Working class girls/women, question for

off topic

You have a awesome taste in woman!

Yeah maybe in Victorian England.

(We don't have Lords of the manner and peasents working on farms nowadays btw)

Nowadays upper class means being born into a family with money. Families who used to own manner houses/ members of the aristocracy are probably going to be rich today.

women are hypergamus creatures(they tend to marry up within society) so middle class men with professional jobs are more attractive than working class men with unskilled/semi-skilled jobs.

You simply couldn't be more wrong if you tried I'm afraid. Firstly, in Britain, money has very little to do with 'class'. Secondly, its only really people of working class/upper class background that still talk about 'class' - nobody really cares (and I certainly couldnt give a c--p what 'class' people are - its about their values, them as an individual). Thirdly, it's spelt Manor not manner. Fourthly owning a 'Manor House' does not make you rich - I suppose it means your relatively well off, but most certainly not 'rich'. Fifth the aristocracy have been losing money for years, and I hardly know anyone with serious money any-more who is from such a background - I can think of a few who have inherited vast amounts of money - but overwhelmingly 'rich' people I have met at school, through business etc have been self made - the really rich actually tend to come from nothing - they are more motivated and driven. Go to a leading public school in Britain, take a look around. Even at Eton, the last remaining school where there are aristocrats still there (seriously, they hardly exist at most other top public schools), they are probably a minority now...Even a decade ago, such family's were using their last bits of wealth to pay the fees - today, they simply don't have the money. Think about it, to send your kids to Eton, say you have 2. That's £60k a year fees. Allow £5k each for yearly extras (they bill you for everything). That's £140k you need to earn, before tax, just to put children through school. Basically, you need an income of MINIMUM £400k a year for it to be seriously viable, and I would say a lot more to be comfortable. If you are not earning that money, based upon a 3% return on assets (allowing for enough to cover inflation to keep your money of circa the same value), you would need to have assets circa £13.5million. Remember that you pay 40% IHT. That means someone would have to leave you, what, circa £21million.

When you have paid IHT several times over, as people who used to own 'manor houses' would have, you ain't going to have much left. That, combined with the expense of maintaining a large houses, not working, school fees etc etc will erode your wealth very quickly. Plus there's the small fact that if you aren't smart in how you spend money, people clever than yourself will make more, find ways to get you to spend it etc etc and you will rapidly lose out (look at the drinking/gambling problems experienced by members of the aristocracy).

The upper classes generally don't have any money. In the UK, it is the 'Upper Middle Class' who have the money, and they will never be 'upper class', as they are self-made people, people with no titles etc. There are some exceptions - I know of a handful of familys who are rolling in it, but mostly, they are really struggling to put kids through schools, and they certainly dont drive nice cars etc. The ones that have property in places like Chelsea, Kensington etc are using their last remaining assets - selling up - and buying in cheaper areas - releasing half of their wealth to pay for things like living etc. They are being bought by Arabs, Russians and very successful entrepreneurs/bankers.

It should be entirely about meritocracy.

You simply couldn't be more wrong if you tried I'm afraid. Firstly, in Britain, money has very little to do with 'class'. Secondly, its only really people of working class/upper class background that still talk about 'class' - nobody really cares (and I certainly couldnt give a c--p what 'class' people are - its about their values, them as an individual). Thirdly, it's spelt Manor not manner. Fourthly owning a 'Manor House' does not make you rich - I suppose it means your relatively well off, but most certainly not 'rich'. Fifth the aristocracy have been losing money for years, and I hardly know anyone with serious money any-more who is from such a background - I can think of a few who have inherited vast amounts of money - but overwhelmingly 'rich' people I have met at school, through business etc have been self made - the really rich actually tend to come from nothing - they are more motivated and driven. Go to a leading public school in Britain, take a look around. Even at Eton, the last remaining school where there are aristocrats still there (seriously, they hardly exist at most other top public schools), they are probably a minority now...Even a decade ago, such family's were using their last bits of wealth to pay the fees - today, they simply don't have the money. Think about it, to send your kids to Eton, say you have 2. That's £60k a year fees. Allow £5k each for yearly extras (they bill you for everything). That's £140k you need to earn, before tax, just to put children through school. Basically, you need an income of MINIMUM £400k a year for it to be seriously viable, and I would say a lot more to be comfortable. If you are not earning that money, based upon a 3% return on assets (allowing for enough to cover inflation to keep your money of circa the same value), you would need to have assets circa £13.5million. Remember that you pay 40% IHT. That means someone would have to leave you, what, circa £21million.

When you have paid IHT several times over, as people who used to own 'manor houses' would have, you ain't going to have much left. That, combined with the expense of maintaining a large houses, not working, school fees etc etc will erode your wealth very quickly. Plus there's the small fact that if you aren't smart in how you spend money, people clever than yourself will make more, find ways to get you to spend it etc etc and you will rapidly lose out (look at the drinking/gambling problems experienced by members of the aristocracy).

The upper classes generally don't have any money. In the UK, it is the 'Upper Middle Class' who have the money, and they will never be 'upper class', as they are self-made people, people with no titles etc. There are some exceptions - I know of a handful of familys who are rolling in it, but mostly, they are really struggling to put kids through schools, and they certainly dont drive nice cars etc. The ones that have property in places like Chelsea, Kensington etc are using their last remaining assets - selling up - and buying in cheaper areas - releasing half of their wealth to pay for things like living etc. They are being bought by Arabs, Russians and very successful entrepreneurs/bankers.

It should be entirely about meritocracy.

you misunderstand how hypergamy works; women don't have to marry up to be hypergamus, but they want to. Women prefer men who have an equal or better socio-economic status than them; this does not mean that they always marry up, because obviously they can't always do that. secondly, you're pretending as if feminism has totally changed the dynamics of relationships; it hasn't. as i've mentioned before even successful women tend to marry someone of equal socio-economic status than themselves. Hypergamy does not necessarily equal gold digging, it's not just the money that matters; a mans social status matters too, men who hold key positions of power and esteem within communities are the most desired in courtship. A man's superior social background and economic privilege adds to his sexual attractiveness; this is a matter of sexual selection.

As it's been said though; who gives a **** about class anymore? It's the business league that take over these days. Though i'm glad England still cares about personal value. I hate the American idea of money ruling all.

And you didn't get my point--every woman, and not even the majority of women, can't marry up, it's a mathematical impossibility.

Err, what? At least the Americans judge someone on what they've done this generation, they aspire to meritocracy more than us-that's a nobler ideal than looking down on people because they say 'mum' instead of 'mummy' or play football rather than rugby. At least they believe someone has to do soemthing to get any deference. Our class system makes posh people some of the most cold, self-important people alive.

And you didn't get my point--every woman, and not even the majority of women, can't marry up, it's a mathematical impossibility.

A doctor would be able to build a wall just as efficiently as I'd be able to diagnose an illness.

Basically, you're chatting ****.

What do you think of middle(or higher)class men? Are they soft, and nancy boys, less sexually attractive/dangerous? Does your background heavily effect who you'd date, even if (or not)you're at uni etc?

You are 100% correct. I am not English, and the belief that the English aristocracy is the wealthiest in the country, is a common misconception (due to the the fact that some other countries in Europe don't have an aristocracy, they only have a financial elite, of which they refer to as the "upper class"). I know some people from the "upper class" in England and other countries, and the only thing that really makes them stand out is that they are invited to Tatler's Black Book Party and they have cousins and friends who work in magazines and get them some publicity at vogue.co.uk.
Don't forget to mention that those who inherit Manor houses today usually don't have the income to keep them running (due to the costs of heating and reserving it - would need a gardener as well), which means they have to sell and they are not able to get a good price as there are few people in the market of those houses.

When I lived in England and was staying with a family, I was surprised by how much they discussed class. This was in Bath, I believe the family was wealthy enough, and they emphasized things such as "our boys play rugby, not football" because football is common. I jokingly added that they should sign them up for polo (in an attempt to earn the family credits via their sons). Where I am from, we don't discuss money or class, but obviously people usually end up with someone from a background not very different to their own, because you have to meet first to fall in love

You are 100% correct. I am not English, and the belief that the English aristocracy is the wealthiest in the country, is a common misconception (due to the the fact that some other countries in Europe don't have an aristocracy, they only have a financial elite, of which they refer to as the "upper class"). I know some people from the "upper class" in England and other countries, and the only thing that really makes them stand out is that they are invited to Tatler's Black Book Party and they have cousins and friends who work in magazines and get them some publicity at vogue.co.uk.
Don't forget to mention that those who inherit Manor houses today usually don't have the income to keep them running (due to the costs of heating and reserving it - would need a gardener as well), which means they have to sell and they are not able to get a good price as there are few people in the market of those houses.

When I lived in England and was staying with a family, I was surprised by how much they discussed class. This was in Bath, I believe the family was wealthy enough, and they emphasized things such as "our boys play rugby, not football" because football is common. I jokingly added that they should sign them up for polo (in an attempt to earn the family credits via their sons). Where I am from, we don't discuss money or class, but obviously people usually end up with someone from a background not very different to their own, because you have to meet first to fall in love

Finally, somebody with some sense.

Though I must say I don't think many aristocrats struggle too much, there's always a super rich upper-middle class man that wants a title he can't earn without marrying for one.

It's common for money and title to attract one another.

As it's been said though; who gives a **** about class anymore? It's the business league that take over these days. Though i'm glad England still cares about personal value. I hate the American idea of money ruling all.

You simply couldn't be more wrong if you tried I'm afraid. Firstly, in Britain, money has very little to do with 'class'. Secondly, its only really people of working class/upper class background that still talk about 'class' - nobody really cares (and I certainly couldnt give a c--p what 'class' people are - its about their values, them as an individual). Thirdly, it's spelt Manor not manner. Fourthly owning a 'Manor House' does not make you rich - I suppose it means your relatively well off, but most certainly not 'rich'. Fifth the aristocracy have been losing money for years, and I hardly know anyone with serious money any-more who is from such a background - I can think of a few who have inherited vast amounts of money - but overwhelmingly 'rich' people I have met at school, through business etc have been self made - the really rich actually tend to come from nothing - they are more motivated and driven. Go to a leading public school in Britain, take a look around. Even at Eton, the last remaining school where there are aristocrats still there (seriously, they hardly exist at most other top public schools), they are probably a minority now...Even a decade ago, such family's were using their last bits of wealth to pay the fees - today, they simply don't have the money. Think about it, to send your kids to Eton, say you have 2. That's £60k a year fees. Allow £5k each for yearly extras (they bill you for everything). That's £140k you need to earn, before tax, just to put children through school. Basically, you need an income of MINIMUM £400k a year for it to be seriously viable, and I would say a lot more to be comfortable. If you are not earning that money, based upon a 3% return on assets (allowing for enough to cover inflation to keep your money of circa the same value), you would need to have assets circa £13.5million. Remember that you pay 40% IHT. That means someone would have to leave you, what, circa £21million.

When you have paid IHT several times over, as people who used to own 'manor houses' would have, you ain't going to have much left. That, combined with the expense of maintaining a large houses, not working, school fees etc etc will erode your wealth very quickly. Plus there's the small fact that if you aren't smart in how you spend money, people clever than yourself will make more, find ways to get you to spend it etc etc and you will rapidly lose out (look at the drinking/gambling problems experienced by members of the aristocracy).

The upper classes generally don't have any money. In the UK, it is the 'Upper Middle Class' who have the money, and they will never be 'upper class', as they are self-made people, people with no titles etc. There are some exceptions - I know of a handful of familys who are rolling in it, but mostly, they are really struggling to put kids through schools, and they certainly dont drive nice cars etc. The ones that have property in places like Chelsea, Kensington etc are using their last remaining assets - selling up - and buying in cheaper areas - releasing half of their wealth to pay for things like living etc. They are being bought by Arabs, Russians and very successful entrepreneurs/bankers.

It should be entirely about meritocracy.

The best post on the issue of class so far..... sums it up quite nicely.

Except there is a few slight errors.... technically speaking a lot of those manor homes can't be sold to the general public due to some silly clauses in the land title that they need to remain within their clans. Hence a lot of them eventually get leased out to be hotels or as places for wedding reception. Slowly a lot of the land that surrounds such stately homes are being subdivided and sold or leased out.

The other issue in regard to IHT, generally most of these "fortunes" are passed on prior to the death of the testator, hence it usually circumvents the IHT....

Eton and other elite private schools, these days the vast majority of kids there aren't really from upper class backgrounds, mostly upper-middle class.... Eton does not really accept students these days unless they can pay, or where they can't pay almost everything is means tested, owning a million pound home certainly would disqualify you from it even if you are A* material.

Upper class families with money? Other than the Duke of Westminsters you would be hard pressed to find any wealthy ones these days. The rest, they just bask in their past glory, most these days are quite poor, they say a fortune that is inherited rarely ever last 3 generations, many of the owners of the stately homes generally are a broke bunch these days that could barely afford to keep up with their council tax or utility bills.

what on earth are you talking about?