Lording It, Over: a New History of the Modern British Aristocracy
Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago
newcriterion.comOtherstory
heatednegative
Debate
85/100
British AristocracyMonarchySocial Class
Key topics
British Aristocracy
Monarchy
Social Class
The article discusses the decline of the British aristocracy, sparking a heated debate among commenters about the relevance and legitimacy of the monarchy and hereditary titles.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
9h
Peak period
100
Day 7
Avg / period
23.2
Comment distribution139 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 139 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 25, 2025 at 4:27 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 26, 2025 at 1:48 AM EDT
9h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
100 comments in Day 7
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 4, 2025 at 5:14 AM EST
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45706707Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 9:01:20 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Because his entire identity has been defined by a life of titles and privilege. Losing those - becoming a commoner, one of the plebs, an ordinary person - will be devastating to his narcissism. It will also affect his ability to earn money, because most of his "business" dealings relied very much on his position.
Does this bother me? Not at all. He almost certainly belongs in prison. And he's being thrown under the bus by his brother - or more probably by his brother's court advisors - before more news comes out.
Even so. This kind of fall from a great height happens very rarely, and there's a certain lurid fascination in wondering how it's experienced.
And he still has his supporters. There was an organised post storm on Twitter today from various minor establishment hangers-on complaining how unfair it all is.
Speaking of a country that desperately needs a no kings protest...
The French axed theirs but the French magazine press love a royal, preferably topeless, either in San Tropez or some night club. Peccadilloes sell papers.
People paid thousands for a shot of Lady di on a boat, some commoner reprobate sucking a duchesses toe, seems like hereditary caste system is loved to be hated to be loved.
(That's what "degradation" really means - having an aristocratic title removed, making someone a commoner.)
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cnveqgj957dt
Did his titles grant him any powers or privileges that he doesn't retain? What's different for him now?
Why?
In this country there's still loads of people who buy into the whole majestic nonsense of the royals. I was talking to my mother the other day who was saying how my grandmother was having a big rant about how they couldn't strip him of his titles as they're his birthright and how hard his mother, who protected him, worked etc.
A large amount he's lost is also ceremonial, it sounds like he won't be removed from the line of succession cause that would require approval from all the separate countries the monarchy reigns over to do so (and he's like eighth in line so extremely unlikely given his age).
He's been excluded from a lot of official events already so a lot of it is just making it official.
He's still not being criminally charged with anything from the government.
[1] https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4571/lords-privileg...
A lot of the live talking heads discussing it, e.g. on the bbc, were still referring to him as Prince Andrew, naturally since that's how he's been referrred to all his life, but in the headlines and write-ups they were more careful to avoid it
He should be in prison and under very serious investigation to uncover the extent of his crimes.
Having a class of citizen that is completely above the law is utterly unacceptable in a modern society.
Should not “rule of the best” rather be called "meritocracy"?
The word meritocracy was actually popularized (1) by British Labour Party politician Michael Young in his 1958 satirical novel "The Rise of the Meritocracy" which was basically the Idiocracy of its day- in the future idiots will reign supreme sort of thing. But the book was definitely meant to mock the entire idea of society that we live in today. Right down to how the society in the book defined "merit" as basically IQ plus how hard you work, it was a dystopia that came true.
1: Apparently someone else actually coined the term two years earlier in a peer reviewed paper, but Young was where it broke through into general use.
Automobile, sociology…
Well, yes. You're emphasizing the "Greek" aspect, but if you want a word that means "rule by the best", you should probably use a word that means "best". The Latin word is optim(us).
It would be nonsense in Latin or Greek. But we aren't doing that in Latin or Greek, we're doing that in English.
The word itself is basically a joke about the circularity and word-game bullshit of "well we assign power according to merit, so anything else is necessarily less-just". If it's not clear, consider: "Goodocracy" or "Bestocracy", or "everyone-gets-what-they-deserve-ocracy". Like... yes, sure, but the details are everything, that's just a vague appeal to stuff approximately everyone wants.
It's entirely hilarious that it's been adopted as a serious term.
EDIT: Add some cites -
https://acoup.blog/2023/03/10/collections-how-to-polis-101-p...
https://acoup.blog/2025/07/18/collections-life-work-death-an...
https://acoup.blog/2025/10/10/collections-life-work-death-an...
Non-laboring, land-owning males were the only ones allowed to participate in the democracy, and they lived to ripe old ages just as in modern times, even allowing for the occasional hemlock ingestion.
The Old Greeks cannot be trusted with historic matters. They were victims of indigestion, you know.
It beats strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
I'm not sure republics have cracked that one either.
This produced a very long string of extremely competent leaders, but the cost was too high.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Politics_of_Success...
> this book also shows that the development and spread of primogeniture - the eldest-son-taking-the-throne - mitigated the problem of succession in Europe in the period after AD 1000. The predictability and stability that followed from a clear hereditary principle outweighed the problems of incompetent and irrational rulers sometimes inheriting power. The data used in the book demonstrates that primogeniture reduced the risk of depositions and civil war following the inevitable deaths of leaders.
It doesn't though, incompetence is more dangerous than uncertainty. If someone wants to be a hereditary head of state as a formality, then ok that is one thing. But if we look at the most successful nation in the 1000s it is probably the UK, who haven't allowed the monarch to be in the room where the big decisions get made since Charles I was executed in 1649. From that point it is a stretch to say that the monarch is inheriting power. The power to agree cheerfully with what their government tells them to do, perhaps.
The Queen was known to object to legislation that affected her personally. And the monarchy - as the head of the aristocracy, the biggest land-owner, a major influence on the Tory Party, and a private corporation with significant business interests - can always use back-channels and cut-outs to have its say.
The British specialise in this kind of indirect hinting and insinuation. It's part of the culture at most levels, and it drives foreigners insane, because until you learn the subtext you'll completely misread what's being said.
There is also a solid argument to be made for France.
On the other hand, I guess the actions of kings were a catalyst. (crazy taxation, closing ports, quartering troops, etc)
I'll accept they don't have a good track record for defending themselves from hereditary monarchies. e.g. Nizny Novgorod to Muscovy, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (technically elected monarchy) to Prussia-Russia-Austria.
The real downfall of the great British houses (architectural sense) was the financial catastrophe that 1914 to 1946 was for the British Empire. Top billing in two world wars - and they went from being blatantly the richest and most powerful nation on earth, to needing a US Treasury bail-out to avoid national bankruptcy.
(Though over in America, most of the historic grand mansions are now tourist attractions, for lack of heirs with the wealth and interest in maintaining them.)
And the benefits of British aristocratic titles faded over quite a few centuries, not just recently. Compare King Charles I of the early 1600's (Parliament didn't like his exercise of Divine Right) with George III of the later 1700's (a clever King could appoint his own Prime Ministers against Parliament's wishes) with Queen Victoria of the later 1800's (she complained to the PM that the Foreign Secretary was taking actions without her approval) with Queen Elizabeth II of the later 1900's (she dutifully read her supposed "Queen's Speech" to Parliament, whether she agreed with a word of it or not).
Taxes had a lot to do with it--though, really, in the UK as well. In Newport RI, a lot of the gilded era mansions ended up donated to a local college because, as you say, the heirs didn't have either the wealth or the interest in maintaining (and playing the taxes on) them. A lot of these places were also summer "cottages" and would require a huge amount of money to update to modern standards. I know someone whose extended family owned one of these places (not in Newport but similar) and it was going to be a huge expense; don't know how it ended up.
Kinda? Taxes on the UK's wealthy (not just property taxes) skyrocketed from '14 to '46, mostly because the gov't needed to seize every farthing it could, to starve off national bankruptcy. And taxes were only part of the US issue. Wikipedia notes that just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Breakers needed 50-ish servants to run, and 150 tons of coal a year to heat. Imagine the payroll and utilities to live at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltmore_Estate
Worth noting - in Britain's "good old days", there mostly seemed to be no lack of heirs with the £££££ to staff and maintain those enormous estates, century after century after century. Yes, that was partly social. And primogeniture certainly helped.
A lot of country houses are now state-owned, managed through nominal charities. Quite a few disappeared in the 20th century.
The British aristocracy is a complex thing, with came-over-with-the-Normans at one extreme, and relatively recent self-made opportunists at the other. It's a socio-archaeological phenomenon in its own right - influential, but under-researched, and opaque to outsiders.
What little direct insight into it I have in the northeast US, it gets very complicated especially as large extended families get involved. People have very different goals with largely differing amounts of money and taste for spending it. Best is to run away in my experience.
There are still some ultra-wealthy with multiple homes, but there are also probably increasingly options for people to just rent something for a month or two that's a lot less headache with some minimal staff (if that)--or at least have one of a couple of places be as low maintenance as possible.
Part of this is that the "old money" tended to withdraw from public life after the Great Depression when they decided infamy was a serious liability.
That's why one struggles to name any of the living heirs of the big names of that era, who are absolutely still filthy stinking rich, while newbies like Musk, everyone knows. The culture of what Fussell calls the "top out-of-sight" is to remain sufficiently anonymous that nobody knows their given names unless one goes looking (and even then, it may be hard to find much trace of them). A bunch of them don't show up on any of those "richest" lists not because they couldn't rank, but because you effectively have to opt-in to those, for enough of your wealth to be traceable without great effort to get counted.
Owning a highly-visible Newport mansion could well be a mark of poor taste, among that set.
They still have their grand houses, they just may not (though, may) be in the Georgian or Neoclassical style or whatever, and they're probably not visible (from remotely close-up, at any rate) from any public road. Drive minor highways in the right parts of the country and look for nice (though, not necessarily imposing or impressive) gates leading into what looks like a simple, wooded lot with an unremarkable, perhaps even gravel, drive that immediately disappears into the trees, and you've probably found one, and they're all over the place... plus their families will usually own plenty of extremely nice, but not flashy, well-located houses and condos and such in more-populated areas.
Many aristocrats relied on agricultural income from their property holdings.
Another interesting point is that it seems like the majority of titles were awarded relatively recently as in within the last 120-150 years. That doesn't mean there aren't some older ones but it changes the perception of them from being a centuries old group of warlords or relatives of the king to a group of lawyers, military officers, and politicians.
If we are proponents of hereditary roles, why not go full hog, and just have the monarchy control the show?
I had the same question.
> Whatever qualities or services performed by the original person probably didn't pass to the children
Maybe if you subscribe to the hard times theory. There’s plenty of reason to suspect that certain aptitudes can be genetically heritable, and that doesn’t even address the issue of skills transferring by osmosis or deliberate instruction in the household.
What we are discussing, however, is the existence of a man who has been identified as possessing some competency, and his office passing to his offspring on his death, on the basis that his children may have inherited the competency genetically or via an informal education. Heredity isn’t as simple as that, but at the same time, it isn’t clear that competencies “probably” do not pass between parent and child.
We have several thousand years of history recorded where people tried this and the failures vastly outweigh the successes.
Tried what?
So did the majority of unsuccessful civilizations (whatever successful even means here), whats your point?
Far better than that option, would be for a random family to inherit that power forever, than for a different random family be chosen every 4 years. Because at least then the “royal” family has some accountability to govern for long-term success, lest their descendants be dragged into the street and hung by an unhappy mob with pitchforks.
Whether that's a point for or against depends on whether you think policy thrashing every 4 years is a good idea.
This isn't some kind of super hypothetical what-if scenario. We have historical records.
It went poorly.
I think randomly selecting a president is probably a bad idea but randomly selecting a parliament and then having them elect a prime minister from within that group would work well.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Is it? Plenty of wars have been fought over succession.
Imagine a system whereby you could pole everyone and get a dud leader removed, rather than keep them until they die.
There have been a fair few elections with orderly transitions between governments.
The idea that a monarchy sees itself as accountable to the people is hilarious. They have a record of ruling with an iron fist and killing opposition.
“ When people witnessed our first struggles in the war of independence, they little calculated, more than we did, on the rapid growth and prosperity of this country; on the practical demonstration it was about to exhibit, of the happy truth that man is capable of self-government, and only rendered otherwise by the moral degradation designedly superinduced on him by the wicked acts of his tyrants.”
That being said it is comparatively a terrible way of doing things vs a more mathematically and psychologically sound system. Electing people really is the way to go, all these "stable" political systems are stable at being worse than just letting people vote for everything. As the saying goes, dead is stable. Stable isn't great if unstable means the capacity to rapidly improve.
IMO the quality they have is not being career politicians or business people.
The same goes for the remaining bishops and other representatives of religious groups.
They are also not under the control of party whips as the house of commons is.
You could probably do better by appointing a bunch of random people instead, but what we have is better than an elected second chamber that would just replicate the Commons.
Quite like the European Council. Well if it was the state governors flying in to DC once a month, so maybe not exactly like it.
It’s monarchy-lite.
I’m referring to the House of Lords. They are affiliated with political parties.
In terms of them not being swayed by ‘movements of the moment’, you are quite right. They are stuck in the past. 6% aren’t white. 26% are female.
https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/10/02/audit2018-how-und...
If you excuse me, I just don't understand the implication here - if they were exactly representative of British racial demographics and exactly 50/50 men and women, they would not be stuck in the past?
Ironically the the post appears stuck in 2021
I can't think of a more arbitrary or irrelevant personal characteristic than being born to a family that inherits a political post.
You can’t think of anything better?
Why have anyone elected at all?
Having political control of the country being hereditary, male and white is something that does not represent the make up of Britain. It represents the way Britain was run a long time ago and the current political infrastructure is not a strength.
If political control was actually democratic and representative of the country, I don’t think the situation would be worse.
You think this is an argument against the lords but for the people on the other side they think you are supporting them with these points.
Britain was white country for the last 12,000 years and had primogeniture for the last 1,000+. The UK today is a proverbial pale blue dot on the timeline
But they don't so it's not.
Or was it that one has to be a hereditary peer in order to be a government appointee?
Either way, the greater the barrier to the house of sober second thought being stacked by whoever is currently in power, the better. I’d also favor people being randomly appointed for life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Act_1999
Labour had campaigned for years to abolish the Lords but when they got the chance Tony Blair decided on a watered down reform instead. Now the bloody place is just packed with political stooges and party donors. Over 800 of them. It's corrupt as hell.
Before 1993 all of them could hold seats.
The majority of the house these days is made up of life-appointed peers, who are nominated to the house by the commons. There are also 24 bishops.
There are moves afoot to remove the last hereditary peers, though I’m not sure of the current status of that bill.
If Labour get re-elected in a few years, they have made muttering about further second-house reform, but no plans or commitments at present
Correct, they instead have a 100% chance of being correlated with what is good for the aristocracy.
I'm very curious about comparisions between governing systems. But am noob, so haven't gotten very far.
I too value -- without evidence pro or con -- some balance between fast, slow, and middling.
Senate was designed to counter balance the House. I'm very skeptical of its benefit; both in principle and in practice.
Our State's patchwork of arrangements is probably informative, in the small. Somehow rank States by legislative output, (their) Supreme Court's actions, lag time in pivoting to adopt norms (marriage equality), or some such.
There's a Harvard researcher (on mobile, can find cites later if needed) who concluded that most all national (democratic) govts eventually adopted norms. On the time span of decades and generations. Regardless of their system. Strongly suggesting that public pressure and need to maintain legitimacy do matter.
I've since wondered if we're just too impatient. I certainly am. Or if that thesis is even true. For example, the USA's Jim Crow era endured for 100+ years. And still remains contested.
Would appreciate any insights any has to share.
Then just have people chosen at random from birth to become lords. That makes as much sense, unless what you're interested in is a mechanism that helps powerful families to remain powerful
There is one distinction that sets them apart from "new money": They could not leave without loosing a significant part of their identity and influence.
I grew up among socialists, I have no love for aristocracy, but in times when the schism between rich and poor widens a caste of people that are bound by custom to be loyal to a place, meaning they are reluctant to abandon their local community, might be worth more than we think.
Generally there is a lot of propaganda around at the moment, so take that with a pinch of salt. The UK is not as well off as the US generally, but this does not mean there is a breakdown of society or law and order.
The propagandists would have you believe that there is a massive crime wave and social breakdown due to immigration, but what people are mostly worried about in actuality is job uncertainty and backlogged public services.
There are areas of wealth and of deprivation both inside and outside London. There is political and economic uncertainty because the UK economy is imbalanced, and most people expect a difficult few years and are sceptical that the government knows how to fix the issues (and that vested interests won't prevent the solution)
We have a housing deficit, so abandoned houses are unusual, and mostly in places where people are moving away.
However "having transitioned quite well out of the factory economy" is definitely too rosy. We did "what the market wanted" but it turns out the market is not a strategist. And we have too large a population to exist purely as an offshore financing hub.
Unemployment has been low most of the past decade, although it is rising this year.
De-industrialisation is much exaggerated because there is a perception that the UK makes nothing because there are so few British branded consumer goods, but there are a lot of things made in the UK either foreign branded (e.g. Nissan cars) or parts or non-consumer goods (from drugs to satellites to get engines). While we are at the bottom end compared to other large developed economies, its only marginally so compare to, for example, France or Canada. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.MANF.ZS?end=2024...
I have lived in two English counties (Warwickshire and Cheshire) in the last few years, and have visited a lot of different places this summer (from Somerset to York to Liverpool to Cambridgeshire and a few other places) and overall its a pretty pleasant country to live in in terms of everyday life. A lot of places (Manchester and Coventry, for example) seem to have improved over the last decade or two.
People just don’t have the money to spend on things. Wage growth is non-existent and prices have risen dramatically. For my own part I have get a real “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas” feeling. All we ever hear on the news is how spending will have to be cut yet again and taxes will have to go up.
Being from Northern Ireland I personally hope for unification with Ireland, although without significant changes I worry nothing much will change as Ireland has its own very similar issues.
There are some issues with (lack of) policing IMO, such as the reluctance to investigate "minor" crimes, but this is not entirely new.
> The propagandists would have you believe that there is a massive crime wave and social breakdown due to immigration, but what people are mostly worried about in actuality is job uncertainty and backlogged public services.
I think politicians like to play up immigration as an issue because it distracts attention from their real failures. Both the big parties are try to cling to consensus policies that have failed.
> most people expect a difficult few years and are sceptical that the government knows how to fix the issues (and that vested interests won't prevent the solution)
I agree entirely. On the other hand I think the west in general faces the same problems.
When you say "like Detroit" I assume, having never been, that you mean a high crime rate and unemployment rate? You could visit the ONS: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand... https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotin...
My own personal experience tends to back up what the data here show (no significant changes really) - I teach in a large secondary school and really, kids today are not massively different from how they've ever been. They face challenges in navigating the vast amounts of information and misinformation presented nowadays, but we do try to educate them as best as possible in respect of this.
Cheers and hope this helps.
If I'm honest with you, I wonder if you need to think more critically about what you're watching? Grand Designs is designed to evoke envy (mostly) as well as some of the difficulties involved, which keeps people watching. I don't really watch YouTube but people generally seem more predicated towards watching things that evoke feelings of danger, anger, loss, worry, that sort of thing. In both cases you are being shown a version of the truth that results in the programme maker gaining somehow (money, views, whatever).
I'm only saying this off the back of your few comments here though, so apologies if I'm wide of the mark.
You seem to be picking on a US city as an example of (something) and attempting to apply (something) to the entirety of the UK that isn't a particular city in the UK.
Are you sure that is a wise comparison? I'm certain that Youtube is a source of information, but are you sure it is a useful one?
I live next door to a park and have just stuffed shit loads of cash into an American cruise company as a passenger (P&O - British name, American owner).
I'm alright mate and I'm sure you are too.
Be wary of what you are fed on YouTube (or any major social network) they are astroturfed to hell at this point.
Life here isn’t great for a lot of people but it’s not super terrible either for the most part, we have broadly the same problems as many western nations (aging population, corporations running amok, slow and expensive infrastructure development, expensive housing, low wage growth).
We are still a safe wealthy western democracy though.
I left the UK about four years ago but AFAICT the picture of housing over there hasn’t changed a lot - it keeps going up in price and there’s a shortage.
There are economic problems at the moment, and service provision problems in particular with the NHS. A decade of post 08 GFC austerity stripped public services and hammered government investment, which turned out to have not been that smart. Then Brexit hammered trade.
Closed-up shops have been a minor trend for a while - small shops have been failing for years due to high taxes, insane rents and being thoroughly outcompeted by the internet. Many old-fashioned high streets have become little more than strips of coffee shops and charity retailers, the former because apparently there is no limit to the appetite for coffee, the latter because they often get tax and rent concessions.
It has always been true that London is like its own country, with transport, employment and investment there dwarfing everywhere else, and tackling this to spread out the prosperity more widely has been a consistent failure of British politics for as long as I remember.
Beyond London there’s the ever expanding, fairly wealthy belt of dormitory-towns, and then there’s the rest of the country, which in my last visit did just feel run down.
I’ve been to Detroit, and I’ve read about the decline there. I don’t think the UK is anywhere near that. But it is languishing in a prolonged economic malaise.