King or Queen, Prince or Princess, Duke or Duchess—the United States Constitution, in what’s known as the “Emolument Clause,” forbids Titles of Nobility. Section 9 of the Constitution reads: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States…” Section 10 reads: “No State shall…grant any Title of Nobility.” Thus, both federal and state governments are prevented from conferring a Title of Nobility upon any of its citizens. These are not only laws, they’re constitutional dictates. Why should this be so? Other than preventing some degree of social affectation or presumptuousness, is there any reason for these prohibitions? Do they still serve a legitimate purpose in today’s America?
The United States has always held to the belief that an elevated rank should be earned—not conferred, bestowed, or inherited. Accomplishment, being the end result of hard work, takes on meaning because it reflects the true amount of skill and effort genuinely applied. A royal title that’s granted or bestowed upon another undermines this notion. A Title of Nobility makes it seem as if others are inherently superior, and thus entitled to special favors which others may not share. Further, the United States does not acknowledge any form of a class or caste system. We do not judge another by the identity of their parents or by the purity of their bloodline. Our Presidents are elected—not appointed by reason of birth or divine right. By preventing Titles of Nobility our founders laid the groundwork for a society that’s not divided by class. They stripped government of the authority not only to confer royal titles but to confer any power associated with such titles. Sections 9 and 10 do not get as much attention as some other provisions, but they are crucial—America would not be the same without them.
To disallow the establishment of a royal order and to prevent foreign influence in our government—these are typically suggested as the rationales for these provisions. But it can also be argued that these provisions have a wider applicability. Arguably they can be said to create yet another limit to the power of government. This interpretation is implicit since the text itself does not restrict the subject class—the provisions limiting title and power apply equally to both private citizens as well as government officials. What this means is that those who work within our government can never be thought to assume or exercise such title or power, directly or indirectly.
Of course our founders viewed unrestricted power as harmful. They were more than willing to tolerate some degree of inefficiency as a necessary trade-off in furtherance of their goal of disseminated power. Key decisions involving others, they knew, must be sifted and filtered, weighed and debated—not arbitrarily imposed. The constitutional prohibition against granting Titles of Nobility is a unique but fundamental provision—a powerful reminder of just how many layers beneath the surface our founders were willing to delve to insure a truly representative government.
