4 ms·
> Maybe there's something about British class relations that I'm missing (I'm not British) -- can anyone explain why it's particular hilarious or even unexpecte
by beaconstudios 8y ago
> Maybe there's something about British class relations that I'm missing (I'm not British) -- can anyone explain why it's particular hilarious or even unexpected that they would have restricted a "Lord"'s account, as opposed to anyone else's?
Not really. I think he's just saying that these filters are meant to keep out the cheating proles, but in this instance they banned a true-blue member of the British Aristocracy!
I kid, but no - we really don't assign any great value to aristocracy. Not us common folk anyway. Except the queen, she's wonderful.
It mostly means you may have a family estate (see: expensive mansion) now but even most of those have been sold off.
> (Tangential question: does "Lord" here mean a member of the House of Lords? Or anyone with an aristocratic title? Or something else?)
The house of lords used to be all aristocracy but my understanding is that they let any old bugger wander in now. Mostly MPs who rank up I believe.
- umanwizard 8y agoIn most countries, politicians wouldn’t say “hilariously, this even affected a rich person!” which is why I thought there must be more to it.
- beaconstudios 8y agothe aristocracy and their associate bum-scratchers do still hang around, and to them it may well be hilariously crass that a bookkeeper might ban a member of the elite. But I don't think it's much different now compared to other elite castes. I don't doubt there are people out there who would find it funny if a Saudi prince or a tech billionaire was banned from a casino.
- ethbro 8y agoGlad you said something. I also go to that sentence and had a moment of culture confusion. For reference, I suppose the nearest we'd have here in the US would be "... and he's a Roosevelt / Kennedy!"