I wouldn’t say there’s a sense of different ethnicity, quite, but there’s definitely a view of inherent superiority. Behind closed doors, you’ll hear terms like

I wouldn’t say there’s a sense of different ethnicity, quite, but there’s definitely a view of inherent superiority. Behind closed doors, you’ll hear terms like “plebs” and “proles” and “chavs” thrown around frequently, to refer to everyone from the working classes - which from the perspective of the aristocracy is practically everyone who isn’t part of the aristocracy. There’s also a distinct disdain for the “nouveau riche” - they are seen as well-to-do merchants (urgh, how bourgeois!) - but will mostly forever be on the outside - mostly, because there are exceptions, but you don’t get into the circle due to wealth, but due to class - which is something you pretty much have to be educated into from birth, as what you see from the outside is not how it works on the inside, and if you try to enter being all polite and humble and ever so nice you will be seen - as an imposter. The aristocracy are not polite - they have no need to be - you demonstrate that you are “one of us” by putting your feet up on the kitchen table, lighting a cigarette, and getting smashed (but not obviously so) before supper, and then throwing the croquet set in the reflecting pool. So… it’s not so much ethnicity as it is culture - and it’s a pretty closely guarded and distinct culture, which I think your hypothesis of being Norman in origin is absolutely spot on - it’s even in the language - beef/cow, venison/deer, mutton/sheep, pork/pig and so-forth - the words of those who consume the product versus the words of those who produce the product. The proactive disdain for niceties is distinctly Norman. Perfect use of Graeber, and I couldn’t agree more. If you’re interested in the topic of manufactured reality, Hobbes and Baudrillard both had some pretty stonking insights into it.