3 ms·
No. The upper classes have lived on the same estate for 5 generations, can trace their family back to the Doomsday Book, don't work in the "have a job" sense, h
by lotsofcows 14y ago
No. The upper classes have lived on the same estate for 5 generations, can trace their family back to the Doomsday Book, don't work in the "have a job" sense, had a massively disproportionate wealth up to the first world war and possibly still do (or, conversely, are massively in debt against their crumbling mansion which they won't give up a. out of principle and b. because no-one wants it) and inherit usable practical clothes that their grandparents wore.
- jiggy2011 14y agoThat's a very narrow definition which would even exclude people like Alan Sugar who has an actual lordship and knighthood as well piles of cash. It's not an especially useful definition anyway, if your family has a lot of money it doesn't make much practical difference whether they got that via inheritance or via starting facebook you will get similar advantages either way.
- lotsofcows 14y agoWhat? There is no way that anyone could consider Alan Sugar to be upper class? Was that an attempt at a joke? There's some sort of deep cultural disconnect going on here. Are you English? "Practical difference" What are you talking about? Rich is rich. Upper class is upper class. Traditionally / historically being upper class has implied money. Having money has never implied upper class.
- rdouble 14y agoThat's a very narrow definition It's a very English definition.