8 ms·

England's Upper Classes – A Dangerous Cult

81 points by daverol 5y ago

marliechiller 5y ago
Im not really sure of the point this article is trying to make. It seems like a moan about the upper class from a by-gone era. "This country could do with a lot more Hannahs and far fewer Jacob Rees-Moggs." The remaining Jacob Rees-Moggs of the UK stick out like sore thumbs and are almost caricatures. I also don't imagine many people are oblivious to the fact that the "aristocracy" (what does that even mean in a UK context nowadays?) made their living off of exploitation. Just as todays elite do but in softer ways (see Bezos).
- user-the-name 5y ago
  What makes you think it's bygone? These people largely run the country right now.
  - simonh 5y ago
    They really don't. They're disproportionately represented in the country's leadership, but haven't formed a majority of it or even close for a generation or two. Anyway, we're a democracy. If we don't like the constitution of our political leadership, we can change it any time we like and do so frequently.
    - EliRivers 5y ago
      Can we? Boris Johnson is the PM. About 25000 voters voted for him as an MP. I had zero choice in the matter. He was then picked as a leadership candidate by some other MPs, and ultimately made leader and thus Prime Minister by about 90000 members of his political party (who had the choice of him and one other person that they could make leader and thus Prime Minister). About 115000 votes in total, from a UK voting population of about 47 million. Sure, technically I suppose it is democracy, but it certainly doesn't feel like it.
      - Veen 5y ago
        He also won a massive majority in a general election.
        EliRivers 5y ago
        About 25000 people voted for Boris Johnson in that election.
        simonh 5y ago
        I look forward to your similarly vitriolic complaints when a politician you support wins the premiership (not the football one). The fact that prime ministers are answerable to parliament, and that parliament is sovereign, is IMHO the single best and most important feature of the British political system. Contrast that with presidential systems, particularly that in the US in which the president fulfils the constitutional role of an elected George III circa 1790. Which for some reason Americans seem to think is somehow modern over 200 years later. If one of them goes off the rails you're stuck with them for years. Our leader of government serves at the discretion of our elected representatives and can be turfed out at any moment, which actually happens and isn't just a theoretical mechanism. An excellent arrangement.
        chalst 5y ago
        Parliamentary sovereignty as a principle was fundamentally weakened in the tussle over the Brexit leave date: the government lost the battle but won the war. This parliament has been very ineffective in providing oversight of government. I'm not seeing the advantage of the UK system of oversight over the US one right now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_(No._2)_Act_2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_...
        simonh 5y ago
        Well, as a confirmed remainer and someone who will never forgive Johnson for stabbing us in the back, eh. The act required him to send a letter, which he did. Frankly, it's a silly and spurious requirement. It didn't require him to want an extension, or bar him for saying he didn't think it was a good idea. Parliament can't directly negotiate treaties with foreign powers. It's just not possible, that's a function of the executive. Parliament can approve or disapprove of such treaties but can't determine what the executive wants to do. The same goes for the referendum and is why it was a stupid idea. No referendum can require parliament or the government to want to do something, or specify exactly and unambiguously how they should go about doing something they don't want to do.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  The article is talking about a women's experiences in the ~60's. Why do you think such society no longer exists? >The remaining Jacob Rees-Moggs of the UK stick out like sore thumbs and are almost caricatures Then why has he risen to the top? The common people are not just itching for a caricature of an aristocrat to lead them, he represents people that are similar to him.
  - krona 5y ago
    > he represents people that are similar to him. Catholics?
    - swarnie_ 5y ago
      Religion plays very little role in English politics. I doubt many people in North East Somerset considered this mans faith before voting for him.
    - carnitine 5y ago
      Probably the most genuine thing about him, being Catholic in a non-recusant way deviates from the image he tries to give off (though I doubt many of the target audience care).
  - Veen 5y ago
    He rose to the top partly because his father was a successful well-known journalist and newspaper editor, partly because he is a clever and competent organizer, and partly because he plays a role that appeals to a certain class of people. His family were not aristocratic in the sense this article discusses: his father was the middle-class son of an Irish American Catholic immigrant. William Rees-Mogg went to Oxford on a scholarship and succeeded in life through hard work, intelligence, and contacts he made at Uni. Jacob has more of an advantage than his father because of Eton and because his father had climbed the greasy pole before him, but his background is exactly the type that "We came over with William the Conqueror" aristocrats look down on. He has more in common with Otto English's mother than he would probably like to admit. Just like her, he is a caricature of the British upper classes, not the real deal. Plus, of course, he has risen to the top because the people in his constituency vote for him.
- shatnersbassoon 5y ago
  I keep on pointing it out, because people for some reason miss it: The person you know as Jacob Rees-Mogg is a schtick. It was developed by a weedy kid to combat bullying at school. He later found it was generally useful in life because people would 1). Remember him 2). laugh at him so he would gain a measure of acceptance. Those that hated him he could turn to his advantage, because he could play the laughers against the haters.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    I'm reliably informed by a contemporary at Westminster Grammar that he "wasn't that posh" until later. I always find it irritating that politicians of all stripes who have gone out of their way to cultivate a particularly niche image are lazily described by the commenteriat as more "authentic" than those are quite happy to dress and speak like regular politicians and demonstrate their authenticity (or lack thereof) with the actual positions they hold
    - garbagetime 5y ago
      I mean, he did go to Eton and then Oxford, he is married to Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam de Chair, , his father was Lord Rees-Mogg, he is absurdly wealthy, etc. etc. So, despite what random commenters on a tech forum (or their friends) might have to say, I think the simplest explanation is that he just is posh. Obviously, he plays into his image (He doesn't exactly hide this fact). But that doesn't mean his image is false.
      - notahacker 5y ago
        Politics is full of people with well connected families and money who managed to attend Eton without coming to resemble the Rees Mogg "Honourable Member for the Eighteenth Century" novelty act. Nobody is pretending he was born poor, we're just noting that that person who had the same level of privileged background as dozens of other politicians probably isn't more "authentic" than them because they're not regarded as caricatures...
- ttctciyf 5y ago
  > todays elite Well - somewhat tangential to the article text if not to its title - consider this image[1]. The Prime Minister of the UK (seated at the right of the bottom row) just appointed the circled person stood in front of the door, to the "committee on standards in public life," one of whose tasks would be to ensure the propriety of corporate lobbying undertaken by the person stood next but one on his left, the ex-Prime Minister of the UK David Cameron, which has recently caused some disquiet[2] The photo, notoriously, shows the members of a "private all-male dining club for Oxford University students. It is known for its wealthy members, grand banquets, and bad behaviour, including vandalism of restaurants and students' rooms. The club is known to select its members not only on the grounds of wealth and willingness to partake but also by means of education. Former pupils of public schools such as Eton, Harrow, Stowe School, Radley, Oundle, Shrewsbury, Sedbergh, Rugby, Westminster, Charterhouse, St. Paul's, and Winchester form the bulk of its membership."[3] Britain's "todays elite" are the old elite. 1: https://www.thenational.scot/resources/images/12804107/ https://www.thenational.scot/resources/images/12804107/ 2: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/20/david-cameron-showed-significant-lack-of-judgment-on-greensill-inquiry-finds https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/20/david-camer... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club
  - patrickk 5y ago
    To expand further on your point, this phenomenon can be seen beyond politics too, in media and culture. Consider the following photos[1][2] of Cambridge Footlights former members. Being a member of this theatrical club, attached to an elite university, has the capability of plugging you into a network of movers shakers who can propel you to the best TV careers going. If you didn't quite make it into Cambridge, tough luck. [1] https://www.facebook.com/14554658690/photos/a.10150355587333691/10156078217953691/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/14554658690/photos/a.10150355587333... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1zdaa7/david_mitchell_richard_ayoade_and_john_oliver_at/ https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1zdaa7/david_mitchell... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footlights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footlights
    - Veen 5y ago
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > It seems like a moan about the upper class from a by-gone era. It’s not even that, because the author has confused middle and upper in British terms. This is a moan about the British middle class.
- new299 5y ago
  Despite the title, the article seems to be more about someone who is described as working class trying to find a place in middle class society. And I suppose that the article is suggesting that the middle classes define themselves in relation to the upper class. And that British society would be better off without this dynamic. So it seems that the article highlights the working/middle class divide. More so really than the issues caused specifically by the upper classes (though they are mentioned).
thwoeru23434 5y ago
A lot of these 'elites' were minted from 'lowly born' savages who went onto India and basically looted temples and murdered the natives there. There were quite a few money-minded gold-digging brides even sailing all the way to India in order to find themselves a rich groom. Robert Clive is a classic example, whose family is still auctioning off the loot he carried back home. I'm not surprised that the article fails to mention this - it's taught in the West that colonialism in India was benign, that we welcomed it, that we need 'more colonialism'. Plenty of can-confirm-iam-indian folk will even attest to this (as has been the case in the 1000 y history of India's colonization). Little wonder hate and discrimination against Hindus is so normalized and even seen as the 'righteous' thing to do.
- Reason077 5y ago
  > “it's taught in the West that colonialism in India was benign, that we welcomed it” It was certainly not taught/presented this way when I went to school, in the 1990s.
- 31337889 5y ago
  By looking at parts of england you’d think reverse colonisation is well underway. How are the dalit btw? Are india treating them as equals yet?
- Veen 5y ago
  This is true, but those people, who were sneerlingly referred to as "nabobs", were despised by the traditional aristocracy. Plus, the Raj is not considered benign in the UK educational system and Hindus are by far the most successful immigrant group in the country.
fegu 5y ago
Old money knew long ago the most effective way to market themselves: you need a good story.
madaxe_again 5y ago
One of the peculiar things about the British aristocracy is that the culture looks entirely different depending on which side of the class divide you look at it from. This article looks at it from the outside, and mistakes the chattering classes for the upper classes. What the author describes (the genealogies, the oneupmanship, the keeping up with the Buckets, the airs and graces) is upper middle class behaviour, aspiring to be part of the aristocracy. The truth of the matter is that none of them ever had a hope - the aristocracy is a closed circle, and you don't even get in by marriage. Your children do, but you, no. As a result of the incredibly close nature of the aristocratic circles in the UK, practically everybody knows everybody, and any outsider or imposter is usually very swiftly seen for what they are. That said, the close nature also fosters a relaxed social approach in general - you'll never meet people who F and blind as much as the old families. Feet up on the table after the hunt, crack out the cigars, pass the facking port, I'm dying here. You're constantly being judged - but not how you'd think. Nobody cares if you know your silver service (although it's a shibboleth, to be sure), nobody cares if you're well spoken or who you know, or where you schooled - all they typically care about is that you're not an arsehole, and that you're not going to try to nick the silverware or trade off their name. Most of the time, in the UK, if you encounter an aristocrat, they'll look like they just clambered out of a hedgerow (because they probably did), and will be pleasant, amiable, and engaged in what you have to say - because they have absolutely nothing to lose by engaging with you, and you are possibly going to be an entertaining story over supper later. I've hung out with enough aristo friends' families and enough friends' upper middle class families to know which I prefer - the middle class families are suffocating affairs with dinner gongs and rules around shoes and no swearing in the house. The aristos are... relaxed. So. If anything, the upper middle classes are the dangerous cult, trying to impersonate the faded glory of a generally toothless propertied and titled class, and generally getting it utterly wrong. The aspirational class is the one that now stands on heads. Also, virtually literally every aristo I know votes Lib Dem or Green. They've hated the tories since Thatcher, and countryside issues are of prime importance to most of them.
- new299 5y ago
  This comment rings true to me. And I'd agree the article is mostly about middle class society. But personally find the whole class set up pretty unfortunate really (and its impact largely underestimated).
shatnersbassoon 5y ago
In Flaubert's dictionary of received ideas, the entry for Aristocracy is simply "Despise and envy it". Which is a much more succinct way of writing this article.
mellosouls 5y ago
A curious and sad story but perhaps more of a cathartic effort enabling the release of feelings about a woman with issues arising from mental or personality disorders than a useful analysis of the class system. It's ok to want to defend your mum. I doubt there are many people in the UK from the historically exploited classes who are blind to the history, even those who retain respect for the titles and funny accents.
- opheliate 5y ago
  > a woman with issues arising from mental or personality disorders Oh come on. You certainly can’t divine that from the article, and wanting to “fit in” is a perfectly reasonable, if very sad, explanation for her actions.
  - mellosouls 5y ago
    Just a hypothesis obviously, but reasonable I think considering the extreme actions she took; certainly more reasonable than blaming the class system.
mothsonasloth 5y ago
FYI: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/byline-times/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/byline-times/ This article I thought was going to be about sacrificial rituals, Bilderberg meetings, freemasonry or drinking blood, however it fails to substantiate anything more than some anecdotal stories, snobbery and mythisms about the upper class which are well known in Britain. The upper classes in the UK are super-rich (either in land or in paper assets), but they will always pale in comparison to the multinational companies that have grown in the modern world, be it in Finance, Media etc. These companies and organisations have the direct lines and ties with the UK government, not ol' Reginald Whitcomb (made-up stereotypical name) who has 20,000 acres in Hereford and a cattle ranch in Australia. Sure there is the nepotism/cronyism angle but that occurs in all levels of society and is not inherently a rich/poor characteristic. The fact that the author's mother was able to ingratiate herself with the upper classes deflates the article's argument; that social classes are immutable in Britain and the institutional/familial argument is weak too. There are many rags to riches, and vice versa stories in British society and the world as a whole. Everyone puts on a "good" front when in the company of people who are socially/financially/intellectually better off to them. I do it myself in the tech scene. tl;dr sure 100 years ago the upper classes had more clout, nowadays they are just a static part of British society with a small bit of power in relation to other global forces and companies.
- makomk 5y ago
  The Byline Times is indeed very much an activist publication for a particular faction of the British left, and not the most accurate one generally; if I remember rightly they were one of the main publications pushing the unfounded and bogus claim that Leave backers had bet billions on a no-deal Brexit destroying the British economy, for example. Kind of surprised to see them on the HN front page; they're the kind of more flamebait than light politics that the site tries to avoid.
new299 5y ago
I'd be curious to hear peoples experience of class in the UK and how it's effected their careers (particularly in tech). To me it feels like class still has a significant effect. In particular that: * Upper class connections can affect funding decisions. * Presenting as middle class, affect hiring and career progression.
- _fizz_buzz_ 5y ago
  Having a daddy with rich friends helps in every country. I am not from the UK, but I know a few people that went to Oxford University. They all had middle class backgrounds and went on to have very good careers.
- notrlyme 5y ago
  UK Upper class is a long running system of creating a dividing line between a group of people who prioritise personal power over societal progression. Its more flexible and evolving that any simple definition gives it credit. Looking at language games is a classic for me. FOr want of a better description there is a posh way of talking that is derived from the upper classes of the UK, it eveolves and changes but a few things remain constant: its not any better or more accurate than any other dialect in teh UK. it looks down and ridicules every other dialect. it has derogitory terms for everyone all over the world apart from rich people who keep a house in south east england. THis is so outragously successful that i think every english speaking person on earth has an inbult tendancy to buy into this at som elevel to some extent - no matter how damaging it is to you personally. It involves a long running story of ensuring that everything that has every been said in that accent is "correct". the BBC is never wrong.. the government always knows what its doing etc.. the UK has long running history of doing terrible things (like every state does to some extent) but the UK never takes reponsibility.. there is a vage thing of looking back over say 150 years and saying that was wrong what they did, but what is never done is following the direct connections through to the poswer structures today. e.g. afaik oxford today has income every year of interest on investments / money that it got from people essentially abusing the colonies. sure they say, those people were bad, but they dont accept that their position of power now directly correlates to that. When you look at the advantages given to someone who went to eton then oxford and compare them to someoen with no degree or from a crappy uni then if they are appearing in the same league at work teh oxford person shoul dbe seen as a clown - you had every advantage in the book and you are still just average? instead the assumption is that this person is some kind of leader to be listened to. their history is somehow taken as an advantage, when its clearly not. SImilarly effecting organsiational change with just a few of these upper class clowns around becomes a nightmare.. they are functionally incompitent but are sure because of how they speak and where they were ediucated that their instincts must be somehow correct. nott o mention that they have so many connections they can either side step to another similar role or can make your life hell for exposibng their corruption or incompitence. Personally anyone who i meet in a serious job ith an upper class accent has a lot to prove to me before i trust them even slightly, and to date i have only met a few worth listening to. and these have some obvious differences, e.g. they made some life choices significantly deviating from the classic good boy/girl story early in life. Ive done no formal study but based on anecdata i would say that an idiot who went to a good uni with an upper class accent (or capacable of being perceived as that like Mogg) can expect significantly better salary. can make ludicrous selfish demands and it will be seen as them "working the system" and "being smart" rather than just being a selfhish shit bag. and can generally expect more promotion and higher profile oppourtunities. None of this is the individuals fault and the solutions are complex.. but this is imho what its like.
sonthonax 5y ago
My great-grandmother was of the generation of Anglo-Irish aristocrats who delved uncomfortably into the world of fascism in the 1930s. I dug out pictures of her in front of her country estate with a cadre of Irish Blueshirts (the Irish Blackshirts). She had nothing in common with the fascists; she just enjoyed the strange reverence that the Irish suddenly gave her after independence. She was also friends with the Guiness family, who had their fair share of fascists too. I dated Nancy Mitford’s great-granddaughter for a while, and she gave me her Nazi memorabilia as a sick joke as my father is Jewish. A memory of my great-grandmother is her describing my father as “a bit Spanish”. It is only today that i realised that was an Arctic’s anti-Semitic slur (since the Spanish became all to happy to accuse one another of being crypto Jews, and incidentally made ‘Spanish’ synonymous with Jewish).
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  How did you ever come to date a descendant of one of the Mitford sisters? That's a story all on its own.
Tepix 5y ago
I loved the writing style of this essay with its plethora of british terms i hadn't come across before.
stana 5y ago
And according to Alain de Botton we have replaced this artistocratic snobbery with snobbery of profession - "Meeting someone first question you likely to be asked - What do you do? - And you will become subject of interest, of be left alone by the peanuts"
- laputan_machine 5y ago
  I think really, people are just trying to strike up conversation when they ask this. If you respond to this question with any of your hobbies instead of your profession you'll probably get a more engaged reaction than, say responding with "I'm a doctor/lawyer/engineer". If you respond with "I don't have a job" or "I just work at Walmart", then well, yeah, you've just made the conversation harder to keep going.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    In my experience the worst response is to say you are a computer programmer, that will kill the conversation.
brobeanz 5y ago
This was the biggest whine fest I’ve read all week. And I work in tech.
fergie 5y ago
The real tragedy of class is not that people try to switch classes, its that people dont want to. Working class people regard the privately educated elites as "poncy wankers" and dont want anything to do with them- they actually exclude themselves by "staying in their lane". That is what needs to be fixed in the UK.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Nimitz14 5y ago
This is not a good article.
stereolambda 5y ago
A related thing is the strain that seems to exist in British culture to seem and act deliberately crass and lower-class. I can compare it to an Eastern European country with extensive tradition of upper-class culture, but pretty much levelled by fortunate and very unfortunate historical happenings. I can very rarely see that here as an individual thing. People generally want to at least know how to speak the clean standard language and be polite. For some time I've found it baffling that some people in Britain want to be consciously not like so, as to me it feels more disrespectful even to yourself than the others. (Okay, I'm making it more dramatic for the argument. I don't really care that much.) But then I had the theory that mine is the republican, egalitarian sensibility where cultural aspiration doesn't make you "posh" or feel like sucking up to your conquerors. Actually I've heard from people here that went to school with some of the remnants of old aristocracy and these seem to act pretty haughty and awful. The good thing is, we no longer have to really care. If I lived under British royalty, in a consciously class society where Norman aristocracy still holds 1/3 of land, it would be different. My advice would be to maybe retry the Commonwealth, preferably with a land reform.
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  As mentioned in another comment, the upper classes (and most politicians) have great manners and charisma. You feel good around them. But most people are never going to be around them. It's tough to attack them on their personalities when they have better ones than the majority of your own friends. Meeting them one is surprised by how not snooty and haughty they are. But hardly anyone actually meets them. It's easy to attack on their personalities as most people will never meet and interact with them (or politicians either!). Optics. it's easier to criticise an image of them than the reality of , for example: landowners, historical abuses, establishment inertia, oppression, invasion, colonisation, corruption, injustices etc.
known 5y ago
Why Upper caste Brahmin / Bania / Kshatriya hate Winston Churchill https://archive.is/XlOXf https://archive.is/XlOXf

81 points by daverol 5y ago

Im not really sure of the point this article is trying to make. It seems like a moan about the upper class from a by-gone era. "This country could do with a lot more Hannahs and far fewer Jacob Rees-Moggs." The remaining Jacob Rees-Moggs of the UK stick out like sore thumbs and are almost caricatures. I also don't imagine many people are oblivious to the fact that the "aristocracy" (what does that even mean in a UK context nowadays?) made their living off of exploitation. Just as todays elite do but in softer ways (see Bezos).

user-the-name 5y ago
What makes you think it's bygone? These people largely run the country right now.
- simonh 5y ago
  They really don't. They're disproportionately represented in the country's leadership, but haven't formed a majority of it or even close for a generation or two. Anyway, we're a democracy. If we don't like the constitution of our political leadership, we can change it any time we like and do so frequently.
  - EliRivers 5y ago
    Can we? Boris Johnson is the PM. About 25000 voters voted for him as an MP. I had zero choice in the matter. He was then picked as a leadership candidate by some other MPs, and ultimately made leader and thus Prime Minister by about 90000 members of his political party (who had the choice of him and one other person that they could make leader and thus Prime Minister). About 115000 votes in total, from a UK voting population of about 47 million. Sure, technically I suppose it is democracy, but it certainly doesn't feel like it.
    - Veen 5y ago
      He also won a massive majority in a general election.
      - EliRivers 5y ago
        About 25000 people voted for Boris Johnson in that election.
        simonh 5y ago
        I look forward to your similarly vitriolic complaints when a politician you support wins the premiership (not the football one). The fact that prime ministers are answerable to parliament, and that parliament is sovereign, is IMHO the single best and most important feature of the British political system. Contrast that with presidential systems, particularly that in the US in which the president fulfils the constitutional role of an elected George III circa 1790. Which for some reason Americans seem to think is somehow modern over 200 years later. If one of them goes off the rails you're stuck with them for years. Our leader of government serves at the discretion of our elected representatives and can be turfed out at any moment, which actually happens and isn't just a theoretical mechanism. An excellent arrangement.
        chalst 5y ago
        Parliamentary sovereignty as a principle was fundamentally weakened in the tussle over the Brexit leave date: the government lost the battle but won the war. This parliament has been very ineffective in providing oversight of government. I'm not seeing the advantage of the UK system of oversight over the US one right now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_(No._2)_Act_2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_...
        simonh 5y ago
        Well, as a confirmed remainer and someone who will never forgive Johnson for stabbing us in the back, eh. The act required him to send a letter, which he did. Frankly, it's a silly and spurious requirement. It didn't require him to want an extension, or bar him for saying he didn't think it was a good idea. Parliament can't directly negotiate treaties with foreign powers. It's just not possible, that's a function of the executive. Parliament can approve or disapprove of such treaties but can't determine what the executive wants to do. The same goes for the referendum and is why it was a stupid idea. No referendum can require parliament or the government to want to do something, or specify exactly and unambiguously how they should go about doing something they don't want to do.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
The article is talking about a women's experiences in the ~60's. Why do you think such society no longer exists? >The remaining Jacob Rees-Moggs of the UK stick out like sore thumbs and are almost caricatures Then why has he risen to the top? The common people are not just itching for a caricature of an aristocrat to lead them, he represents people that are similar to him.
- krona 5y ago
  > he represents people that are similar to him. Catholics?
  - swarnie_ 5y ago
    Religion plays very little role in English politics. I doubt many people in North East Somerset considered this mans faith before voting for him.
  - carnitine 5y ago
    Probably the most genuine thing about him, being Catholic in a non-recusant way deviates from the image he tries to give off (though I doubt many of the target audience care).
- Veen 5y ago
  He rose to the top partly because his father was a successful well-known journalist and newspaper editor, partly because he is a clever and competent organizer, and partly because he plays a role that appeals to a certain class of people. His family were not aristocratic in the sense this article discusses: his father was the middle-class son of an Irish American Catholic immigrant. William Rees-Mogg went to Oxford on a scholarship and succeeded in life through hard work, intelligence, and contacts he made at Uni. Jacob has more of an advantage than his father because of Eton and because his father had climbed the greasy pole before him, but his background is exactly the type that "We came over with William the Conqueror" aristocrats look down on. He has more in common with Otto English's mother than he would probably like to admit. Just like her, he is a caricature of the British upper classes, not the real deal. Plus, of course, he has risen to the top because the people in his constituency vote for him.
shatnersbassoon 5y ago
I keep on pointing it out, because people for some reason miss it: The person you know as Jacob Rees-Mogg is a schtick. It was developed by a weedy kid to combat bullying at school. He later found it was generally useful in life because people would 1). Remember him 2). laugh at him so he would gain a measure of acceptance. Those that hated him he could turn to his advantage, because he could play the laughers against the haters.
- notahacker 5y ago
  I'm reliably informed by a contemporary at Westminster Grammar that he "wasn't that posh" until later. I always find it irritating that politicians of all stripes who have gone out of their way to cultivate a particularly niche image are lazily described by the commenteriat as more "authentic" than those are quite happy to dress and speak like regular politicians and demonstrate their authenticity (or lack thereof) with the actual positions they hold
  - garbagetime 5y ago
    I mean, he did go to Eton and then Oxford, he is married to Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam de Chair, , his father was Lord Rees-Mogg, he is absurdly wealthy, etc. etc. So, despite what random commenters on a tech forum (or their friends) might have to say, I think the simplest explanation is that he just is posh. Obviously, he plays into his image (He doesn't exactly hide this fact). But that doesn't mean his image is false.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      Politics is full of people with well connected families and money who managed to attend Eton without coming to resemble the Rees Mogg "Honourable Member for the Eighteenth Century" novelty act. Nobody is pretending he was born poor, we're just noting that that person who had the same level of privileged background as dozens of other politicians probably isn't more "authentic" than them because they're not regarded as caricatures...
ttctciyf 5y ago
> todays elite Well - somewhat tangential to the article text if not to its title - consider this image[1]. The Prime Minister of the UK (seated at the right of the bottom row) just appointed the circled person stood in front of the door, to the "committee on standards in public life," one of whose tasks would be to ensure the propriety of corporate lobbying undertaken by the person stood next but one on his left, the ex-Prime Minister of the UK David Cameron, which has recently caused some disquiet[2] The photo, notoriously, shows the members of a "private all-male dining club for Oxford University students. It is known for its wealthy members, grand banquets, and bad behaviour, including vandalism of restaurants and students' rooms. The club is known to select its members not only on the grounds of wealth and willingness to partake but also by means of education. Former pupils of public schools such as Eton, Harrow, Stowe School, Radley, Oundle, Shrewsbury, Sedbergh, Rugby, Westminster, Charterhouse, St. Paul's, and Winchester form the bulk of its membership."[3] Britain's "todays elite" are the old elite. 1: https://www.thenational.scot/resources/images/12804107/ https://www.thenational.scot/resources/images/12804107/ 2: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/20/david-cameron-showed-significant-lack-of-judgment-on-greensill-inquiry-finds https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/20/david-camer... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club
- patrickk 5y ago
  To expand further on your point, this phenomenon can be seen beyond politics too, in media and culture. Consider the following photos[1][2] of Cambridge Footlights former members. Being a member of this theatrical club, attached to an elite university, has the capability of plugging you into a network of movers shakers who can propel you to the best TV careers going. If you didn't quite make it into Cambridge, tough luck. [1] https://www.facebook.com/14554658690/photos/a.10150355587333691/10156078217953691/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/14554658690/photos/a.10150355587333... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1zdaa7/david_mitchell_richard_ayoade_and_john_oliver_at/ https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1zdaa7/david_mitchell... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footlights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footlights
  - Veen 5y ago
chrisseaton 5y ago
> It seems like a moan about the upper class from a by-gone era. It’s not even that, because the author has confused middle and upper in British terms. This is a moan about the British middle class.
new299 5y ago
Despite the title, the article seems to be more about someone who is described as working class trying to find a place in middle class society. And I suppose that the article is suggesting that the middle classes define themselves in relation to the upper class. And that British society would be better off without this dynamic. So it seems that the article highlights the working/middle class divide. More so really than the issues caused specifically by the upper classes (though they are mentioned).

thwoeru23434 5y ago

A lot of these 'elites' were minted from 'lowly born' savages who went onto India and basically looted temples and murdered the natives there. There were quite a few money-minded gold-digging brides even sailing all the way to India in order to find themselves a rich groom. Robert Clive is a classic example, whose family is still auctioning off the loot he carried back home. I'm not surprised that the article fails to mention this - it's taught in the West that colonialism in India was benign, that we welcomed it, that we need 'more colonialism'. Plenty of can-confirm-iam-indian folk will even attest to this (as has been the case in the 1000 y history of India's colonization). Little wonder hate and discrimination against Hindus is so normalized and even seen as the 'righteous' thing to do.

Reason077 5y ago
> “it's taught in the West that colonialism in India was benign, that we welcomed it” It was certainly not taught/presented this way when I went to school, in the 1990s.
31337889 5y ago
By looking at parts of england you’d think reverse colonisation is well underway. How are the dalit btw? Are india treating them as equals yet?
Veen 5y ago
This is true, but those people, who were sneerlingly referred to as "nabobs", were despised by the traditional aristocracy. Plus, the Raj is not considered benign in the UK educational system and Hindus are by far the most successful immigrant group in the country.

fegu 5y ago

Old money knew long ago the most effective way to market themselves: you need a good story.

madaxe_again 5y ago

One of the peculiar things about the British aristocracy is that the culture looks entirely different depending on which side of the class divide you look at it from. This article looks at it from the outside, and mistakes the chattering classes for the upper classes. What the author describes (the genealogies, the oneupmanship, the keeping up with the Buckets, the airs and graces) is upper middle class behaviour, aspiring to be part of the aristocracy. The truth of the matter is that none of them ever had a hope - the aristocracy is a closed circle, and you don't even get in by marriage. Your children do, but you, no. As a result of the incredibly close nature of the aristocratic circles in the UK, practically everybody knows everybody, and any outsider or imposter is usually very swiftly seen for what they are. That said, the close nature also fosters a relaxed social approach in general - you'll never meet people who F and blind as much as the old families. Feet up on the table after the hunt, crack out the cigars, pass the facking port, I'm dying here. You're constantly being judged - but not how you'd think. Nobody cares if you know your silver service (although it's a shibboleth, to be sure), nobody cares if you're well spoken or who you know, or where you schooled - all they typically care about is that you're not an arsehole, and that you're not going to try to nick the silverware or trade off their name. Most of the time, in the UK, if you encounter an aristocrat, they'll look like they just clambered out of a hedgerow (because they probably did), and will be pleasant, amiable, and engaged in what you have to say - because they have absolutely nothing to lose by engaging with you, and you are possibly going to be an entertaining story over supper later. I've hung out with enough aristo friends' families and enough friends' upper middle class families to know which I prefer - the middle class families are suffocating affairs with dinner gongs and rules around shoes and no swearing in the house. The aristos are... relaxed. So. If anything, the upper middle classes are the dangerous cult, trying to impersonate the faded glory of a generally toothless propertied and titled class, and generally getting it utterly wrong. The aspirational class is the one that now stands on heads. Also, virtually literally every aristo I know votes Lib Dem or Green. They've hated the tories since Thatcher, and countryside issues are of prime importance to most of them.

new299 5y ago
This comment rings true to me. And I'd agree the article is mostly about middle class society. But personally find the whole class set up pretty unfortunate really (and its impact largely underestimated).

shatnersbassoon 5y ago

In Flaubert's dictionary of received ideas, the entry for Aristocracy is simply "Despise and envy it". Which is a much more succinct way of writing this article.

mellosouls 5y ago

A curious and sad story but perhaps more of a cathartic effort enabling the release of feelings about a woman with issues arising from mental or personality disorders than a useful analysis of the class system. It's ok to want to defend your mum. I doubt there are many people in the UK from the historically exploited classes who are blind to the history, even those who retain respect for the titles and funny accents.

opheliate 5y ago
> a woman with issues arising from mental or personality disorders Oh come on. You certainly can’t divine that from the article, and wanting to “fit in” is a perfectly reasonable, if very sad, explanation for her actions.
- mellosouls 5y ago
  Just a hypothesis obviously, but reasonable I think considering the extreme actions she took; certainly more reasonable than blaming the class system.

mothsonasloth 5y ago

FYI: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/byline-times/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/byline-times/ This article I thought was going to be about sacrificial rituals, Bilderberg meetings, freemasonry or drinking blood, however it fails to substantiate anything more than some anecdotal stories, snobbery and mythisms about the upper class which are well known in Britain. The upper classes in the UK are super-rich (either in land or in paper assets), but they will always pale in comparison to the multinational companies that have grown in the modern world, be it in Finance, Media etc. These companies and organisations have the direct lines and ties with the UK government, not ol' Reginald Whitcomb (made-up stereotypical name) who has 20,000 acres in Hereford and a cattle ranch in Australia. Sure there is the nepotism/cronyism angle but that occurs in all levels of society and is not inherently a rich/poor characteristic. The fact that the author's mother was able to ingratiate herself with the upper classes deflates the article's argument; that social classes are immutable in Britain and the institutional/familial argument is weak too. There are many rags to riches, and vice versa stories in British society and the world as a whole. Everyone puts on a "good" front when in the company of people who are socially/financially/intellectually better off to them. I do it myself in the tech scene. tl;dr sure 100 years ago the upper classes had more clout, nowadays they are just a static part of British society with a small bit of power in relation to other global forces and companies.

makomk 5y ago
The Byline Times is indeed very much an activist publication for a particular faction of the British left, and not the most accurate one generally; if I remember rightly they were one of the main publications pushing the unfounded and bogus claim that Leave backers had bet billions on a no-deal Brexit destroying the British economy, for example. Kind of surprised to see them on the HN front page; they're the kind of more flamebait than light politics that the site tries to avoid.

new299 5y ago

I'd be curious to hear peoples experience of class in the UK and how it's effected their careers (particularly in tech). To me it feels like class still has a significant effect. In particular that: * Upper class connections can affect funding decisions. * Presenting as middle class, affect hiring and career progression.

_fizz_buzz_ 5y ago
Having a daddy with rich friends helps in every country. I am not from the UK, but I know a few people that went to Oxford University. They all had middle class backgrounds and went on to have very good careers.
notrlyme 5y ago
UK Upper class is a long running system of creating a dividing line between a group of people who prioritise personal power over societal progression. Its more flexible and evolving that any simple definition gives it credit. Looking at language games is a classic for me. FOr want of a better description there is a posh way of talking that is derived from the upper classes of the UK, it eveolves and changes but a few things remain constant: its not any better or more accurate than any other dialect in teh UK. it looks down and ridicules every other dialect. it has derogitory terms for everyone all over the world apart from rich people who keep a house in south east england. THis is so outragously successful that i think every english speaking person on earth has an inbult tendancy to buy into this at som elevel to some extent - no matter how damaging it is to you personally. It involves a long running story of ensuring that everything that has every been said in that accent is "correct". the BBC is never wrong.. the government always knows what its doing etc.. the UK has long running history of doing terrible things (like every state does to some extent) but the UK never takes reponsibility.. there is a vage thing of looking back over say 150 years and saying that was wrong what they did, but what is never done is following the direct connections through to the poswer structures today. e.g. afaik oxford today has income every year of interest on investments / money that it got from people essentially abusing the colonies. sure they say, those people were bad, but they dont accept that their position of power now directly correlates to that. When you look at the advantages given to someone who went to eton then oxford and compare them to someoen with no degree or from a crappy uni then if they are appearing in the same league at work teh oxford person shoul dbe seen as a clown - you had every advantage in the book and you are still just average? instead the assumption is that this person is some kind of leader to be listened to. their history is somehow taken as an advantage, when its clearly not. SImilarly effecting organsiational change with just a few of these upper class clowns around becomes a nightmare.. they are functionally incompitent but are sure because of how they speak and where they were ediucated that their instincts must be somehow correct. nott o mention that they have so many connections they can either side step to another similar role or can make your life hell for exposibng their corruption or incompitence. Personally anyone who i meet in a serious job ith an upper class accent has a lot to prove to me before i trust them even slightly, and to date i have only met a few worth listening to. and these have some obvious differences, e.g. they made some life choices significantly deviating from the classic good boy/girl story early in life. Ive done no formal study but based on anecdata i would say that an idiot who went to a good uni with an upper class accent (or capacable of being perceived as that like Mogg) can expect significantly better salary. can make ludicrous selfish demands and it will be seen as them "working the system" and "being smart" rather than just being a selfhish shit bag. and can generally expect more promotion and higher profile oppourtunities. None of this is the individuals fault and the solutions are complex.. but this is imho what its like.

sonthonax 5y ago

My great-grandmother was of the generation of Anglo-Irish aristocrats who delved uncomfortably into the world of fascism in the 1930s. I dug out pictures of her in front of her country estate with a cadre of Irish Blueshirts (the Irish Blackshirts). She had nothing in common with the fascists; she just enjoyed the strange reverence that the Irish suddenly gave her after independence. She was also friends with the Guiness family, who had their fair share of fascists too. I dated Nancy Mitford’s great-granddaughter for a while, and she gave me her Nazi memorabilia as a sick joke as my father is Jewish. A memory of my great-grandmother is her describing my father as “a bit Spanish”. It is only today that i realised that was an Arctic’s anti-Semitic slur (since the Spanish became all to happy to accuse one another of being crypto Jews, and incidentally made ‘Spanish’ synonymous with Jewish).

Dracophoenix 5y ago
How did you ever come to date a descendant of one of the Mitford sisters? That's a story all on its own.

Tepix 5y ago

I loved the writing style of this essay with its plethora of british terms i hadn't come across before.

stana 5y ago

And according to Alain de Botton we have replaced this artistocratic snobbery with snobbery of profession - "Meeting someone first question you likely to be asked - What do you do? - And you will become subject of interest, of be left alone by the peanuts"

laputan_machine 5y ago
I think really, people are just trying to strike up conversation when they ask this. If you respond to this question with any of your hobbies instead of your profession you'll probably get a more engaged reaction than, say responding with "I'm a doctor/lawyer/engineer". If you respond with "I don't have a job" or "I just work at Walmart", then well, yeah, you've just made the conversation harder to keep going.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  In my experience the worst response is to say you are a computer programmer, that will kill the conversation.

brobeanz 5y ago

This was the biggest whine fest I’ve read all week. And I work in tech.

fergie 5y ago

The real tragedy of class is not that people try to switch classes, its that people dont want to. Working class people regard the privately educated elites as "poncy wankers" and dont want anything to do with them- they actually exclude themselves by "staying in their lane". That is what needs to be fixed in the UK.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Nimitz14 5y ago

This is not a good article.

stereolambda 5y ago

A related thing is the strain that seems to exist in British culture to seem and act deliberately crass and lower-class. I can compare it to an Eastern European country with extensive tradition of upper-class culture, but pretty much levelled by fortunate and very unfortunate historical happenings. I can very rarely see that here as an individual thing. People generally want to at least know how to speak the clean standard language and be polite. For some time I've found it baffling that some people in Britain want to be consciously not like so, as to me it feels more disrespectful even to yourself than the others. (Okay, I'm making it more dramatic for the argument. I don't really care that much.) But then I had the theory that mine is the republican, egalitarian sensibility where cultural aspiration doesn't make you "posh" or feel like sucking up to your conquerors. Actually I've heard from people here that went to school with some of the remnants of old aristocracy and these seem to act pretty haughty and awful. The good thing is, we no longer have to really care. If I lived under British royalty, in a consciously class society where Norman aristocracy still holds 1/3 of land, it would be different. My advice would be to maybe retry the Commonwealth, preferably with a land reform.

thinkingemote 5y ago
As mentioned in another comment, the upper classes (and most politicians) have great manners and charisma. You feel good around them. But most people are never going to be around them. It's tough to attack them on their personalities when they have better ones than the majority of your own friends. Meeting them one is surprised by how not snooty and haughty they are. But hardly anyone actually meets them. It's easy to attack on their personalities as most people will never meet and interact with them (or politicians either!). Optics. it's easier to criticise an image of them than the reality of , for example: landowners, historical abuses, establishment inertia, oppression, invasion, colonisation, corruption, injustices etc.

known 5y ago

Why Upper caste Brahmin / Bania / Kshatriya hate Winston Churchill https://archive.is/XlOXf https://archive.is/XlOXf