3 ms·

A study of British surnames found that those families descended from Norman nobility (e.g. D'Urberville) from the 11th century Domesday Book are wealthier than

by jhp123 3y ago

A study of British surnames found that those families descended from Norman nobility (e.g. D'Urberville) from the 11th century Domesday Book are wealthier than those with common names (e.g. Darbyfield) today, almost 1000 years later. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/03/social-mobility-britain-aristocracy https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/03/social-mobil...

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
Yes, the aristocracy is very much still alive and well in England. Since America's founding, she's has had a bit more success pushing back against the concept, but our new aristocracy has definitely been grabbing a greater share of societal power as of late.
gumby 3y ago
Also true in Italy: Today's rich families in Florence, Italy, were rich 700 years ago: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-florence https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-floren... Personally I'm leaving nothing to my kids. They benefited (or not!) enough from growing up with me.
somenameforme 3y ago
That is not quite what your article says. The researcher found that if you look at the period of time after 1850, people with rich surnames earn about 10% more than people without, although the differences narrow rapidly each generation. He then observed that if you go back to the Mid-ages and before, such convergence to the mean took a comparable amount of time. The example he uses is "Smith", which tended to be the last name of blacksmiths from simple villages in the 14th century. Yet by 1450 the share of "Smiths" at Oxford University was equal to their proportion across the general population (suggestive of upward mobility). And by 1650, there were as many Smiths in the top 1% of wealth holders as in the general population. So his big discovery is that social mobility in modern times is, more or less, comparable to social mobility in ancient times, which most people would not guess. Personally I view this discovery as framing the past in a more positive light, rather than framing the present in a more negative light.
- jhp123 3y ago
  well you can read the study directly, the Guardian summary seems to be pretty poor if it's giving you the sense that differences narrow rapidly each generation — the study found social status is as heritable as height and can persist for 20 generation or more: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54515/1/WP181%20revised.pdf https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54515/1/WP181%20revised.pdf

by jhp123 3y ago

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago

Yes, the aristocracy is very much still alive and well in England. Since America's founding, she's has had a bit more success pushing back against the concept, but our new aristocracy has definitely been grabbing a greater share of societal power as of late.

gumby 3y ago

Also true in Italy: Today's rich families in Florence, Italy, were rich 700 years ago: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-florence https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-floren... Personally I'm leaving nothing to my kids. They benefited (or not!) enough from growing up with me.

somenameforme 3y ago

That is not quite what your article says. The researcher found that if you look at the period of time after 1850, people with rich surnames earn about 10% more than people without, although the differences narrow rapidly each generation. He then observed that if you go back to the Mid-ages and before, such convergence to the mean took a comparable amount of time. The example he uses is "Smith", which tended to be the last name of blacksmiths from simple villages in the 14th century. Yet by 1450 the share of "Smiths" at Oxford University was equal to their proportion across the general population (suggestive of upward mobility). And by 1650, there were as many Smiths in the top 1% of wealth holders as in the general population. So his big discovery is that social mobility in modern times is, more or less, comparable to social mobility in ancient times, which most people would not guess. Personally I view this discovery as framing the past in a more positive light, rather than framing the present in a more negative light.

jhp123 3y ago
well you can read the study directly, the Guardian summary seems to be pretty poor if it's giving you the sense that differences narrow rapidly each generation — the study found social status is as heritable as height and can persist for 20 generation or more: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54515/1/WP181%20revised.pdf https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54515/1/WP181%20revised.pdf