Falcon

Just sondering - some more useful details: <BR> <BR>Examples of names: <BR>Upper class: He/She comprising at least SIX names e.g. He: Spencer-Henry-Roger-Burton –Currethers-Leslie , She- Annabel-Margaret-Mary-Ann-Joanna-Lesley <BR>PLUS hyphenated surname e.g. Stratt-McKinsley-Smith <BR>PLUS Other names such as “Right Hon” or Lord/Lady; Duke/Duchess etc etc <BR> <BR>Middle Class – He/Her – One name comprising one middle name. <BR>PLUS titles of professions such as BSc LLB AIB or OTT <BR> <BR>Working Class: Guy – Wayne; Woman – Sharon.PERIOD! <BR> <BR>Sheila – I think you are from the northern part…where probably costs and hence incomes are a lower. <BR>

Idontknow

to Steve Mueller: re: Ivy League university admissions in the US and the perpetuation of a class system: <BR> <BR>I don't know if you went to an Ivy League school, but I did, so I know whereof I speak. Are you not aware of the "legacy" system? It refers to the admission preference given to children of alumni of a given university. My father went to an Ivy League school, therefore I was given preference in the admissions process over non-legacy applicants. (I like to think I would have been admitted anyway, as the percentile of my SAT score WAS several orders of magnitude better than George W's - since you asked. But who knows? If I had to compete on an equal footing with all other applicants maybe I wouldn't have been admitted.) <BR> <BR>The schools often claim that the preference given to legacies is slight, but according to published statistics, the admission rate for legacies at Harvard, for instance, has been up to 43%. That is way above the admissions rate for random car mechanic's children. Do you think almost half of ALL the applicants to Harvard are accepted? (And then these "legacies", like W., grow up and oppose affirmative action??? How ironic.) <BR> <BR>Don't overlook the "socio" part of socioeconomic status - the "economic" part, money, is significant, but people's aspirations and perceived possibilities are based on many complex social expectations that are a result of other aspects of class, not just finances.

kate

Falcon, I'm fascinated to know where you get your information, as some of what you say sounds convincing, yet other things are not anything a Brit would say (eg the North of England or Scotland would never be referred to as the "northern part"). <BR> <BR>Are you an american living in the UK? <BR> <BR>Based on your criteria, I went to a private day school, I have one name with a middle name, I definately have an unnecessary number of credit cards and very basic French, I belong to a fitness club and earn over 100k USD. I guess I'm middle class. <BR> <BR>However, my father came from a very working class background - rented council house, leaving school at 14 etc etc, but now fits your middle class criteria, so I guess we can jump the classes. <BR> <BR>I think the only class difficult to break into is the Upper, but frankly they'll all be dead soon anyway, and are completely irrelevant in this modern era, with no discernable power (and I include the monarchy in that).

Neil

Falcon: <BR> <BR>Less than 4% of wage earners in Britain get more than US$100k per anum. <BR> <BR>That means that 96% are lower class! <BR> <BR>Wow!

Just wondering

Sheila--you're welcome <BR>Do you agree with Falcon's description of the different classes? Is the same true in Scotland? I wouldn't think so, at least the times I was there I felt the Scots were quite a bit more relaxed about everything than the English. (Scotland is sure God's country, don't you think?) (England is beautiful, too!) <BR> <BR>Champagne, I wonder how many of us here in the States are trying to remember if we ever were the "woman (who)proudly showed me her kitchen" (so to speak)!!!!! lol <BR> <BR>I am a real estate agent and I have not noticed a difference in housekeeping among the "classes" here. Seems like all groups have their tidy people and their messy people. But I agree with you about the books. If I were showing an "upper middle or any upper class" home, I would expect to see elaborate bookshelves filled with books that have obviously been handled and read. Not that the lower classes don't read--but I think they purchase lower priced books (paper back)or borrow them from friends or the library and then don't keep many of them after having read them. ANother good example is the "coffee table painting book"--in the higher class homes, it is obvious that the books have been read (many times), in other homes, if there are those books, they still look brand new. Different interests. By the way, that power you have to be able to place someone just by looking at their head and shoulders is scary. <BR> <BR>Falcon--Thanks for the additional information about the names...I don't think I have ever met anyone with more than two names and a last name. Well, maybe once I did. And like Kate, I, too, am curious about where you are from and how you know all this interesting stuff. <BR> <BR>Kate, you say soon all the upper class will be dead in Britain. Surely they have children? Are you saying, maybe, that the younger generation does not recognize class distinctions anymore? <BR> <BR>I think that here in the States, it is pretty much all tied to money. That is not to say that someone making $26,000 couldn't be recognized at someone with a lot of class, but that is different than what we are talking about here. I think that if we came upon a family here who once had lots of land or lots of money and no longer does, we would (subconsciously) consider them to be in whatever class they are tied to by their current earnings. (Except, maybe, the Kennedys, for example.) But I have to tell you, we (in the States) sure are fascinated by the British upper class members. And by the difference among the British classes. If I were an author or a tv producer, that is the topic I would concentrate on for a sure-fire hit! I know I really wish they would re-run the Upstairs/Downstairs series. And I really did enjoy the series that was on tv for years about that woman who was a doctor at the turn of the 20th century, Bramburn, or something? I also really enjoyed that reality show that was on a couple of years ago where that British family had to live in a home just as people did one hundred years ago without microwaves and the current advantages of technology. Liked that show a lot! Are they planning to do more like that? <BR> <BR> <BR>

posh

This discussion is so terribly middle class........

Steve Mueller

<BR>To Idontknow, <BR> <BR>I seriously doubt you attended an ivy league school, since you obviously don't understand the meaning of "order of magnitude." You state that your SAT percentile was "several orders of magnitude greater" than George W Bush. Bush scored somewhere in the top ten percent, which, at minimum, puts him at the 90th percentile. For you to even be one order of magnitude above him, would put you at the 900th percentile. Obviously, such a percentile does not exist.

Al

Class is...as class does. Back when I was working, it was my place one evening to entertain an aristocratic business guest from Britain. My wife and I took this man to one of Chicago's best (perhaps THE best) restaurants. This hyphenated-name fellow went on and on over dinner about his polo ponies, his business interests "on the Continent," his family and his estate in England. He raved about the food served that evening, saying he had "no idea one could obtain such cuisine in America." As we were about to leave, he dashed over to a vacant table that had been set up for an incoming dinner party, lifted one of the plates, examined the back to see where it was made and by what firm, and set it down. The maitre d' practically exploded! He glared and growled at us as I shooed our British guest out the door. We will never forget our guest's remark when we reached the street; "Why did that waiter hiss at us?" Waiter, indeed. Hiss, indeed!

sylvia

Just: <BR>It probably hasn't made it over the pond yet, but there has recently been a similar programme called the 1940s house. The family had to endure wartime rationing etc. The wife pretty well had to learn to cook! They also had simulated air-raids and had to spend some nights in the shelter in the garden. It was pretty authentic and the women of the house ended up looking quite exhausted. What was interesting was that they all ended up lighter in weight and with lower blood pressure. Their cholesterol level was also at a very healthy level.

Idontknow

Steve - well this is really silly, but I'll explain what I meant since you seem to care: my score was supposedly better than 1 out of 1000 people (I was a National Merit Scholar and all that stuff - which doesn't necessarily mean much frankly, other than statistically) so, since, according to you, old George was at the 90th percentile and I was at the 99.9 percentile, voila: 2 orders of magnitude difference. Is my Ivy League reputation safe? Maybe it just goes to show why they shouldn't give preference to legacies!

IDont

So the order of magnitude equates to the number of nines in a percentile?

Idontknow

No, an order of magnitude, when you're working in a base 10 system, is a factor of 10. It stems from the use of scientific notation. So 100 is an order of magnitude more than 10, 1000 is two orders of magnitude more than 10, etc. So since old George purportedly had a score achieved by 1 out of 10 people, and I (hey, maybe I should be president) had a score achived by fewer <BR>than 1 out of 1000 people, you could say, since 1000 is two orders of magnitude greater than 10 that... well you get the idea. <BR> <BR>I must hasten to say I am not a mathematician...

hmmmm

Nice to know that Madonna (period) is working class. Now if someone could just get her to sing on key.

Ian G

To answer the last part of your question, regarding the monarchy and the British view. A colleague of mine did a semester in London and as part of the course met once a week with an MP who was from the Labour Party. He stated that, "We're going to keep the crown." It's a matter of national heritage, pride, and, most notably, of economics. Interest in the Queen, Prince Charles, Princes William and Harry, not to mention their late mother, brings in millions in tourist dollars every year. Why are there hordes of tourists around the gates of Buckingham Palace? Curiousity plus interest, add history, equals profit.

Steve Mueller

<BR>I'm a physicist, and we constantly refer to one quantity being an order of magnitude greater than another (e.g., Mount St Helens blast was two orders of magnitude greater than Hiroshima blast, etc.). No matter how you slice it, 99.9 is not an order of magnitude greater than 90, it's that simple. There may be an order of magnitude in the difference between the fraction of people that you each outscored, but that is not an order of magnitude difference in percentile ranking. <BR> <BR>Also, because Bush scored somewhere in the top ten percent, we can only conclude that his lowest possible score was the 90th percentile. <BR> <BR>By the way, how do you know that you scored higher than 99.9 percent of people? My SAT percentiles were 99% for math and 98% for verbal. The percentile scores were only specified to the nearest whole number. No decimals or fractions. I took my SATs in the late seventies, maybe it's different now.

Sheila

Just Wondering- you really know how to ask tough questions <BR> <BR>Do I agree with Falcon's description of the different classes? <BR>Probably not, but he as joking, wasn't he? If I think about this seriously (and I don't often, it's so unimportant) I would say that I categorise by class either in the very oldfashioned way of Working, Middle and Upper (with sub-divisions of Lower and Upper Middle) or in the sociological classification which was Social Classes 1-7 (I think it was 7?) <BR> <BR>Working class is manual worker. Middle class is white collar worker (Lower middle class might be a book-keeper and Upper Middle Class an investment banker, with an accountant in the middle. Upper is aristocracy. None of those are to do with money as such. You can be poor and upper. Given the lottery, and the pools, you can be rich and working class. <BR> <BR>Is the same true in Scotland? <BR> <BR>Yes but much less so, partly because we're so strongly independent and the feudal system here was based on the fellowship of clans rather than the overlordship of squires, and partly because time moves on and it's not such an issue nowadays- either here or in England. <BR>To illustrate from my own family background:- my mother was the daughter of the manager of a transport company-lower middle class. My dad was the son of a tenant farmer-middle class- who went on to become the manager of a company which grew potatoes. Middle class. They both left school at 14. I grew up in Perthshire, which in rural terms in Scotland is affluent-lots of good farmland and lost of aristos. My dad died this year at the age of 82, still resenting that there were farmers all through Perthshire, from whom he rented land, who in all his years, never let him through the front door, but only into the kitchen (He was an employee, you see, not an owner). My brother does EXACTLY the same job-same company, same position. His relationship with the company owner, for whom they have both worked all their lives, is completely different to my dad's. He has never assumed he's not as good as the boss. In fact he KNOWS he's as good; it's just that one has money and the other hasn't. My brother has been President of the trade association in Scotland. My dad could never understand how he could go to the meetings and vote the company vote, without asking the boss how to vote first. Attitude, you see. <BR> <BR>Scotland is certainly God's country. <BR> <BR>I'm a solicitor- we sell houses in Scotland- and my staff always say that they can tell when it's the house of a friend of mine that's on the market, because they're always full of books in the photographs <BR> <BR>I'm sure what Kate means is that the system which creates and supports an upper class will soon be dead, rather than that the people will be. Unfortunately I think she's wrong. <BR> <BR>Certainly the younger generation of our aristocracy most certainly does continue class distinction. And I believe that human nature being what it is if we didn't have a class sytem, we'd have to invent one. <BR>

Downwardly Mobile

A couple of observations and one honest question: <BR> <BR>1. It is essential to recognize that class and education and wealth each mark something different. It's worth looking at the historical "system" in India, where Brahmins may be well-educated and well-respected but they may not be anywhere near as wealthy as the mercantile classes. That's certainly true in the U.S. - our "moneyed" class may not have any of the traits Europeans might expect in a "nobility" class (our wealthiest people can be quite uneducated). <BR> <BR>2. What some people are actually asking or talking about is whether there is a "system" of stratification that is unchanging and inescapable -- such that you are what you are born. Americans take pride in the idea that someone "low-born" may be president, and assume no one in Britain can entertain similar aspirations. Obviously they are very naive about both. <BR> <BR>3. My question, which is quite genuine and asked in hopes of more than a one-liner as an answer: What exactly is the British monarch's job? I can see that it involves representation and symbol in Parliament and in foreign relations. But what are the powers held by the monarcy? What aspects of public policy can she/he affect? What kind of administrative or executive activities are centered around the monarch?

John

Scottish memory from the '70s – sitting in a room with a bunch of Highland estate lairds – an ex-Brigadier and a bekilted (with flashing Y-fronts) Sir Something, and the Marquis of Whatnot, all gentry and/or life peers (the local hereditary types were well to the south, it being winter) – but born to the class in all cases. They’re talking about how hard it is to find decent local help (to mend roofs or trap salmon thieves, really) and one of them opines that it’s due to the cream of the crop having emigrated. Scotland’s loss is Australia’s gain, etc. The old line about anyone with get up and go having got up and gone was repeated. Took all the good genes with them, wot? Nodding of heads. Monarchs of the glen, oy. <BR> <BR>I’m observing in this meeting that there isn’t a one of these balloons with a chin, or without a clear deficit in some physical feature, never mind providing prima facie evidence that humans can survive with baked beans for brains. Marrying within their own class was a service to humankind; who in hell would aspire to joining <I>that</I> lot? <BR>

Sheila

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. A monarch is a hereditary ruler; a constitutional monarchy is a state headed by a monarch who rules according to the constitution. <BR> <BR>The constitution may be unwritten, as it is in the United Kingdom, or codified as it is in almost all other monarchies. <BR> <BR>In a constitutional monarchy, the sovereign reigns but does not rule. <BR> <BR>Almost all of the Queen's constitutional powers are exercised on the 'advice' of her government. The advice she receives cannot be ignored: in practice, it is the Queen's ministers who make almost all the decisions. <BR> <BR>Sovereignty resides not in the sovereign but with 'the Queen in parliament'. That means proposals need the approval of the Queen as well as the House of Commons and the House of Lords in order to become law. <BR> <BR>In practice, however, parliament is supreme. Once a bill has been passed by both houses of parliament, the royal assent is always signified. <BR> <BR>The monarchy could not survive any attempt to block legislation. The last monarch to use her veto was Queen Anne, in 1707. <BR> <BR>The Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Head of the Commonwealth. These positions have symbolic importance. However, it would be wrong to imagine that the monarch is little more than a figurehead. <BR> <BR>The Sovereign has important powers, and may still be called upon to exercise them. Under the British constitution, the monarch: <BR> <BR> <BR>decides when to dissolve parliament, and <BR> <BR>decides who should be appointed prime minister. <BR>Since the Second World War, we have become used to clear-cut election results. One party normally has an absolute majority in the House of Commons - sometimes large, sometimes very small. The elected leader of that party is appointed prime minister. <BR> <BR>However, at the general election after next, the United Kingdom might adopt a system of proportional representation for elections to the House of Commons. <BR> <BR>If that happens, we can expect to see 'hung' parliaments - where no party has an overall majority. The sovereign's personal prerogatives would then become of real importance. <BR> <BR>It is easy to imagine a situation where the leader of each of the two biggest minority parties - whichever those parties might be - was offering to form a government with the support of a wavering third party. <BR> <BR>The monarch's decision might then be crucial - and in practice there would be no ministers to call upon for advice. <BR> <BR>Not my words. I lifted them off the BBC web site <BR>

Idoknow

Geez Steve, are you sure you're a physicist? I'm a molecular biologist and I talk about orders of magnitude in my daily work too. I understand what "Idontknow" is saying, why don't you?