I'd prefer to be a Subject, thanks.

[Rollo]

This morning I was sitting in at my desk when I heard a knock at the door and a clent of ours walked in and wanted his tax return done - simple enough, but the chap's name was interesting: Sir Martin.
This man had been a surgeon during the Korean War and whilst he hadn't performed any acts of bravery, he was still working in dangerous and arduous enough conditions to have a knighthood conferred upon him.

I thought about this later and in relation to this comment:

1.An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

As late as 1981, people of Her Majesty's United Kingdom were British Subjects. Supposedly the idea of democracy transformed us into "citizens" with personal choice and freedom - or did it? CEOs can still be like monarchs surrounded by courtiers. Behind the progressive window-dressing, a one-way chain of command still remains in force. As employees, consumers and citizens, most people follow orders with little voice or influence. So much for being a citizen.

Worse, if you happen to be in Australia or Canada (and if you're an American, you were never ever entitled anyway), then the whole idea of being honoured for your services to the country has now either been denied or removed.

Personally I think I'd rather be a subject. From a practical standpoint there's actually a face at the top instead of some corporate conglomo; then there's the possibility of getting a nice title. The idea of being Sir Andrew seems flashier to me than getting diddly squat.

What I want to know, is what's wrong with being a "subject"? And are you better off for being a "citizen"?

[BDunnell]

This is the main reason for my dislike of the monarchy. I have no desire to be anyone's subject, least of all someone whose position is based on a hereditary principle. In the UK and the Commonwealth, we are all still subjects of the Crown. I'm not aware of 1981 being a particular cut-off date.

Oh, and by the way, anthonyvop's description of a subject and a citizen is a matter of his personal opinion, not fact. I am both a British citizen and, not out of choice, a subject of the Crown. All Britons are. Being armed or not has nothing to do with it and should be ignored.

[rah]

Easy answer, rather be a citizen. I want to have a say in the head of my government. While having sir at the front of my name might be cool, I really couldn't care. There are plenty of good people without a title, and plenty of pratts with a title.

[Daniel]

Personally I don't give a ****. Here's why. Regardless of whether I live in the UK, Australia or the USA it's the same **** with a different name. The government decides what you do anyway. Therefore I don't care whether Elizabeth or Charles is Queen or King. It matters not to me as they have little or no say in my everyday life. As for needing to be armed to be a citizen. What a joke. If you feel that insecure then that's your problem not mine.

[Rollo]

The gun debate is somewhere else - please keep that there :)

[BDunnell]

I don't get the link between being a citizen or subject and getting a title.

[Daniel]

I don't quite get the difference either. You say po tay toe, i say po tah toe but it's pretty much the same.

[fandango]

I used to know a guy called Sunil, who was English. The fact people often confused his name with Sir Neill opened a few doors for him at certain times :)

I'm happy to be a citizen rather than a subject. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but I am from a republic, and I like the fact that the head of state is elected by the people.

But it's true that people feel less and less in control, be they subjects or citizens. Voting seems a futile action when you'd prefer to tick "none of the above". In that sense the lack of choice of subjects can seem the same as the limited choice of citizens.

[Rudy Tamasz]

anthonyvop is actually right in a historical sense. Early societies were so called military democracies, where civil rights belonged to those who bore arms and participated in combat. All adult males were warriors and had full civil rights as a result. This concept of citizenhood made it into ancient Greek and Roman political theories. Then armies became professional but the notion of a citizen still was applied to all freely born males. in Barbaric Europe it went different way. E.g. in Frankish Kingdom military service became a heavy burden for ordinary farmers especially as it involved bringing your own horse to the army. By orders of kings those who could not serve in army had to defer this duty to others in exchange for their personal freedom. This is how world became divided into nobility and serfs and the situation lasted for centuries until recently. There's a lot of truth to anthonyvop's words.

[gadjo_dilo]

Hmm.... Until now I classed working with taxes as prosaic.

[leopard]

Towards debate being civil or military, I'd prefer being civil. Despite as much as possible I try to settle my affairs with my own power, but considering life problems may arise whereby military power needs involved it wouldn't be harmful having friends from military as much as possible. imo