This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Upper Class

Does the Upper Class still exist? In what form?

I am sure it does in the form of Royalty/Nobility/Aristocracy, but the numbers of these social groups are tiny.

Would anyone on here consider themselves Upper Class, or know anyone who is?

I think it should be redefined to include particular groups of the very rich, because it is quite ridiculous to hear of people who live in mansions with eight cars described as 'Middle Class' as they would be in our current class system.

I wouldn't say I have ever met an Upper Class person, so they hold an air of intrigue :biggrin:

I don't think you get aristocracy in Birmingham. Here the class system is more like: Working Class/Middle Class/Middle Clarse, as in people who's children have been born and bred here yet speak in Southern accents, somewhat bizarrely because they must be making a strenuous effort to do so.

Some people will claim the Class System is obsolete nowadays, but I don't think this holds true. In fact snobbery and inverse snobbery these days are still widespread - just think about the 'Chav' phenomenon.

I'm sure this subject has been done to death but I haven't seen it in the couple of months I've been active. What can I say, this country is obsessed with the notion of social status .. :s:

not me though

Reply 1

kiddranc

Class barriers may not be as rigid, and contemporary British society might be more meritocratic, but class still does exist nonetheless.

Would somebody with a low class accent become Prime Minister? I doubt it.

Reply 2

Renal

17

kiddranc

Would somebody with a low class accent become Prime Minister? I doubt it.

Would somebody with a 'high class' accent become prime minister? Look at the effort to appear 'normal', Blair is a prime example of this, he would rather talk about playing guitar or watching football than politics.

Reply 3

kiddranc

Yes. Practically all British PM's in history have been from the upper and middle classes. No major party would vote for a low class chav or scally as their leader.

Reply 4

Overground

OP

17

kiddranc

Yes. Practically all British PM's in history have been from the upper and middle classes. No major party would vote for a low class chav or scally as their leader.

Point One - Agreed, but this has changed hugely in the last hundred years. In fact the 'poshest' PM in recent years would be Blair. I don't think any PM in the last 100 years could be described as upper class. David Lloyd George and Harold Wilson could definetely be described as Working Class anyway.

Point Two is ridiculous - no, no-one is going to vote for a 'low class chav or scally'. However they may well vote for someone of sound policies and character who comes from a poor economic background. You are corrolating working class and 'chav or scally', so you are inadvertantley being a snob yourself.

Reply 5

L i b

19

Overground

Does the Upper Class still exist? In what form?

I am sure it does in the form of Royalty/Nobility/Aristocracy, but the numbers of these social groups are tiny.

They are quite rare these days, yes.

Would anyone on here consider themselves Upper Class, or know anyone who is?

Oh yes, I've known quite a few in my time who I'd consider upper class. I'm still languishing in the middle classes until the Queen decides to offer me a peerage, however.

I think it should be redefined to include particular groups of the very rich, because it is quite ridiculous to hear of people who live in mansions with eight cars described as 'Middle Class' as they would be in our current class system.

Upper middle. But then again, class has never been about money.

I wouldn't say I have ever met an Upper Class person, so they hold an air of intrigue :biggrin:

They are rather odd, indeed.

Some people will claim the Class System is obsolete nowadays, but I don't think this holds true.

Definitely.

Reply 6

L i b

19

Overground

Point Two is ridiculous - no, no-one is going to vote for a 'low class chav or scally'. However they may well vote for someone of sound policies and character who comes from a poor economic background. You are corrolating working class and 'chav or scally', so you are inadvertantley being a snob yourself.

Yes, there have been plenty of upper-working and lower-middle class PMs and potential PMs this century.

Reply 7

Gilliwoo

Overground

Does the Upper Class still exist? In what form?

I am sure it does in the form of Royalty/Nobility/Aristocracy, but the numbers of these social groups are tiny.

Would anyone on here consider themselves Upper Class, or know anyone who is?

I think it should be redefined to include particular groups of the very rich, because it is quite ridiculous to hear of people who live in mansions with eight cars described as 'Middle Class' as they would be in our current class system.

I wouldn't say I have ever met an Upper Class person, so they hold an air of intrigue :biggrin:

I don't think you get aristocracy in Birmingham. Here the class system is more like: Working Class/Middle Class/Middle Clarse, as in people who's children have been born and bred here yet speak in Southern accents, somewhat bizarrely because they must be making a strenuous effort to do so.

Some people will claim the Class System is obsolete nowadays, but I don't think this holds true. In fact snobbery and inverse snobbery these days are still widespread - just think about the 'Chav' phenomenon.

I'm sure this subject has been done to death but I haven't seen it in the couple of months I've been active. What can I say, this country is obsessed with the notion of social status .. :s:

not me though

The rule of thumb for being 'Upper Class' is possession of an hereditary title, or coming from a noble, or landed background. Money is not the significant determiner - many an aristocrat today finds himself cash-poor, holed up in a flat in an enormous estate. Apart from that, I think individuals from families with long traditions of public service, whether in Government or the Armed Forces, may, pending other 'qualifications' (such as education, social background and circles of acquaintance) be considered upper class. James Hewitt is an example of this kind.

On the other hand, having a title alone (they give them away like baubles these days, and even a peerage is worthless today), or indeed being very wealthy, would not necessarily make you upper class - there's no way in hell I'd call Madonna upper class, even though she has an estate, and lots of money. At the same time, somebody like Richard Branson is probably better described as being upper middle class, but his children and certainly theirs, would likely be considered upper class.

Entree into the upper class, I'd say, is determined by a few things. Primarily is birth and blood: That's the one constant straitjacket of Britain's class system. But in this day and age, ennoblement is so rare that other factors now probably have fair weight. For instance, certain professions seem to more easily qualify class: The judiciary, senior Civil servants, those in the senior Foreign Service, and to a much lesser extent, exceptionally distinguished academics (like Lord Clark) may be "natural" heirs to the titled nobility in modern society, yet the venerable Stephen Fry would probably still be considered upper middle class, not upper class. Similarly, even very rich businessmen like Philip Green may not necesarily be thought of as upper class (this is no doubt a result of the "taint of trade" snobbery of the aristocracy during the late Industrial Revolution period). But that link of birth probably still remains quite resilient.

Class under this interpretation seems an outdated concept. But considering that people orgainise themselves in very selective, personal and nuanced social configurations, based on all sorts of things - social habits, family, activities, where they live, education - so it'll be a hard concept to kill off even when the superficies such as title and wealth are done away with.

Reply 8

cottonmouth

11

It depends largely on the definitions of class. I think that my favourite definition, and the most useful one, is that class is determined by how much influence you have in certain aspects of life- be it in your work, or how much money you have dictating how easy it is for you "do as you wish".

Is there still an "upper-class"/ Yes, but not a big one. The terms of defining class have changed since that term was first used, to the point where upper-class is almost an extremity, along with the "underclass".

Reply 9

purist

The upper class is no longer just associated with your birth. The great thing with our society is that anyone can earn money and money gives you access to the upper class as it gives power.

Today there is an upper class however it is determined by your wealth. Anyone can become the upper class

Reply 10

Huw Davies

11

the venerable Stephen Fry would probably still be considered upper middle class, not upper class.

He's only fifty, which isn't really "venerable". And went to a public school but one which would be considered minor by those who are snobbish about these things (so I'm told - I went to a comp).

Reply 11

Overground

OP

17

L i b

Yes, there have been plenty of upper-working and lower-middle class PMs and potential PMs this century.

Lol I wasn't saying people wouldn't vote for working class/lower middle class people, I was saying that people wouldn't vote for a 'scally'. And a 'scally' has not been voted PM yet in this country. Some working class people have.

Reply 12

Jennybean

13

I didn't really think there was still an upper class in this country til quite by chance I read a copy of Tatler in an airport.

Reply 13

Gilliwoo

purist

The upper class is no longer just associated with your birth. The great thing with our society is that anyone can earn money and money gives you access to the upper class as it gives power.

Today there is an upper class however it is determined by your wealth. Anyone can become the upper class

I think this is somewhat inaccurate for reasons lib north and I raised above.

Reply 14

Gilliwoo

Huw Davies

He's only fifty, which isn't really "venerable". And went to a public school but one which would be considered minor by those who are snobbish about these things (so I'm told - I went to a comp).

Venerable isn't merely an adjective of age. Still an exaggeration, granted. Anyway, I'm not sure that going to pubic school would, alone, make somebody upper class.

Reply 15

paperclip

18

purist

The upper class is no longer just associated with your birth. The great thing with our society is that anyone can earn money and money gives you access to the upper class as it gives power.

Today there is an upper class however it is determined by your wealth. Anyone can become the upper class

the upper class have access to private schools so it's easier for richer people to have smarter (and therefore richer) children

not everyone has the same starting point

Reply 16

EssexDan86

17

Just look at an awful lot of the ministers in the Labour cabinet over the past 10 years - David Blunkett, John Reid and John Prescott were all from working class backgrounds.

Not that there's any harm in middle classes in government - about half the population fit the definition these days, and they're more politically aware than a lot of 'working class' people, and so are more likely to vote.

Reply 17

EssexDan86

17

paperclip

the upper class have access to private schools so it's easier for richer people to have smarter (and therefore richer) children

not everyone has the same starting point

Hence the need for more grammar schools!

Reply 18

Dredz

paperclip

the upper class have access to private schools so it's easier for richer people to have smarter (and therefore richer) children

not everyone has the same starting point

was just bout to say the same thing.

Reply 19

manderlay in flames

12

paperclip

the upper class have access to private schools so it's easier for richer people to have smarter (and therefore richer) children

not everyone has the same starting point

Private schools don't make you smarter just more arrogant as well as more likely to be better qualified/homosexual. It's not really a valid objection now that oxbridge etc take your schooling into account, we really are pretty meritocratic in the academic sense.

The Upper Class

Related discussions

Articles for you