I’m not sad for the aristocracy losing their money and estates. They literally spent centuries living in luxury off the backs off those living in poverty. I am a big proponent of “vintage style, not vintage values”. While I do love period dramas and classic novels about the aristocracy, it’s good for the rest of society that poorer classes had the chance to break out of their rigid societal roles. That’s not to say that poverty and extreme wealth no longer exist, because they are still huge issues in today’s society, but I think we’re better off without a powerful aristocratic class. I do agree though, that it would have been nice to keep those beautiful houses intact for historical purposes, but only with full transparency about how these aristocrats obtained their wealth through labor.
Today, the Middle Class is effectively the new aristocracy, because there isn't really anyone above them any more. The destruction of the Middle Class is now assured, and a result of crushing the top of the social class system. And not being within the Middle Class, I am fine with this. This is what happens when you create all of this variable taxation, over taxation, and crush the ability for poorer classes with the wits to try to move upwards, from achieving this. A classless society means that you have no need to push hard, or try to excel. You get penalised, because everything is geared towards everything being level. Now add to that the catastrophically low birth rate... this will end badly. Because we are now at a period of intense social unravelling. And with the likes of the WEF saying we will own nothing, and be happy... we are heading for Feudalism 2.0. And people will laugh and scorn, until it happens, and they wonder how they ended up in such a mess...
It doesn’t really feel like the wealth gap has changed due to the aristocracy being hollowed out though. As you say, it still exists - arguably in an even greater extreme now due to unfettered capitalism. Sigh.
I think the powerful class of today have way more money and power than a couple of beautiful grand houses than the aristocracy of yesterday used to enjoy, and unfortunately, none of the class or values, but rather are trying to normalize degeneracy into our households.
I know an Earl. He's basically the local 'laird' for the town I grew up in and still live in, in Scotland. His ancestor lost a lot of their estate after he led an uprising and was exiled, and then huge swathes of their land were bought by local industrialists to create their own estates, and then by compulsory purchase to build houses after World War II. He used to be a social worker and he's pretty down to earth, although he was educated at Eton. He still owns some countryside locally and up until about twenty years ago when feudal tenure was abolished, many of us were expected to get his permission to do alterations to our homes, or to tell him if we found minerals in our gardens!!!! He's a nice guy though, if you meet him in his woods, or the supermarket, he always has a chat. These people are still very powerful though, they are educated at high ranking public schools and know each other. As you say some have seats in the House of Lords, which can approve or veto parliamentary bills, although its power is quite restricted these days.
I'm sure he probably didn't enjoy being the home owner's association president either. I really could not think of anything less aristocratic or glamorous than having to process requests for home improvements. It's just not something most people would relate to being an aristo, being a perpetual bureaucrat and inheriting that position, like it or lump it, so you couldn't even hire someone in to do it for you.
I met an Earl many years ago. He was living in the U.S. and doing an ordinary job. He was very unassuming and didn't talk about the fact that he was an Earl. Later several of our mutual friends told me that he was a British Earl. It seems many titled people are living very normal lives now and you would never guess they had titles.
@@EllieDashwood I saw a documentary about the filming location for Downton Abbey. One of the owners, a countess, said about the tours, "People love to hear that there's a real earl and countess here!" All I could think was, "Who cares?"
@Michelle Manson unless the Earl you met was English it's not that surprising he was in the U.S, until around the 1860's (or possibly the 1880's) it was pretty common for younger sons (3rd or lower) to go out and find themselves a new life not in England. Their preferred place to do this was the U.S., that's why until the outbreak of World War 1 it wasn't unusual for the children of the Aristocracy (most often the daughters) to go visit the cousins in America in their Mid teens to early 20's. Sadly with alot of British male lines in the peerage dieing out it's America cousins (and those from other -mainly Commonwealth- countries) inheriting instead
@@laurensteenkamp7693 Does it really matter? The only difference I can see is that they would have been less likely to marry their cousins than those who stayed in England. Which might have had something to do with the stay-at-home lines dying out.
@@feezlfuzzl564 The Earl and Countess of Carnarvon own Highclere Castle, so, um, everyone who cares about 'Downton Abbey' should care. By the way the Earl and Countess seem like down-to-earth people. I took a photo with the Earl during a visit to Highclere - the day before they started filming the 'Downton' movie, so Hugh Bonneville was also there!
I think the change was mostly good. Some may see them in a romantic light but they were privileged people who had the rug pulled from under them. And while loss of art and homes are always bad, it can't come close to what the country stole as a whole and still keeps today.
It's easy to think of those times as idyllic when your focus is only on the bourgeoisie and the leisure class. But there's a reason this structure was upended with the French and Russian revolutions, and later WWI: because the other 99% were sick of watching the ruling class enjoy their lifestyle off the sweat of their backs. When we look at all of these cultural nuances of the Regency 1%, what we are seeing is an elaborate system of mechanisms for the ruling class to normalize and validate its presence among the lower classes and maintain its own relevance. In other words, every single thing detailed on this channel, interesting as it may be, is the machinations of a cultural elite organizing its system of behavior to sustain and preserve itself and keep the pitchforks of the lower classes from arriving at their door. Life for the working class and the poor during this time period was unforgivably squalid- with an aristocracy and a bourgeoisie that did absolutely nothing about it.
They were people who buchered people in colonies without second thought and left their own working class to die from hunger and disease while they partied and lived in luxury , they got away with it very cheap losing privileges, the French less so many heads fell there a nice example of what happens when people want you out but you can't let power taken away from you .Some individuals might be nice and decent but as a class they were just awful dictators and exploit the whole society.
@@Revolution-tl5wo it is easy to think of any time that way if you only think of the wealthy. Life has always been horrible for the poor. It's doesn't necessarily have anything to do with aristocracy. Just look at America.
The aristocracy are still around, they just don't have the same prestige they once were. The aristocracy still have trust funds, which isn't taxed, that helps them to keep the family wealth in the family. They also have primogeniture and entailment, which insures property, homes stay in the family. My favorite is Blenheim, Longleat, Stourhead, Chatsworth, Arundel Castle, Warwick Castle.
Re young aristocrats going off to war: apparently it was long customary for them to have a low-ranked retainer, acting as valet & personal aide (think Sam Gamgee to Frodo Baggins). This might be a servant who came with them! But an interesting effect of WWI service for British working class was they often came home with a sense of pride, no longer interested in a life of service to the aristocracy. Estates found the multi-generational servant class disappearing. This all stuck in my memory because of an interesting parallel: American (Southern) officers also had servants in the Civil War. It was in WWII, when desperation forced recruitment of non-whites, that POC also found new pride. Blacks, Latinos, Indigenous and Asians came home and began to demand equality - and this included women! War has a silver lining?!
@@chrissiek8706 not really. Fashion was already changing when WW1 happened. The same holds true for WW2. Would it have changed the same way it did? Maybe. There is no way of knowing. Besides... corsets aren't bad. As long as they arw properly made they can be even better than bras. Just look at ribbon corsets... lightweight, beautiful, could be worn while playing tennis, riding a bike, climbing a mountain... And long Edwardian skirts? Sign me up - especially in Winter.
The batman (officer's servant) is an odd role; while the batman was expected to act as a valet and servant when away from the lines, his job was more than just a lackey - the batman would often be responsible for cooking food, maintaining equipment, and running messages while the officer was busy with leadership duties. The role was quite coveted and, while some officers took valets from home, it was more common for the new officer to be assigned a random soldier from his regiment to act as his batman. Many officers had surprisingly close relationships with their batmen, as the batman was often the officer's ear to the un-aired opinions of the platoon. Batmen would often receive special treatment in order to keep them in good spirits and good service. There many cases of officers writing very personal messages to the families of killed batmen, and surprisingly a few cases of the inverse as well! The role fell out of use after the second world war, when more responsibility was given to the sergeant, but even today it is common for an officer to utilise a runner to cook his food and run messages when occupied with the duties of command.
I wonder if part of that is because of going away and living in a place where nobody knows who you are. A place where people see no difference between you and your master. I think that was an eyeopener for people who usually lived and died within walking distance of where they were born.
Whilst it's true that many Aristocratic families lost their seats (the big houses in the country) in the century after the first World War due to a combination of loss of the male line and inheritance tax there was one other reason you didn't cover (probably because you weren't aware of it), they couldn't fix them up. At the start of both World wars the Aristocracy (particularly those with estates in South East England) temporarily donated the big houses they owned to the military to use as hospital, sadly the Military weren't the best tenants and left said bhs in such devastation most families had sell because they didn't have the skill to sort it out themselves. Particularly in the case of the interwar years, those who has been servants (maids and under footmen mainly) pre World War 1 had either died, got married or found better paid positions elsewhere so couldn't help the their former employer rebuild
TY...Great point! These era changing events like WWI & WWII changed everything and everyone to some degree even the great houses of England. Another reason is brick is a low maintenance yet high replacement cost, building material, common in the Victorian Era. When it's time to replace the brickwork demolition becomes a sad option.
I think you're touching on the core issue rather indirectly. Said right on the nose, the 99% was tired of supporting the 1% and the lifestyles of the leisure class became increasingly unpopular and seen as losing relevance to modern society. As to the people who worked downstairs in the great houses, who wouldn't want a better paid job as a shopgirl 5 days a week compared to the rigid slavery of working 6.5 days and being up before dawn for literally your entire life?
@@Revolution-tl5woShopgirls were lower paid in worse conditions than household servants. And maids may have gotten up extremely early, but that was because they cleaned the house before anyone else was up - once the house was clean, their duties for the rest of the day were pretty light - answer doors and aerve tea and plenty of time to gossip in the servants' hall. The kitchen staff worked more full time but no different from restaurant workers today. Being a shopgirl on your feet all day answering to ungrateful customers and demanding managers was NOT an easier life and tended to be taken on by the less educated and qualified. Servants were a different class altogether than the regular 'working class'; you had to be educated and well-bred because if you stuck around one day you'd be promoted to bulter or housekeeper, and that required CLASS. You needed to already have it as a maid or footman. And those abilities gave you an edge in making conditions on how your employers treated you which industrial and shop workers did not get. There's a reason the aristocracy in books are always depicted as worrying 'what will the servants think.' The servant class had a LOT of understated power. The working class did NOT.
Interesting. My parents were both born into the top class in Europe. My father especially had disdain for people in trade and now I know where it comes from. My mom's dad had a title but worked as an executive at a department store so that was trade and My father looked down on that.. My mom's grandmother had a title but married an untitled engineer so the title was lost. My mom got a little bit of feminist theory in the 70s and told me I needed to get a PhD to catch a good husband. Funny. She was taught multiple languages and music, tennis, riding, art, singing, etc. My grandmother was sad because she expected I would be "forced" to work. I personally love working but granted it's not physical labor, just management.
It's visible in the treatment of Meghan Markle. She was a millionaire when she wed Harry but was looked down upon by silly Brits for working as an actress.
I imagine most people would want to be aristocracy but the presence of an aristocracy requires the majority of people to be poor working class. I know when I read Austen and others I imagine what it would be like to be friends with Lizzy Bennett but in reality I'm not rich or well connected so it would be way more likely that I'd be working hard all day in poverty and she wouldn't deign to speak to me.
It’s 100% true! And ironically, the British aristocracy was rather small percentage wise in comparison to the rest of the population when compared with the percentages of other European powers. So it’s even more unlikely that one would be in it back then in Britain.
In the English middle ages there weren't just the upper class and the working class. There was a middle class in that era. They were called the yeomanry. They were free men (and by consequence free women) in possession of their very own means of production, their farms, their cattle and their crops.
As I've gotten older, on rereads of Austen (still one of my favorite authors) it's really stood out to me how almost totally invisible the servants in the households are. I've been reading a lot of Trollope this year, and they are much more of a presence--we get to know gardeners, lady's maids, parlor maids, etc. In Austen you barely even know they are there, but they must be, in nearly every scene. For example, there are surely servants traveling with Lizzy and the Gardiners when they are traveling through Kent, but no mention is made of them. Similarly, when Darcy rides "alone" to Pemberley and surprises them, he would not have been literally alone (as in all the adaptations), but would have been accompanied by a mounted groom.
As much as I love those big houses and the world they represent, I couldn't help think, "Poor aristocrats, having to sell off the art that they pillaged while conquering the world . . . ."
Only a small fraction of that art would have been pillaged. Aristocrats were great supporters of art and culture and were the only ones who could afford to commission some of the paintings and sculpture we so admire today. If you are speaking of antiquities that are now mostly in museums, you are probably correct. I think most stolen art works today would be in private collections of billionaires. My opinion of course.
Very interesting take on the British Aristocracy. I love your videos, I have only just come across them. But I must say that the whole system that supported such a tiny part of the population to live this way was very unjust. Child labour in coal mines and factories and of course the slave trade!
I loved the BBC North & South, but have never read the book. It is not available in our library system, but at some point (when I have time to read again,) I'm going to get hold of it!! Would love to see ED'S take on it!! I've loved learning about all of this!! ~Liz
Based on what I've observed, the British aristocracy have not disappeared, they just took a back seat and moved from holding land as their main source of power and income to banking, politics, civil service etc. They're still very much there and are powerful but owning most of the land, flexing your title, flaunting your old money and never working a day in your life is a great way to get extra taxed (or meeting Mr.Guillotine). You can see that play out right now with the likes of Boris Johnson.
Yup so true! Most of the people in government come from these types of background and still have more power than normal people, but it’s just more subtle than before…
And all the structures that kept people in servitude back them have subtly evolved to keep us in our modern rat race, living for work, while most of the privileged stay in privileged places.
Plus they hide their assets to escape paying taxes they owe. I don’t think they’ve ever left. The wealth gap is here, there is limited social mobility and definitely a big difference from the haves and have nots.
I see the loss of power for the aristocracy as a natural consequence of their abuse of power and flaunting their excess. All of this caused severe poverty, which caused crime, which caused the aristocracy to pass laws that imposed severe penalties--even the death penalty--for numerous different crimes. It's really hard to accept gilded clothes and partying until dawn and wardrobes worth $150,000 a year when your family is one step above starvation. Or even if you own a shop and support your family well above starvation but know you have no hope of anything like that. And then you see awful behavior, scandals, and wastefulness and you see no reason for it. Really, the French rulers and the Russian ones lost their lives over these issues, yet Britain kept their royal house while stripping the aristocracy of most of their wealth and power. I think they got off lightly. Would I have wanted to be an aristocrat during the 18th or 19th centuries? I don't think there's any chance that I would have. My ancestors from that time period who lived in England were weavers. We would have lived a perhaps difficult life, but not in danger of starvation.
I’ve noticed that there’s a lot of anger being directed at lower upperclass people who own large amounts of real estate because they hoard homes from middle class people. It’s just like what happened to the aristocracy 👀
So basically Aristocracy got replaced by Oligarchy in modern politics and everything else, because we continue to see sons getting voted in after their fathers have and so forth. Nothing ever changes and nepotism never dies. 🙄😑 BTW, I find it amusing that the old world aristocrats from England (would criticized the US for so long after losing the revolutionary war) would later marry US aristocrats to gain some wealth back, especially after the two World Wars. Stories of old world dukes, lords and earls would go to the Americas to marry wealthy women who inherited wealth. The women got to get old world titles and their husbands got their wives' money to fix broken estates.
Technically Camilla, the Dutchess of Cornwall, Prince Charles' wife has some aristocratic roots. Her Great grandmother, Alice Keppel was married to a Baronet I believe and she was also one of King Edward VII's mistresses. In fact , Queen Alexandra invited Alice Keppel to sit vigil at the side of Edward VII's death bed with her and when he drew his last breath, it's said that Alice threw herself over him and had to be carried out of the room. Princess Diana's family is apart of the aristocracy, in fact her maternal grandmother, lady Fermoy was a Lady in waiting for the Queen Mum and one of her closest confidants. Diana' and her brother Charles, who is currently the 9th Earl Spencer used to play with Princes Andrew and Edward since they were all around the same age. Earl Spencer is a historian who's written a few📚 s as well as running the Spencer family ancestoral home, Althorp in Northamptonshire
In the early 20th century it was extremely common for the attendants of public schools and universities (which the vast majority of the young men in the aristocracy were) to join 'officer training corps', which would give them a foundation of military knowledge to carry on to a future military career or, as many predicted, to allow for their quick induction into officer training in the event of a European war. When this war actually broke out in 1914, many of these officers were fast tracked into commissions, resulting in their seeing some of the more brutal fighting earlier in the conflict. Furthermore, junior officers had a life expectancy of about 6 weeks, and suffered the highest casualty rate of any rank during the war. They were also expected to act as a moral example to their subordinates, shrugging off danger and valuing their duties more than their life (in one notable case I read, a young guards officer was killed as he balanced along his trench's parapet during an artillery barrage.) These reasons go a long way in explaining how entire generations of 'heirs and spares' were wiped out in a single war. (Source: university study, namely the book Six Weeks by John lewis-stempel) (Bonus fact: the descendant regiments of those officer training corps still exist today and fulfil largely the same role! )
I wouldn't want to be aristocratic. I'd prefer to be the daughter of enlightened gentleman who settled a comfortable living on me when he died so I could choose to stay single or marry whilst maintaining financial independence. A small cottage with a good library and a couple of staff would do me very nicely!
I would like to be a member of the aristocracy for sure! I'm not into politics but do love music so would be a patron of the arts. I'll admit though I wouldn't mind being a servant in a large house if the alternative is being a coal miner or work in a factory during industrial revolution.
Period dramas have been in the habit of glorifying the servants position. If you enjoy hard labour from 5 am to 10 pm with only 1 free day a month and a constant fear of sexual exploitation then being a servant is the job for you. Most servants did not work in a grand house where there was at least a little protection from the head servant and some company. They worked in middle and upper middle class houses doing the work of three servant. There was a study made in Berlin in the late 19th century that showed that most maids had stunted growth, showed signs of malnourishment, and had horrible skin conditions due to the harshness of the soap and constant moisture. There is a reason that women fled the servants job as soon as there was an alternative as a shop girl.
Great video. An interesting elaboration on your mortality rates pop up box is related to British military tradition. In pretty much all conflicts of the modern age, ie 19th century forward through the Great War and WWII, officers always had significantly higher casualty rates than the men. A British officer was expected to stand up and be visible to the troops, encouraging them in the heat of battle, inspiring courage by displaying a calm demeanor without fear. The net results of that should be obvious…. The Great War’s unprecedented scale significantly and disproportionately denuded the aristocracy.
There are still other lingering powers of the aristocracy. A large percentage of the people who work in government and other influential jobs came up through the private schooling system in elite schools like Eton and then went on to Oxbridge - and of course a lot of nepotism is still going strong. So while the official rule of the aristocracy in some spheres was weakened by changes to laws, there's still an unofficial ruling class because rich and powerful people will help the children of other rich and powerful people keep their money and power. I'm also not sure about framing it as a negative that art and great houses are now things anyone can see rather than being reserved for an elite. I would say that these old houses being owned by the National Trust and open to everyone to see is another good consequence of the decline of the aristocracy.
A major target of the nineteenth century reforms was elimination of the "Corn Laws" that protected British agriculture by imposing substantial tariffs on imported grain and other foodstuffs. The tariffs increased the cost of food in the UK and the profits of British landowners, including the landowning aristocracy, who voted in the House of Lords to protect their financial position. Many Britons believed that by opposing increasing the electorate and elimination of tariffs on foodstuffs, the aristocrats were puttting their own interests ahead of the interest of their country.
There was a great British sitcom called To the Manor Born about a middle-aged woman displaced from her family's large estate to a small cottage on the estate because economics forced the family to sell the estate to a 1980s nouveau-riche buffoon. (He, in the end, turned out to be very nice, and the lady returned to the big house as his wife after much predictable sitcom tension.) Also, I wish you had made it more clear that the word liberal in 19th-century British politics was very, very different from what it means in 21st-century American politics.
I was just thinking about how in the TV adaptation of Jeeves & Wooster, there’s a bit of an unintentionally ghoulish atmosphere. So many episodes are centered around a friend of Bertie who is the last of his family’s line, scrounging for money, selling the family home, living extravagantly but constantly in debt. I haven’t read the books, but I assume they’re similar.
Hello Ellie, glad to say that "The Blue Boy" is back in Blighty in the National Portrait Gallery. Also, if you get the chance you should watch the 1970's series "Upstairs and Downstairs" the pre dates Downton Abbey and Mansfield House, it brilliantly charters the trails and tribulations of a Mayfair House with the Lords and Masters living Upstairs and their Servants living Downstairs, it covers the Edwardian Period up until 1932. There are so many themes upon which the changes in society and Aristocracy go through. I recent paid a visit to Two Temple Place, in the West End of London just behind Fleet Street, there we see that cross over between the wealth Americans i.e the Astor Family and their influence in the upper echelons of British Society the building is extraordinary considering it was designed to be an office for one of the Astor's . Great series you are making very informative.
Not to defend the nobility/aristocracy structures of the past, but there are oft ignored positive consequences. Because of social and economic privilege, progress was possible in math, science, visual arts, literature, etc. Likely there was a better way, almost certainly there were other workable paths, but the progress is still there. Those upper classes, or their dependents, had access to the expensive education, expensive supplies, and ample amounts of leisure time which progress required. The most obvious fault in the system is how few of them actually used their privilege to good purpose. Hum. The same might be said of many of the world’s inhabitants today.
Thank you for saying this. I wanted to but couldn't find the words. History and human society are so much more complex than 'all poor people good; all rich people bad.' There's a balance required here most commenters are not finding.
The bourgeois revolution in Europe was like the Meiji restoration in Japan. The European aristocrats that embraced investing and the social contract survived and prospered. The ones that didn't went bankrupt and lost their estate. The daimyo and samurais that invested in the zaibatsu's and embraced centralization survived and prospered. The ones that didn't were turned into swiss cheese by the Gatling gun
Wow, it's super interesting how that system basically took itself down in favor of a more egalitarian society just because of the shift in the mindset of these people.
Great, thanks for finally enlightening me on what happened to aristocracy. I'm from Russia and even though I've always been much more interested in cultures and art of Western Europe than anything local, my knowledge always resembles patchwork more than a coherent picture with no holes.
Seems like the next hallmark movie, a descendent of the rich aristocracy can’t afford to keep the family home and the young beautiful hardworking female lead saves his family home by turning it into an orphanage or boarding school or place to host a Christmas ball
no but like you're right this movie exists on netflix and its a christmas film 😭he's a duke about to lose his family home and she's a best selling author with $$$
To this video and your observations on this channel, one crucial thing is omitted: the lives and culture of the 99% during this and the Victorian era. It's easy to think of those times as idyllic when your focus is only on the bourgeoisie and the leisure class. But there's a reason this structure was upended with the French and Russian revolutions, and later WWI: because the other 99% were sick of watching the ruling class enjoy their lifestyle off the sweat of their backs. When we look at all of these cultural nuances of the Regency 1%, what we are seeing is an elaborate system of mechanisms for the ruling class to normalize and validate its presence among the lower classes and maintain its own relevance. In other words, every single thing detailed on your channel, interesting as it may be, is the machinations of a cultural elite organizing its system of behavior to sustain and preserve itself and keep the pitchforks of the lower classes from arriving at their door. Life for the working class and the poor during this time period was unforgivably squalid- with an aristocracy and a bourgeoisie that did absolutely nothing about it. Actually, the whole royalty should be done away with. The British aristocracy is a relic of a cruel and exploitative empire and has no place in modern society. Nothing good happened from British colonialism in the global south and there is nothing to celebrate about it. Further, the monarchy as a whole was a total failure.
If more recognised this is reason why there are failings in society now instead of blaming poor refugees on boats etc…the aristocracy is still here just look at the top 1% and ask do they really that much wealth. Accountants are too good these days at working for them and ensure they avoid the taxman. We still have a “ruling class” of sorts it’s just more sneaky and less obvious but it’s there.
Right, because putting communist dictators in place of the aristocracy has always worked SO much better . . . 🙄 People act like the 'poor people' would somehow rule better than the aristocracy if power were only put into THEIR hands, in spite of history showing ALL people abuse power once they get it. Spreading power around doesn't solve the problem, just dilutes it. 'All men would be tyrants if they could.'
Thank you for this! I think there are some real lessons to be learned here on how inheritance laws and restricted voting rights keep money and power in the hands of a select few.
It still happens plenty today. Vote rigging and investments by family of government officials makes the power and wealth still very limited to a particular class, which in the US I would say is the long-term congressional rep or senator. Smart ones don't engage in insider trading themselves but route money through their spouses or adult children. The Marconi scandal that rocked the United Kingdom is an everyday occurrence now.
9:24 it’s sad and not sad. Many of these homes were sold to the National Trust and so now everyone can enjoy them and the ones that weren’t… well survival of the fittest.
Thank you much for providing explanation re the destruction of the British aristocratic feudal-like system. Note-with industrialization/capitalism and birth control, fewer workers available and those workers increasingly had other, better work options than going into “service”. A ridiculously large staff was needed to maintain those estates/mansions. Also, I would assume that the great aristocratic estates were ultimately dependent on agriculture/crop prices bring income to the aristocratic landowner and increasingly were in competition with overseas agricultural product competition.
And re Huntington Library & Gardens; Before Pandemic, the cafe used to serve an English Afternoon Tea with the little sandwiches and etc. If they start that up again, I'd love to dress up and "play aristocracy". (L.A. native)
Your assessment of the affect of these changes on the aristocracy is very reminiscent of the effects on colonized countries. Monuments and buildings of cultural significance were destroyed or repurposed, items of wealth were taken from the original country to the land of the colonizers, and cultures were irrevocably changed. Though, I'd posit that colonization is quite a bit worse than the loss of the aristocracy.
Regarding World War I, it was quite possible for the owner of the estate to die in battle or illness, With the estate then passing to his son and heir. And then the son to die. Inheritance taxes were then due on both men’s accounts. It was devastating, financially… As well as emotionally.
Thank you so much for this video. I was meaning to ask the question of what had happened to the landed gentry on a forum, you saved me the trouble (and the expending of further internet bandwidth) with your thorough explanation. I would never have thought American industrialists would have had a hand in the equation. (BTW, more recently, Prince Rainier III of Monaco is said to have been advised to marry an American woman with a wealthy background in order to replenish Monaco's depleted coffers. That would be why he chose Grace Kelly. It is claimed that she and her family had to pool together 2 million dollars (about 20 million today) for her dowry!) Like you say, the aristocracy clearly doesn't set the tone anymore and there isn't as big of a class disparity as in Jane Austen's time. Still, I have heard that a lot of the landholdings in the UK are still in the hands of the same families as they were in days of old. Interesting that you mention a Duke of Westminster having to sell off a work of art. The current Duke of Westminster, Hugh Grosvenor, is the fourth-richest British billionaire today (according to Wikipedia, he has a net worth of 13.2 billion USD, though according to the main Wikipedia article on him he holds much of his wealth in trust as a beneficial owner, which would have been done to avoid inheritance tax). He derives his weath from real estate holdings, and is thus perhaps a par excellence example of modern landed aristocracy. I think I would want to be a member of the landed gentry in Jane Austen's time, so as not to end up an overworked and underpaid servant like you say, or in a workhouse or factory or mine (we know how bad those were) or on London's streets. Unless I could have a reasonably cushy job (e.g. be a university professor or a lawyer). Not having to work and still have access to significant wealth and live on a beautiful estate (or at least a big English country cottage, as I imagine I might if I were a lower scion of the family) is a tempting prospect. I would just hope that: 1) my family wouldn't send me to boarding school as a child and 2) they wouldn't try to force me to marry someone for whom I had no feelings. I would need to not have anyone like the awful Lady Catherine de Bourgh among my closest relations! Oh, and I like your outfit in the pictures from the estate tour :)
That is all so fascinating about Grace Kelly! And yes they still own a tremendous amount of land but from what I’ve read only about half of which they used to. Which is still a ton. 😂 Also, all the families have had an up and down ride, moments where they have to sell stuff off and moments where a wise investment pays off, all trying to stay afloat. So it sounds like the Duke of Westminster managed to do that in the end. Lol. And yes, definitely no factory or mine or workhouse dream here! 😂
I'd love to hear more about why these aristocrats were so hesitant to make different streams of income. Would it be frowned upon for the landed gentry to dabble in merchant activities? It would seem like they would want to try and continue to accumulate wealth
Great question! They dabbled in a lot of different investments and ventures, such as mining on their property, building resorts, investing in railroads, stocks and bonds. And some who did that fared better during the decline. But still those ventures could fail. And they only had so much time and money to invest in those things. Also, the people who got really rich during this time period weren’t necessarily British merchants. It was Americans because America in its young state had an immense amount of resources up for grabbing. They simply didn’t have that in Britain at the time.
My impression from reading Austen’s novels ad watching Masterpiece Theater is that most “work” (banking, trade, business, engineering, law, etc) was looked down on for “gentlemen”.
I met the oldest son (I think, at least one of the sons) of the Duke of Mornington before he became the Duke. He worked for an investment fund at what seemed to be a fairly senior level for his age at the time. I think you'll find this mis pretty common (corporate finance, legal etc) these days.
Going by Jane Austen’s novels (end of 170s/beginning of 1800s, being a merchant was strongly looked down on by the landed gentry. In the historical novel “North and South”, set in approx 1850, there is the impression given that the landed gentry looks down on the key character who owns/runs a successful mill. “Gentlemen” didn’t conduct business. It would be interesting to know the history of this subject-the history of the economic status/activities of the aristocracy/landed gentry-the changes and factors for those changes. And there is the issue re what happens with son who are not the eldest-not the heirs-in the landed gentry. How do they support themselves sufficient so that they can marry and have a life?
@@ccburro1 I don't pretend to be anything of an expert here, but many of the aristocracy invested in or directly owned Sugar/Rum plantations in the West Indies and some may have been investors in the East India Company or invested in companies associated with the trade with that company, even if they personally didn't get involved and treated trade with a lot of disdain. Of course many merchant traders entered the aristocracy during this time as well. The Army/Navy remained open to the second+ sons of the aristocracy for quite a long time; serious Army reforms didn't happen until the 1870s and again following the the Boer war (1902 ish) with the increasingly professionalisation of the Army. The Navy was always more professional and demanding of its officers, but that was not an obstacle for most. The first world war was probably as important as anything here. Parliamentary seats would have also remained pretty open as well. even the 1867 reform act still required voters to be property owning even if the criteria was significantly reduce. Sons of major landowners would have retained a lot of local support in non-urban seats even as the voting franchise was democratised. On top of these jobs, the civil service and legal professions (and finance) would have become more important employers from the 1880s onwards as well. From a reputational standpoint, at least, they remained associated with "blue blooded" families as recently as the 1960s.
I most definitely would want to be in the aristocracy- as a girl, it would probably be my best bet at having sufficiently indulgent parents to let me get any sort of real education, especially if I was born late enough and could con them into letting me go to Girton College at Cambridge or Somerville or Lady Margaret Hall at Oxford.
Still not defending, but there were vital reasons to avoid a reduced class rank besides pretty things. The restricted access to expensive education for those not in the upper class, or at least the upper classes, can not be ignored (only partly due to those wishing to restrict it). And if a woman married a man of a lower class than her father, her life from that point, and her children’s lives, would lack many opportunities. Marrying down meant consigning one’s posterity to a lesser existence, possibly including misery and early death.
I love the Huntington Library near Pasadena. It is set up like the original estate which includes various type of art: such as, "Pinkie", "The Blue Boy", and other great works of art, the Japanese Tea Room and Garden, Chinese Garden, a Desert Garden, the Research Library and so much more with changing exhibitions. It did or does have some great places to eat inside.
Excellent . Why isn't history taught like this in school? This channel has enlightened me with reference to various movies and books I've read regarding the aristocracy. Thanks so very much. Please continue teaching us.
For the most part, the 'Aristocracy' like so many of the nobility tended to use their estates and inherited positions and wealth like ATMs. Many did not invest time and money into their own estates. All those wonderful old houses need extensive upkeep. Not every estate house was built with quality in mind. Often times the common village house was built with far better quality. And the economy was changing from agriculture to industrialization.
The basis of the aristocracy was that the aristocrats presided over land and tenets who produced the country's food. Food prices were especially high during the Napoleonic wars, so Austin lived in the heyday of aristocracy. They lost much of their political power as a result of the Reform Act of 1832. The Corn Law was repealed in 1846 and an Anglo-French trade deal was struck in 1860. After that, it was cheaper to import food and aristocratic estates no longer made sense economically.
One issue for British landowners was that with technological advances, from around 1870 I think, cheap food could be imported from the US, and this meant the British aristocracy saw the value of (and profits from) their land slump.
11:15 we have the same thing in France, for example the Chateau of Cherverny who is still in the hands of the same family. Hergé got inspired by this place to draw Captain Hadock’s castle, and the owners of the real Chateau based their business on this Tintin thing, and it’s working pretty well !
I love to tour large homes, in the US I've been to so many famous homes but I haven't been to England yet but when I do I'll be there loving it and imagining Jane Austin's characters walking around.
I've loved all your videos so far ellie! Even this one was educational but I strongly, strongly disagree with the tone.... you seem to find it sad that these rich gentry folks had to lose weath do to tax from inheritance and land etc when in reality we should strive to make it more equal for all people being born (let's say in egland). These big estates have no place in modern society. The people who work the land and dedicate themselves to it fully deserve to own it. Why should they pay some landlord that does literally nothing but be born into the right family? Equality is not something to find sad. Yes the mansions themselves are a pretty, historical wonder. And they can have modern, practical uses as boarding schools, institutions hospitals, museums or whatever the modern use can be. I hope you don't take this the wrong way!! I fully support you and really love your videos!!!!
Aw, thank you for your support! I was really just trying to cover the issue with compassion for both sides. I don't think equality is sad. I just think that human suffering, no matter whether the person is rich or poor is sad. Aristocratic families facing this must have had felt drowning in anxiety and stress, feeling as if the only world they had known was being torn to shreds. We see how stressed the Bennet family is in P&P just over one entail. Here, the aristocracy's entire way of existing was being taken from them. Which whether it was fair or not, doesn't change the heartbreak they must have felt seeing the family home they were raised in being torn down. Or having to auction off a portrait of their grandmother. And I'm not trying to downplay the suffering that the poor experienced during this time period at all. But I guess I just feel like I can feel sad for both the rich and the poor. I feel like I don't have to pick one side or the other. Because really the entire system then lived in was so incredibly messed up. And, honestly, it still is today. Humans deserve a much, much better society than we currently live in. Anyway, that's where I was coming from at least. lol.
I would like to be the daughter of a gentleman farmer. Or a very well situated tenant farmer like the Martin's with a kind and generous landlord like Mr. Knightly. Abbey-hill Farm sounds idyllic. The uber rich make me nervous, I wouldn't want to live in such idleness and vanity as a fancy lady. I'd rather churn butter.
Unfortunately small scale (100 to 200 acre) farming no longer generates a significant income. Food prices are significantly lower than they used to be in the UK. Farmer suicide rates are above average and their children generally have no interest in continuing to farm.
Seeing all the beautiful and historic country manors being bulldozed hurt my heart. I want to cry every time I see films of that. And I'm so glad that some of them were saved, even if they were sold and became schools or hotels, etc. What a terrible destruction of England's architectural heritage!
I used to work in a Gilded Age mansion turned office space, which is probably the closest American equivalent of British great houses. To be honest, as beautiful as it was, it was always in a state of mild decay no matter how hard the landlord tried, because you just can't afford the kind of manpower those grand buildings were meant to have. And it wasn't as comfortable (or safe) as modern buildings are.
With all the controversy over rather this pandemic really constituted as a pandemic and not just a flu . It makes one doubt the real facts of past pandemics . How did they really get a true count? Were those figures accurate? Who did the counting of victims ? Did the people ever take the time to question the Authority or did they loyally accept everything told to them , since they did not all have access to updated news. Some did not even know how to read then . With all the Propaganda lies being told to us now , it puts one to thinking about what the past was like .
it’s like i KNOW society is better off without the aristocracy being in charge but at the same time i’m so fascinated by their history ??? my morals l dictate that i should not have any interest in them at all…the cognitive dissonance. watching period dramas about aristocrats is my escapism
Liberty, equality, and fraternity! (Or death.) As fun as it is to think about being an aristocrat in old times, it was very unfair that some people had so much while others had so little. Society is better now without the powerful aristocracy.
I mean the official titled aristocracy may have faded in power, only preserved by the historical titles they still have. But the ruling classes still exist. Nowadays it revolves around money and connections. And just like the historical aristocracy, some have noblesse oblige to the less fortunate, others just want to enjoy their perks with reckless abandon. Human society changes so much yet stays the same. But yea, the bottom line has moved up so it’s not like there were no meaningful changes.
I feel sorry for them actually. Aristocracy seems to me like a very beautiful thing, like one of those major things in human society, and seeing them lose their power like that is a bit sad for me, even though I am not of noble blood, haha. Anyways, yes, I would love to be part of the aristocracy. It seems very fun!
I rewired a house in Cheyne Walk owned by a Lord and Duchess, they were lovely to the builder's, but were true aristocracy, the Lords father had been the Chancellor of Exchequer in the 1940s, being one of the most famous addresses in London the house was worth millions, The Lord used to laugh to us because his wife was so attractive even though she was in her late 60s, and we couldn't help but swoon in her presence, he used to say she still had it giggling away and she did, probably long dead now but not forgotten, especially by me, real Downtown Abbey experience
And btw the industrialization of North America was financed for a great deal by British capital export. And Andrew Carnegie for instance although no member of the peerage and/or the gentry, was of British descent.
Another interesting subsection of this topic, which would make an awesome video, is what happened to the French aristocracy and the effect that had on British fashion.
Hello I see you have the same cat tree I have. Someone told me to cut off the littlecat toy hanging from The platform because several cats have gotten entangled and strangled themselves by it! Just thought I’d let you know and I enjoy all your posts
opening up stately homes for a number of days per annum, (this used to be 100 days pa not sure if it still is), the owners get a third off of their inheritance tax. By creating a charitable trust for their property more tax concessions can be obtained. It brings a lot of jobs to local people in the cafes and gift shops, so all good!
For everyone else, they were either desperately trying to imitate the aristocracy or dirt poor and eking out a living anyway they could. I'd rather be an aristocrat than either of those alternatives.
Life actually didn't 'suck' for the middle class or even upper servants. You worked the same normal hours for a decent wage a modern person would do in those areas - which was actually a large percentage of the population. You don't have to be rich to be comfortably well off; you don't have to not work at all to not be overworked. An innkeeper and his wife; a doctor; a housekeeper; a solicitor; an opera singer; a baker's family like my ancestors - their lives and many more outside the nobility did not 'suck' back then any more than now. We just don't have many books with normal middle-class protagonists because it's much less romantic and more boring than focusing on the very rich and/or extremely poor
As an American, I always envisioned the European aristocracy as being close in action and thoughts to John & Fanny Dashwood etc. ie greedy, mean spirited and snobby. I have also been glad our own founding documents specifically state no titles will be granted by the US Government. In the 1800-1900s many of the very wealthy industrialist and large land & cattle owners were colloquially called "barons" as in 'oil, land or cattle barons' and the industrialist were called often called 'robber barons' because of their disregard for lives of their workers (as envisioned barons of Europe). I've noticed many of the comments below bemoan the class differences 'back then' .... however, those classes are still alive and well and all people are basically the same (which, I believe, is why so much of Austins works are still relevant). How many 'ordinary' folks can walk into our National or State capitols for no reason except to 'meet' their representative, senators or president (look at the security you have to go through); additionally, try walking into a 'red carpet' event of 'celebrities' and see how fast one not directly involved with the industry gets thrown out! There are still 'lazy' people with no ambition barely scraping by, ambitious people who work hard and long to 'succeed' (by whatever standards they set) and even a few who are born into a more affluent life (relative to the world, that would include most Americans). The big difference is if there is a true desire to 'jump' social classes it is much easier now than then - not just actors and peers (think of Princess Grace & what's-her-name married to the ginger royalty) - we have many 'millionaires next door' living the life they choose. At 63 years of age, the most humorous thing I have encountered over the years is how snobbish poor people are of rich people (this is reflected in many comments below). Most un-wealthy people believe wealth is gained 'off the backs of the poor' rather than through education of how to manage money they earned - which I think was a big issue with changes in the aristocracy - they were not willing to reduce their lifestyle to save money (think Persuasion story line) - they rather 'keep up appearances' ... the same issue we have today with many moving into the upper-middle class - I want big house, fancy clothes and 'fine' lifestyle (even by debt) rather than thinking of how to accumulate wealth (albeit today with inflation, that does not seem to be the issue with so many struggling to survive) .... Anyway, enough said from me. I have so much enjoyed your videos full of deeper information! Great job! You're awesome!
Ellie, you need to keep in mind that those great British art collections were put together after the UK became the richest country in the world during the 18th and 19th centuries, and that due to the policies advanced by aristocrats in the House of Lords, it has been estimated that over 90% of the wealth of the country was controllled by 100 families. That meant that a large proportion of the population lived in poverty, while the aristocracy lived idle lives.
I had no idea the Huntington library existed, even though I live in LA and have been to the gardens! 🤣 I'll have to check it out if it's ever safe to go out again.
You should! It is really cool. They have a Gutenberg Bible, one of only 48 that still exists in the world. It's cool to see one of the first books ever printed in person (through thick protective glass 😂).
@@EllieDashwood WOW! Yeah, can't pass that up! One of the coolest things I ever did was take a class in college where they let us handle the books from the 15-1600s. I'm still not over it. 🤣
It should also be mentioned that in the late 19th century due to the vast amount of cheap foodstuffs coming from the new world land became far less profitable for the rural land owners reducing their wealth at a time when urban weath was increasing rapidly which had a dramatic effect on the balance of power in the House Of Commons
Whilst there was certainly a shift after WW1 in the UK, the real change happened in 1945 with the election of Attley's Labour Government and the changes that happened in the run up to the 1960s. The art sell-off and to a large extent the land sales were not as great as you think. It was common place to do a deal where the Mansions and/or the art collection was gifted to the Nation at market value in return for satisfying the inheritance tax. The National Trust picked up many of the homes, although the deals often (usually ?) allow the family to continue living there in return for making the House.estate open to hate public for a number of days per year. A lot of art will ended up owned by the Govt (which along with the Queen has a large art collection) and national and regional galleries and collections. Many would remain in the original location, but owned by a charitable Trust.
I still wouldn't want to be part of the aristocracy, I just have too much of a dislike for any aristocracy outside of fiction that tries to actually hold up an aristocratic livestyle. I'd probably be among the reformers and revolutionairies that caused the fall of the aristocracy. However, I am actually decended from impoverished German gentry, my grandma's maiden name has a nobiliary particle.
as a member of German nobility - we lost ours as soon as Versailles was signed. Using the title or holding that rotten eyesore of a mountain top came not in vogue. I have seen pictures of that mountain (it is more a hill than the snow capped things) and thank god the German government took it off our hands - that hell hole - no wonder my family abandoned it.
If a documentary I viewed a few yars back is to be believed (and is still accurate), the Duke of Argyll mans the counter in his own gift shop - at least on occasion. When you’re keeping up an estate like Inveraray Castle, you do what you must! Honestly, I’m not sure I’d aim for the aristocracy, or even the gentry - the Gardiners seem to reap most of the societal benefits of being well off despite “being in trade,” so I think I won’t quit the sphere I was born into and remain adequately-well-off middle-class.
