleansvenknut DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hm. I wonder if Akihito is the only actual Emperor left? That butcher
>> Bokassa's safely dead, and Elizabeth II was a few years to late to be
>> "Empress of India".
>
> As far as I know, he is indeed the last remaining emperor.

Does anyone know why he gets to be called an Emperor rather than a king
(other than tradition, which, of course, is enough for the context in
question)? One of the definitions of "empire" requires either a very
extensive territory (not true for Japan) or a collection of individual
nations under one authority figure (true of ancient Middle Eastern
empires (Babylon, Assyria), Roman empire, Holy Roman Empire, British
Empire, but not Japan).
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:50:15 -0500, David Alex Lamb
<dalamb.TakeThisOut@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:

>mcv wrote:
>> Ken Oleson <oleansvenknut.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Hm. I wonder if Akihito is the only actual Emperor left? That butcher
>>> Bokassa's safely dead, and Elizabeth II was a few years to late to be
>>> "Empress of India".
>>
>> As far as I know, he is indeed the last remaining emperor.
>
>Does anyone know why he gets to be called an Emperor rather than a king
>(other than tradition, which, of course, is enough for the context in
>question)? One of the definitions of "empire" requires either a very
>extensive territory (not true for Japan) or a collection of individual
>nations under one authority figure (true of ancient Middle Eastern
>empires (Babylon, Assyria), Roman empire, Holy Roman Empire, British
>Empire, but not Japan).

It's the latter - Japan was historically made up of many, many small
kingdoms that were sometimes unified and sometimes not. They've only
really been one nation since Nobunaga and Hideyoshi unified the country
during the late 1500s.

There's an extensive article about this in the Britannica, but it isn't
available online without paying for it...

--
Rob Kelk Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
"There's always somebody who's going to hate your work, no matter
how good it is. DON'T LET HIM CHASE YOU AWAY FROM WRITING, BECAUSE
THAT WAY HE WINS." - Robert M. Schroeck, 18 July 2006
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

Rob Kelk wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:50:15 -0500, David Alex Lamb
> <dalamb.RemoveThis@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> Does anyone know why he gets to be called an Emperor rather than a king
>> (other than tradition, which, of course, is enough for the context in
>> question)? One of the definitions of "empire" requires either a very
>> extensive territory (not true for Japan) or a collection of individual
>> nations under one authority figure (true of ancient Middle Eastern
>> empires (Babylon, Assyria), Roman empire, Holy Roman Empire, British
>> Empire, but not Japan).
>
> It's the latter - Japan was historically made up of many, many small
> kingdoms that were sometimes unified and sometimes not. They've only
> really been one nation since Nobunaga and Hideyoshi unified the country
> during the late 1500s.

OK, but the Kaiser wasn't considered an emperor after Germany was
unified, was he? nor the kings-of-all-England who conquered the "kings"
of various tiny territories? They were culturally and linguistically
quite uniform, whereas the empires I listed all had collections of
distinctly different cultures.

At the point at which his Japanese title got translated into English,
was he really an Emperor in the dictionary sense?
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

On Dec 24, 8:59 pm, David Alex Lamb <dal... DeleteThis @cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
> OK, but the Kaiser wasn't considered an emperor after Germany was
> unified, was he?  

If I remember my German correctly, "Kaiser" = "Emperor". "King" is
"Koenig"
Could be mistaken.

> nor the kings-of-all-England who conquered the "kings"
> of various tiny territories?  They were culturally and linguistically
> quite uniform, whereas the empires I listed all had collections of
> distinctly different cultures.
>

Well, the is the legend that the semi-mythical Arthur sacked Rome and
briefly became Emperor there...

--
Oleson.
 >> Stay informed about: Rank 

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:59:33 -0500, David Alex Lamb
<dalamb.RemoveThis@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:

>Rob Kelk wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:50:15 -0500, David Alex Lamb
>> <dalamb.RemoveThis@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>> Does anyone know why he gets to be called an Emperor rather than a king
>>> (other than tradition, which, of course, is enough for the context in
>>> question)? One of the definitions of "empire" requires either a very
>>> extensive territory (not true for Japan) or a collection of individual
>>> nations under one authority figure (true of ancient Middle Eastern
>>> empires (Babylon, Assyria), Roman empire, Holy Roman Empire, British
>>> Empire, but not Japan).
>>
>> It's the latter - Japan was historically made up of many, many small
>> kingdoms that were sometimes unified and sometimes not. They've only
>> really been one nation since Nobunaga and Hideyoshi unified the country
>> during the late 1500s.
>
>OK, but the Kaiser wasn't considered an emperor after Germany was
>unified, was he? nor the kings-of-all-England who conquered the "kings"
>of various tiny territories? They were culturally and linguistically
>quite uniform, whereas the empires I listed all had collections of
>distinctly different cultures.
>
>At the point at which his Japanese title got translated into English,
>was he really an Emperor in the dictionary sense?

Probably not. However, his title translates literally as "heavenly
sovereign" or "heaven king" (depending on the translator), which implies
a higher rank than a merely mortal king. Ruling by the grace of God
isn't as impressive as ruling God, after all...

--
Rob Kelk Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
"There's always somebody who's going to hate your work, no matter
how good it is. DON'T LET HIM CHASE YOU AWAY FROM WRITING, BECAUSE
THAT WAY HE WINS." - Robert M. Schroeck, 18 July 2006
 >> Stay informed about: Rank