Lots of nasty sexual secrets,things that were OK in 1973,but jailable in whatever year it was he went to live on Mars. The papers would have exploded. And not even THAT secret. In 1973 I was always seeing in papers and magazines ..." David Bowie had a threesome with ...this one and that one.. Bowie was seen at a club with ...they wen off together... he,did he manage his own publicity,used the transgressive,wild sexuality of that era to enhance and promote his image. I'm glad he wasnt a hypocrite and ruled against ANY sort of Religious send off.
I believe a knighthood is to the person rather than a title that can be handed down,.
Did you find the format of clips and commentary helpful? As opposed to the format I did with Laura Kennedy where I captured her comments in blocks of text? I'm curious as I plan to do more of these.
--My wife Debbie asked if I really did this nutty bit of playacting, which I believe can be called LARPing. Of course I did. But I didn’t wear any costumes.
The Society for Creative Anachronism with tens of thousands of members is based on pretending to be high born European nobility. Everyone is assumed to be of "gentle birth.” After seven years of hard work, I rose from mere gentle birth to Baroness. So watch your step!
Kids always pretend to be high class in their imaginative play. They always imagine “up.”
Both the characters in whose shoes you loved to stand are peak status. Carson was Lord over the servants and the Earl over the household (except for his devious female relations.)
Thanks Kathleen. Who knew? I was auditioning for the Society for Creative Anachronisms! You made me think about the Prince and the pauper or the origin story of Moses.
In my late twenties on a visit to London, my father took to me lunch at his club, Whites. Despite its The decor of which quite shocked me, as it was decorated rather shabbily. Like an American boarding school rec room after a keg party. Which, my father explained, was exactly the point: to be a facsimile of an Eton or Rugby dorm. Nothing at all like the burnished elegance of the Brook in NYC, or the Racquet Club in Philly.
Yet it was arguably the most elite men's club in GB, and virtually impossible at the time for anyone not of the British nobility to avoid getting blackballed if they were sponsored for membership. Assuming you had a well-regarded sponsor and seconders, and had the social skills, etc. necessary to be a good fit, there was actually a rather simple method if you wanted in...
Yes. They'd pine for the threadbare rough-and-tumble of Eton and Oxford dorm life. Yet also prize well-made kit for outdoors activities.
For moneyed Americans confident in themselves; having a mixture of some proficiency with golf, tennis, fowl hunting, fox hunting, and bridge/backgammon--familiarity with some/all of these, plus good table manners/social skills gains us entree. Being a good dancer doesn't hurt either.
Because as their Yank Cousins, if charming and confident, we can essentially be social chameleons, never being triggered by their pecking order foibles, and thus acceptable by potentially any/all of their Brit social strata. Ultimately, it seems to be primarily about being comfortable and confident in one's skin.
And the deciding trick to getting into a place like White's is relative anonymity. I.e., you've not made any enemies who'd blackball you.
My older sister a few years ago gained membership at both the Bath & Tennis and Everglades Clubs in Palm Beach, having not bothered with membership early in life--when, as a legacy applicant, it's a virtual shoe-in. Remember, these are both clubs that snubbed Donald Trump many decades ago, spurring him to found Mar-a-Lago. In Reute's case, her mum is very well regarded, and launched a prolonged charm offensive on her behalf. Which was successful, because there were no other members who knew--or remembered--her enough to harbor a grudge.
Isn’t being OTT a sign of new money? This idea goes way back and is highlighted in the HBO series, The Gilded Age. Today, we’d call it the “quiet luxury” look, which was a thing recently. I don’t think it’s quite gone away.
Upper crust Brits post-twenties definitely seem sensitive to displaying the trappings of nouveau wealth. Except of course for anything functionally associated with the aristocratic lifestyle, like your Purdey side-by-side, your waxed rain jacket, etc.
As an American born woman who has lived in England for a large proportion of my life , I very much enjoyed your discussion and wrote a Note to that effect. No serious money myself and no honours (well, I did get an honorary doctorate from Mt Holyoke years ago) so it’s another world. I thought the ‘burden’ issue was especially interesting.
Thanks Ann. Did you find the format of clips and commentary helpful? As opposed to the format I did with Laura Kennedy where I captured her comments in blocks of text? I'm curious as I plan to do more of these.
A good idea to ask, but I didn’t pay any attention to the clips because I had watched the whole thing.
At the time, I wasn’t keen to sit down and need to hold my phone the whole time (I was hoping I could watch it on my computer, but I asked the chatbot and it said it had to be on the app and the app had to be on the phone). BUT I did sit down in a comfy chair and found it so interesting that I watched all the way through, As I said to Ray afterwards, it was like the kind of conversation we have frequently (kind-of pushing the other to see where thoughts lead), but of course I could only listen but not join in.
The one issue I had was finding it in the first place. You had given the time and I wasn’t quite sure where to go, but I went onto the phone where there are videos (and never realised there are so many different videos going on at any one time - from political stuff to cute stuff etc etc.) I got quite frustrated, sat down to have tea with Ray, told him about my frustration (he is USELESS with phones, refuses to have one - yes, I know he should, but he is a strong minded guy with all sorts of views about things, he basically thinks the phone should never have been invented, except when he wants me to call someone - oops, that is a huge useless diversion), but anyway I turned on my phone at that point and there it was. Did you start late? I never understood any of that.
What I really want to understand is how to find it next time.
This is what happens when you ask my opinion. Hope some of it helped somewhere along the way, even if I didn’t address your question.
Thanks Ann. Something misfired. It was my first time hosting and I was late because I couldn't invite Eleanor. I think I practiced going into the preview room without inviting her. Or she may have not had the accept invitation switch turned on. I'm betting it was me but I'm checking. I was terrified and Eleanor figured out how to rescue me.
I have another Tuesday afternoon at 5 pm EDT with Natasha Joukowsky who writes "Quite Useless".' The title is "People prefer prestige over having babies."
The "clickbait line" is People would rather be fuckable than actually fuck. Should be sending out the invitation later today.
Well, that’s quite a clickbait line. I know where I stand, but prestige was never my thing. I might listen if I am around or will you replay it on the following Saturday, as you did with Eleanor? (who, incidentally, writes a wonderful obituary for her mother today - obviously, a strong character, very very vividly brought to life)
PS. It makes me feel so much better when people like you have problems on Substack. I like to think I am a competent person (I suspect you feel the same) but sometimes I just get undone by the tech. I have a wonderful resource in my very techie son-in-law, but unfortunately he doesn’t know Substack at all (and also refuses to have anything to do with Apple) but on everything else he is great.
I had the privilege of visiting highclere castle and remember standing outside during the tour and being overcome with quiet laughter. Being up close to just one aspect of that level of wealth…it was just wild and made me laugh. Enjoy your good fortune and luck!
This goes a long way to explain Megan and Harry’s problems with the Royal family. The individuals are not as important as the monarchy ‘juggernaut’ and the ideas of duty and service and some erasure of the ‘self’ that that life entails
thank you for this great and important conversation. I am making my way through it. I feel it is the privilege and duty of those with wealth to follow their soul calling so that we can make space for all people to do so. contributing to the world with mothering, with art, with writing, with acts for social justice, with time and care to think and act in ways that evolve our world towards more wellbeing for all, that is the greatest purpose of wealth, in my opinion.
wealth comes in many forms, and wealth of mindset is the greatest of all. may we all use our stations of privilege and wealth to guide the world towards being better for all. the conditioning of outer authority that keeps people on the hamster wheel even when they don’t need to be, just because it’s expected that we stay busy enough to ignore the horrors that happen in the name of the wealthy, this is what people in power (wealth, status, intelligence, etc.) can dismantle. the ability to stand in the face of expectations and conditioning and say, “no, I dare to write a new story”, that is the true wealth of wealth.
I think this can be key: recognizing that when we give philanthropically or participate in a socially progressive project, we are both giving and receiving, as are our partners in the exchange. they are giving to us. what are they giving? things that many wealthy people do not have; things that are not measured in dollars. opening to this mutual give and receive energy, grounded the reality that all our lives and our children’s lives are better when we are all cared for, is opening to a self-sustaining wealth for the whole world. BUT this means that old systems of divide and conquer WILL die. so….
The Downtown Abbey bit made me chuckle, especially since I will sometimes tease my husband by calling him m’lord (a thinly veiled jab at his occasional preciousness).
One of the most (IMO) interesting aspects of the UK class system is that it’s so ingrained in Brits’ psyche that upward social mobility is viewed as something that is relatively undesirable. Maybe even cringe. When people say something is “posh”, it implies 2 things: (1) that they are not posh themselves (it’s the old “this is water / what is water” effect), and (2) that they are expressing a negative judgment about that thing. As someone who spent a good chunk of my life in the US and in France, and believes in ambition, progress, meritocracy, money, but also luxury, beauty, sophistication etc - this was one of the most jarring things when I first moved to London. What do you mean you don’t want something that’s posh??
David, I love the image of you cosplaying Upstairs/Downstairs at Downton Abbey—equal parts butler and baron, probably still answering email.
We’re living inside a swirl of competing myths about dynastic wealth: the self-made person, the mysterious Gatsby, the oil baron, the Mayflower WASP. Once, I worked with a Rockefeller, and my very Mayflower husband would tease him, “Pfft. Mr. Johnny-Come-Lately here... Your money’s barely 200 years old.” 😂 We’ll invent status out of anything, even when we already have everything. Le sigh.
VERY interesting. As a Canadian with UK roots and lots of historical, family and work connections I can confirm that what the UK woman says is 100% true. I could talk about this subject, the UK class system, its snobbery and the reverse snobbery of the lower classes for hours. The only comment I will make here is that even today the British aristocracy is STILL mostly direct descendants of the Norman invaders and conquest of 1066. That is one thousand years later. Remarkable. I use this fact to mock modern day Canadian wokesters who insist on framing life as contest between 'oppressors' and the 'oppressed'. With the family name Lightfoot I am very obviously of Anglo-Saxon descent, and hence one of the majority who were literally conquered and oppressed for that thousand years, since 'our King, Harald' was killed at Hastings. I am still not over it ;). Maybe I will let it go in another thousand.
Steven, you have a 1,00 year legacy, too! I never thought about how the Angles and the Saxons were conquered since Anglo-Saxon is the A and the S in WASP. I suppose, however, that over a thousand years there was so much mixture that the Angles and the Saxons eventually dominated genetically. Isn't Ivanhoe about the difference between Normans and Anglo-Saxons?
Finally, did you find the format of clips and commentary helpful? As opposed to the format I did with Laura Kennedy where I captured her comments in blocks of text? I'm curious as I plan to do more of these.
I didn't really note the format change, I normally only read your posts and don't listen to the vids, but in this case I actually only listened to vid and didn't read the text! Partly because I was lazy today and partly because I wanted to listen to her accent which is a sure sign of 'breeding' and status in the UK.
I don't l know about Ivanhoe, but for sure there has been a lot of mixing in the past 1000 years. In fact, when in London 20 years ago at one of my visits to various cathedrals, in one of them (I think it was St Pauls but not 100% sure) there is a list in stone on the wall of all the top religious leaders names (I want to say Archbishop of Caterbury but may not be) since maybe 800 AD and its really interesting to see how the names pre 1066 are all classic Old English (Anglo Saxon) style, names like Aethelbert etc and in 1066 they change overnight to obviously French, names like Pierre de Montfort (I just made up those imaginary names as examples of what they look and sound like). The French names stick to maybe 1400 when they become more commonly known modern English names. Modern English is a literal mix of German (Anglo Saxon) and French (Norman). Because the Normans took over, modern English often has two words for the same or related things, like 'pork' as cooked pig, and pig or swine for the animal. The Normans conquerors would have referred to their pig meal in the manor as porc (pig in French) whereas the cooks and farmers referred to the same animal as swine (Schwein is pig in German). So both words exist now in Modern English to describe the same idea. There is a famous 1980s book called the Story of English by MacNeil (and others) of the MacNeil-Lehrer Report, which would explain all this stuff.
Although ere has been a lot of mixing, the top dogs have remained of French descent and you can see it many of the names of the modern aristocrats, names like Montagu, Beaumont, De Vere, Percy, Grosvenor, De Montfort, etc etc. I have read that even today some large % of British aristocrats have Norman heritage.
Observing the British class system in action, it always seemed to me that most of the snobbery was from members of the middle class, who would ruthlessly jockey for position if you put twenty of them in a room together.
The only folks who knew where they stood socially, and were comfortable in their own skins, were the members of the upper and lower classes.
Btw, during the Reformation, many members of the lesser nobility--mainly Knights--converted to Quakerism. And were roughly 20% of the party that settled Philadelphia under William Penn.
This is true. I remember people talking about Kate Middleton being "middle class" right before and for a while AFTER the wedding and people on this side of the Atlantic not fully understanding why. And also WHY she was considered "middle class."
As for the whole oppressor vs oppressed thing, haven't most cultures been both? The Romans, for example, had much of what's now the EU plus parts of northern Africa and western Asia. And, of course, Britain. Then there's my family. China has been ruled by "outsiders" like the Manchus and Mongols in addition to their own Han people, for example. And parts of the country were occupied by the Japanese during WWII. China isn't innocent either, both historically and in the present.
Yeah, the expression middle class means something totally different in the UK and in North America. Middle Class in the UK means near the top of the socioeconomic pecking order, but NOT aristocracy or landed gentry - I supposed its really they who coined to the term to mean 'respectful but ordinary - and not US'. It is really the equivalent to the educated upper middle class/professional class in North America.
And I should add that its a way for the aristocracy (and the middle class itself) to differentiate from the working class (and underclass), which in the UK is a TOTALLY different thing.
I feel like as the saying "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" has become more cliche, it has become less true. Sam Walton's grandchildren are billionaires and I'm there are trusts set up to make sure it gets to the next generation too. The American economy does not have the generational churn it once did.
That's fair, Bill. Although the Walton family may be an outlier as it's the wealthiest family in the world and it seems like its business is very well managed.
Thanks for a great discussion. It seems to me the 3 generation feature for the US was in a time of higher entrepreneurial spirits than we generally see today (or at least that's how it seems to me).
I'm fortunate that my children will in all likelihood do better than I, but it mostly came from speaking with people who had handled multi-generational wealth responsibly, before and after we had our kids. Teaching about $, investing, risk, reward, patience, etc. And of course we had to model that same behavior we preached (unlike some of our parents). Like I said, fortunate.
Btw I liked this format of clips and comments better than how it was done with Laura Kennedy. Thanks for giving a dang about your material presentation (you already do a great job with the material).
I live in a city called Bristol on the edge of the West Country but it's also on the edge of what in Anglo -Saxon times was Mercia (now the West Midlands in general terms). This geographical luck made Bristol a very wealthy city in ages past and some of this cities trading history is dark but I won't go into that. I don't live on the posh,arty side the West Side. I live in the till now pragmatic working class East Side but thats changing as people who would aspire to live on the west side but can't afford to are now colonising this East Side. I mean 20 years ago who would have foreseen a Sourdough Bakery (total scam imo) on our local shopping street and A QUEUE outside!! Now I live only 25 minutes drive from HighGrove,just outside Tetbury,one of the Country homes of our King and about the same from Badminton,home of the Dukes of Beaufort. I know due to having been to both on a coach trip. HighGrove twice. But this proximity is a million miles in social terms. It's a small (big) world and there is nowhere remote enough for even very wealthy people to not have neighbours,even if they are two miles away over grazing pasture. When I first started visiting London I was astonished how right behind a road of mansions would be social housing,the rich and poor cheek by jowl unlike my city where we all seem to be in distinct areas where everyone is much the same level. Not on purpose it just seems to have evolved that way. And the rich,the affluent,at whatever level can't live too far from the hired help,be they servants,agency staff,and key workers like nurses can't be rehomed two counties away! It's an interesting subject.
My father for several years rented an outbuilding on the estate of Micky Suffolk, the Earl of Suffolk, near Malmesbury. The enormous mansion had long before been turned into flats and sold off; and Micky & family lived in an elegantly restored stables behind the main house.
He was singularly eccentric, and loved flying a stunt plane he'd fly from the WW2-era runway on the estate.
Love this. Will try to listen later but I’m not a fan of podcasts, live chats, etc. I prefer reading.
We do need to hear your impersonation of Carson tho.
Do Knighthoods make one part of the nobility?
I was always curious why Bowie declined a Knighthood.
Lots of nasty sexual secrets,things that were OK in 1973,but jailable in whatever year it was he went to live on Mars. The papers would have exploded. And not even THAT secret. In 1973 I was always seeing in papers and magazines ..." David Bowie had a threesome with ...this one and that one.. Bowie was seen at a club with ...they wen off together... he,did he manage his own publicity,used the transgressive,wild sexuality of that era to enhance and promote his image. I'm glad he wasnt a hypocrite and ruled against ANY sort of Religious send off.
I believe a knighthood is to the person rather than a title that can be handed down,.
Did you find the format of clips and commentary helpful? As opposed to the format I did with Laura Kennedy where I captured her comments in blocks of text? I'm curious as I plan to do more of these.
Love the commentary clips. 🥰👏
I continue to appreciate your transparency. As one who does not come from wealth, it helps me understand, rather than resent, those who do.
--My wife Debbie asked if I really did this nutty bit of playacting, which I believe can be called LARPing. Of course I did. But I didn’t wear any costumes.
The Society for Creative Anachronism with tens of thousands of members is based on pretending to be high born European nobility. Everyone is assumed to be of "gentle birth.” After seven years of hard work, I rose from mere gentle birth to Baroness. So watch your step!
Kids always pretend to be high class in their imaginative play. They always imagine “up.”
Both the characters in whose shoes you loved to stand are peak status. Carson was Lord over the servants and the Earl over the household (except for his devious female relations.)
Thanks Kathleen. Who knew? I was auditioning for the Society for Creative Anachronisms! You made me think about the Prince and the pauper or the origin story of Moses.
In my late twenties on a visit to London, my father took to me lunch at his club, Whites. Despite its The decor of which quite shocked me, as it was decorated rather shabbily. Like an American boarding school rec room after a keg party. Which, my father explained, was exactly the point: to be a facsimile of an Eton or Rugby dorm. Nothing at all like the burnished elegance of the Brook in NYC, or the Racquet Club in Philly.
Yet it was arguably the most elite men's club in GB, and virtually impossible at the time for anyone not of the British nobility to avoid getting blackballed if they were sponsored for membership. Assuming you had a well-regarded sponsor and seconders, and had the social skills, etc. necessary to be a good fit, there was actually a rather simple method if you wanted in...
Consistent with Eleanor saying that high status British men prize shabbiness.
Yes. They'd pine for the threadbare rough-and-tumble of Eton and Oxford dorm life. Yet also prize well-made kit for outdoors activities.
For moneyed Americans confident in themselves; having a mixture of some proficiency with golf, tennis, fowl hunting, fox hunting, and bridge/backgammon--familiarity with some/all of these, plus good table manners/social skills gains us entree. Being a good dancer doesn't hurt either.
Because as their Yank Cousins, if charming and confident, we can essentially be social chameleons, never being triggered by their pecking order foibles, and thus acceptable by potentially any/all of their Brit social strata. Ultimately, it seems to be primarily about being comfortable and confident in one's skin.
And the deciding trick to getting into a place like White's is relative anonymity. I.e., you've not made any enemies who'd blackball you.
My older sister a few years ago gained membership at both the Bath & Tennis and Everglades Clubs in Palm Beach, having not bothered with membership early in life--when, as a legacy applicant, it's a virtual shoe-in. Remember, these are both clubs that snubbed Donald Trump many decades ago, spurring him to found Mar-a-Lago. In Reute's case, her mum is very well regarded, and launched a prolonged charm offensive on her behalf. Which was successful, because there were no other members who knew--or remembered--her enough to harbor a grudge.
Isn’t being OTT a sign of new money? This idea goes way back and is highlighted in the HBO series, The Gilded Age. Today, we’d call it the “quiet luxury” look, which was a thing recently. I don’t think it’s quite gone away.
Upper crust Brits post-twenties definitely seem sensitive to displaying the trappings of nouveau wealth. Except of course for anything functionally associated with the aristocratic lifestyle, like your Purdey side-by-side, your waxed rain jacket, etc.
As an American born woman who has lived in England for a large proportion of my life , I very much enjoyed your discussion and wrote a Note to that effect. No serious money myself and no honours (well, I did get an honorary doctorate from Mt Holyoke years ago) so it’s another world. I thought the ‘burden’ issue was especially interesting.
Thanks Ann. Did you find the format of clips and commentary helpful? As opposed to the format I did with Laura Kennedy where I captured her comments in blocks of text? I'm curious as I plan to do more of these.
A good idea to ask, but I didn’t pay any attention to the clips because I had watched the whole thing.
At the time, I wasn’t keen to sit down and need to hold my phone the whole time (I was hoping I could watch it on my computer, but I asked the chatbot and it said it had to be on the app and the app had to be on the phone). BUT I did sit down in a comfy chair and found it so interesting that I watched all the way through, As I said to Ray afterwards, it was like the kind of conversation we have frequently (kind-of pushing the other to see where thoughts lead), but of course I could only listen but not join in.
The one issue I had was finding it in the first place. You had given the time and I wasn’t quite sure where to go, but I went onto the phone where there are videos (and never realised there are so many different videos going on at any one time - from political stuff to cute stuff etc etc.) I got quite frustrated, sat down to have tea with Ray, told him about my frustration (he is USELESS with phones, refuses to have one - yes, I know he should, but he is a strong minded guy with all sorts of views about things, he basically thinks the phone should never have been invented, except when he wants me to call someone - oops, that is a huge useless diversion), but anyway I turned on my phone at that point and there it was. Did you start late? I never understood any of that.
What I really want to understand is how to find it next time.
This is what happens when you ask my opinion. Hope some of it helped somewhere along the way, even if I didn’t address your question.
Thanks Ann. Something misfired. It was my first time hosting and I was late because I couldn't invite Eleanor. I think I practiced going into the preview room without inviting her. Or she may have not had the accept invitation switch turned on. I'm betting it was me but I'm checking. I was terrified and Eleanor figured out how to rescue me.
I have another Tuesday afternoon at 5 pm EDT with Natasha Joukowsky who writes "Quite Useless".' The title is "People prefer prestige over having babies."
The "clickbait line" is People would rather be fuckable than actually fuck. Should be sending out the invitation later today.
Well, that’s quite a clickbait line. I know where I stand, but prestige was never my thing. I might listen if I am around or will you replay it on the following Saturday, as you did with Eleanor? (who, incidentally, writes a wonderful obituary for her mother today - obviously, a strong character, very very vividly brought to life)
PS. It makes me feel so much better when people like you have problems on Substack. I like to think I am a competent person (I suspect you feel the same) but sometimes I just get undone by the tech. I have a wonderful resource in my very techie son-in-law, but unfortunately he doesn’t know Substack at all (and also refuses to have anything to do with Apple) but on everything else he is great.
I will probably do the same thing I did with Eleanor depending upon the content.
I LOVED that obituary. So vivid. The magic of detail.
I had the privilege of visiting highclere castle and remember standing outside during the tour and being overcome with quiet laughter. Being up close to just one aspect of that level of wealth…it was just wild and made me laugh. Enjoy your good fortune and luck!
This goes a long way to explain Megan and Harry’s problems with the Royal family. The individuals are not as important as the monarchy ‘juggernaut’ and the ideas of duty and service and some erasure of the ‘self’ that that life entails
Thanks Karen. 'erasure of the self" is a great way of putting it.
thank you for this great and important conversation. I am making my way through it. I feel it is the privilege and duty of those with wealth to follow their soul calling so that we can make space for all people to do so. contributing to the world with mothering, with art, with writing, with acts for social justice, with time and care to think and act in ways that evolve our world towards more wellbeing for all, that is the greatest purpose of wealth, in my opinion.
wealth comes in many forms, and wealth of mindset is the greatest of all. may we all use our stations of privilege and wealth to guide the world towards being better for all. the conditioning of outer authority that keeps people on the hamster wheel even when they don’t need to be, just because it’s expected that we stay busy enough to ignore the horrors that happen in the name of the wealthy, this is what people in power (wealth, status, intelligence, etc.) can dismantle. the ability to stand in the face of expectations and conditioning and say, “no, I dare to write a new story”, that is the true wealth of wealth.
I find wealth of heart and soul to be the most fruitful and I feel that the world will begin to reflect this more and more.
Thanks Nina. Always appreciate your thoughtful comments.
Thanks, David. I appreciate you.
yes, at 40:30 of interview…how can we engage in “charity” with an approach that carries this truth: our liberation is tied together.
I think this can be key: recognizing that when we give philanthropically or participate in a socially progressive project, we are both giving and receiving, as are our partners in the exchange. they are giving to us. what are they giving? things that many wealthy people do not have; things that are not measured in dollars. opening to this mutual give and receive energy, grounded the reality that all our lives and our children’s lives are better when we are all cared for, is opening to a self-sustaining wealth for the whole world. BUT this means that old systems of divide and conquer WILL die. so….
The Downtown Abbey bit made me chuckle, especially since I will sometimes tease my husband by calling him m’lord (a thinly veiled jab at his occasional preciousness).
One of the most (IMO) interesting aspects of the UK class system is that it’s so ingrained in Brits’ psyche that upward social mobility is viewed as something that is relatively undesirable. Maybe even cringe. When people say something is “posh”, it implies 2 things: (1) that they are not posh themselves (it’s the old “this is water / what is water” effect), and (2) that they are expressing a negative judgment about that thing. As someone who spent a good chunk of my life in the US and in France, and believes in ambition, progress, meritocracy, money, but also luxury, beauty, sophistication etc - this was one of the most jarring things when I first moved to London. What do you mean you don’t want something that’s posh??
Thanks Eva. Fascinating the differences between the two cultures.
David, I love the image of you cosplaying Upstairs/Downstairs at Downton Abbey—equal parts butler and baron, probably still answering email.
We’re living inside a swirl of competing myths about dynastic wealth: the self-made person, the mysterious Gatsby, the oil baron, the Mayflower WASP. Once, I worked with a Rockefeller, and my very Mayflower husband would tease him, “Pfft. Mr. Johnny-Come-Lately here... Your money’s barely 200 years old.” 😂 We’ll invent status out of anything, even when we already have everything. Le sigh.
True, Alisa, everything is coded!
VERY interesting. As a Canadian with UK roots and lots of historical, family and work connections I can confirm that what the UK woman says is 100% true. I could talk about this subject, the UK class system, its snobbery and the reverse snobbery of the lower classes for hours. The only comment I will make here is that even today the British aristocracy is STILL mostly direct descendants of the Norman invaders and conquest of 1066. That is one thousand years later. Remarkable. I use this fact to mock modern day Canadian wokesters who insist on framing life as contest between 'oppressors' and the 'oppressed'. With the family name Lightfoot I am very obviously of Anglo-Saxon descent, and hence one of the majority who were literally conquered and oppressed for that thousand years, since 'our King, Harald' was killed at Hastings. I am still not over it ;). Maybe I will let it go in another thousand.
Steven, you have a 1,00 year legacy, too! I never thought about how the Angles and the Saxons were conquered since Anglo-Saxon is the A and the S in WASP. I suppose, however, that over a thousand years there was so much mixture that the Angles and the Saxons eventually dominated genetically. Isn't Ivanhoe about the difference between Normans and Anglo-Saxons?
Finally, did you find the format of clips and commentary helpful? As opposed to the format I did with Laura Kennedy where I captured her comments in blocks of text? I'm curious as I plan to do more of these.
I didn't really note the format change, I normally only read your posts and don't listen to the vids, but in this case I actually only listened to vid and didn't read the text! Partly because I was lazy today and partly because I wanted to listen to her accent which is a sure sign of 'breeding' and status in the UK.
I don't l know about Ivanhoe, but for sure there has been a lot of mixing in the past 1000 years. In fact, when in London 20 years ago at one of my visits to various cathedrals, in one of them (I think it was St Pauls but not 100% sure) there is a list in stone on the wall of all the top religious leaders names (I want to say Archbishop of Caterbury but may not be) since maybe 800 AD and its really interesting to see how the names pre 1066 are all classic Old English (Anglo Saxon) style, names like Aethelbert etc and in 1066 they change overnight to obviously French, names like Pierre de Montfort (I just made up those imaginary names as examples of what they look and sound like). The French names stick to maybe 1400 when they become more commonly known modern English names. Modern English is a literal mix of German (Anglo Saxon) and French (Norman). Because the Normans took over, modern English often has two words for the same or related things, like 'pork' as cooked pig, and pig or swine for the animal. The Normans conquerors would have referred to their pig meal in the manor as porc (pig in French) whereas the cooks and farmers referred to the same animal as swine (Schwein is pig in German). So both words exist now in Modern English to describe the same idea. There is a famous 1980s book called the Story of English by MacNeil (and others) of the MacNeil-Lehrer Report, which would explain all this stuff.
Although ere has been a lot of mixing, the top dogs have remained of French descent and you can see it many of the names of the modern aristocrats, names like Montagu, Beaumont, De Vere, Percy, Grosvenor, De Montfort, etc etc. I have read that even today some large % of British aristocrats have Norman heritage.
Observing the British class system in action, it always seemed to me that most of the snobbery was from members of the middle class, who would ruthlessly jockey for position if you put twenty of them in a room together.
The only folks who knew where they stood socially, and were comfortable in their own skins, were the members of the upper and lower classes.
Btw, during the Reformation, many members of the lesser nobility--mainly Knights--converted to Quakerism. And were roughly 20% of the party that settled Philadelphia under William Penn.
That is a good observation about British class and who is comfortable in their own skin.
This is true. I remember people talking about Kate Middleton being "middle class" right before and for a while AFTER the wedding and people on this side of the Atlantic not fully understanding why. And also WHY she was considered "middle class."
As for the whole oppressor vs oppressed thing, haven't most cultures been both? The Romans, for example, had much of what's now the EU plus parts of northern Africa and western Asia. And, of course, Britain. Then there's my family. China has been ruled by "outsiders" like the Manchus and Mongols in addition to their own Han people, for example. And parts of the country were occupied by the Japanese during WWII. China isn't innocent either, both historically and in the present.
Yeah, the expression middle class means something totally different in the UK and in North America. Middle Class in the UK means near the top of the socioeconomic pecking order, but NOT aristocracy or landed gentry - I supposed its really they who coined to the term to mean 'respectful but ordinary - and not US'. It is really the equivalent to the educated upper middle class/professional class in North America.
And I should add that its a way for the aristocracy (and the middle class itself) to differentiate from the working class (and underclass), which in the UK is a TOTALLY different thing.
Ah, I had connection problems so I am glad you posted this!
I feel like as the saying "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" has become more cliche, it has become less true. Sam Walton's grandchildren are billionaires and I'm there are trusts set up to make sure it gets to the next generation too. The American economy does not have the generational churn it once did.
That's fair, Bill. Although the Walton family may be an outlier as it's the wealthiest family in the world and it seems like its business is very well managed.
They are also skinflints, having given away a tiny fraction of that immense wealth.
Thanks for a great discussion. It seems to me the 3 generation feature for the US was in a time of higher entrepreneurial spirits than we generally see today (or at least that's how it seems to me).
I'm fortunate that my children will in all likelihood do better than I, but it mostly came from speaking with people who had handled multi-generational wealth responsibly, before and after we had our kids. Teaching about $, investing, risk, reward, patience, etc. And of course we had to model that same behavior we preached (unlike some of our parents). Like I said, fortunate.
Btw I liked this format of clips and comments better than how it was done with Laura Kennedy. Thanks for giving a dang about your material presentation (you already do a great job with the material).
I live in a city called Bristol on the edge of the West Country but it's also on the edge of what in Anglo -Saxon times was Mercia (now the West Midlands in general terms). This geographical luck made Bristol a very wealthy city in ages past and some of this cities trading history is dark but I won't go into that. I don't live on the posh,arty side the West Side. I live in the till now pragmatic working class East Side but thats changing as people who would aspire to live on the west side but can't afford to are now colonising this East Side. I mean 20 years ago who would have foreseen a Sourdough Bakery (total scam imo) on our local shopping street and A QUEUE outside!! Now I live only 25 minutes drive from HighGrove,just outside Tetbury,one of the Country homes of our King and about the same from Badminton,home of the Dukes of Beaufort. I know due to having been to both on a coach trip. HighGrove twice. But this proximity is a million miles in social terms. It's a small (big) world and there is nowhere remote enough for even very wealthy people to not have neighbours,even if they are two miles away over grazing pasture. When I first started visiting London I was astonished how right behind a road of mansions would be social housing,the rich and poor cheek by jowl unlike my city where we all seem to be in distinct areas where everyone is much the same level. Not on purpose it just seems to have evolved that way. And the rich,the affluent,at whatever level can't live too far from the hired help,be they servants,agency staff,and key workers like nurses can't be rehomed two counties away! It's an interesting subject.
My father for several years rented an outbuilding on the estate of Micky Suffolk, the Earl of Suffolk, near Malmesbury. The enormous mansion had long before been turned into flats and sold off; and Micky & family lived in an elegantly restored stables behind the main house.
He was singularly eccentric, and loved flying a stunt plane he'd fly from the WW2-era runway on the estate.