Social mobility - Revision history

WikiSysop at 16:18, 26 October 2017

2017-10-26T16:18:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 26 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Possibility to rise and decline in status.		Possibility to rise and decline in status.


	Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.		Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.
Line 10:		Line 9:
	In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “[[Great Chain of Being\|chain of being]]”, as it was the general idea during medieval and [[Elizabeth I\|Elizabethan]] times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification” (Bermingham 365). Unlike other European aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, for property was often used in order to measure one’s social status (cf. Marshall, ''People'', 42). It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 29-30).		In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “[[Great Chain of Being\|chain of being]]”, as it was the general idea during medieval and [[Elizabeth I\|Elizabethan]] times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification” (Bermingham 365). Unlike other European aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, for property was often used in order to measure one’s social status (cf. Marshall, ''People'', 42). It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 29-30).

	Sources:
			'''Sources''':

	Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for Plebes. Consumption and Social Identity in Early Eighteenth-Century England.” ''The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text''. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997. 362-382.		Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for Plebes. Consumption and Social Identity in Early Eighteenth-Century England.” ''The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text''. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997. 362-382.

WikiSysop at 16:17, 26 October 2017

2017-10-26T16:17:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:17, 26 October 2017
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.		Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.

	That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ (cf. Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 32) - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of the aristocracy. This, however, was a long-term project, and sometimes, the integration of new families into the elite could take two or three generations (cf. Mc Cahill, 601). Anyway, one may still speak of a kind of “open elite” to some extent (McCahill, 601). Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 34). A comment in ''The World'' from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).		That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ (cf. Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 32) - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the [[Gentry\|gentry]] or even [[Nobility\|nobility]], by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of the aristocracy. This, however, was a long-term project, and sometimes, the integration of new families into the elite could take two or three generations (cf. Mc Cahill, 601). Anyway, one may still speak of a kind of “open elite” to some extent (McCahill, 601). Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 34). A comment in ''The World'' from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).

	Anyway, this principle did work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if one was a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, one's fall was often brutal and at the most, one became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor (cf. Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 34).		Anyway, this principle did work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of [[Primogeniture\|primogeniture]] was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if one was a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, one's fall was often brutal and at the most, one became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor (cf. Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 34).

	In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the ~~“chain~~ of ~~being”~~, as it was the general idea during medieval and Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification” (Bermingham 365). Unlike other European aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, for property was often used in order to measure one’s social status (cf. Marshall, ''People'', 42). It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 29-30).		In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “[[Great Chain of Being\|chain of being]]”, as it was the general idea during medieval and [[Elizabeth I\|Elizabethan]] times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification” (Bermingham 365). Unlike other European aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, for property was often used in order to measure one’s social status (cf. Marshall, ''People'', 42). It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 29-30).

	Sources:		Sources:

Pankratz at 16:40, 27 January 2014

2014-01-27T16:40:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 27 January 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.		Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.

	That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ (cf. Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 32) - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of aristocracy . This, however, was a long-term project, and sometimes, the integration of new families into the elite could take two or three generations (cf. Mc Cahill, 601). Anyway, one may still speak of a kind of “open elite” to some ~~extend~~ (McCahill, 601). Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 34). A comment in ''The World'' from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).		That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ (cf. Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 32) - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of the aristocracy. This, however, was a long-term project, and sometimes, the integration of new families into the elite could take two or three generations (cf. Mc Cahill, 601). Anyway, one may still speak of a kind of “open elite” to some extent (McCahill, 601). Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 34). A comment in ''The World'' from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).

	Anyway, this principle did work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if one was a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, one's fall was often brutal and at the most, one became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor (cf. Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 34).		Anyway, this principle did work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if one was a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, one's fall was often brutal and at the most, one became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor (cf. Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 34).

Amelie at 12:01, 25 January 2014

2014-01-25T12:01:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:01, 25 January 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.		Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.

	That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ '''~~[source~~, ~~please]'''~~ - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of aristocracy ~~(this~~, however, was a long-term project). ~~Hence~~, ~~the term Open Aristocracy was coined '''[source??]'''~~ to ~~describe this new situation~~. Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall 34). A comment in ''The World'' from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).		That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ (cf. Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 32) - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of aristocracy . This, however, was a long-term project, and sometimes, the integration of new families into the elite could take two or three generations (cf. Mc Cahill, 601). Anyway, one may still speak of a kind of “open elite” to some extend (McCahill, 601). Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 34). A comment in ''The World'' from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).

	Anyway, this principle did work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if one was a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, one's fall was often brutal and at the most, one became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor. ''~~'[source??]'~~''		Anyway, this principle did work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if one was a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, one's fall was often brutal and at the most, one became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor (cf. Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 34).

	In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during medieval and Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification” ~~'''[page??]'''~~. Unlike other European aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, ~~since Britain~~ was ~~highly marked by a "mentality of property"~~ ''~~'[source??]'~~''. It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall 29-30).		In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during medieval and Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification” (Bermingham 365). Unlike other European aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, for property was often used in order to measure one’s social status (cf. Marshall, ''People'', 42). It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall, ''Eighteenth Century'', 29-30).

	Sources:		Sources:

	Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for Plebes. Consumption and Social Identity in Early Eighteenth-Century England.” ''The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text''. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997. ~~'''[pages??]'''~~		Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for Plebes. Consumption and Social Identity in Early Eighteenth-Century England.” ''The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text''. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997. 362-382.

	Marshall, Dorothy. ''Eighteenth Century England''. London and Southhampton: Longmans, 1962.		Marshall, Dorothy. ''Eighteenth Century England''. London and Southhampton: Longmans, 1962.

			Marshall, Dorothy. ''English people in the Eighteenth Century''. London: Longmans, 1962.

			McCahill, Michael W. “Open Elites: Recruitment to the French Noblesse and the English Aristocracy in the Eighteenth Century.” ''Albion. A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies'' 30 (1998): 599-629.

WikiSysop at 15:24, 21 January 2014

2014-01-21T15:24:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 21 January 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.		Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.

	That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ [source, please] - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of aristocracy (this, however, was a long-term project). Hence, the term Open Aristocracy was coined [source??] to describe this new situation. Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall 34). A comment in ''The World'' from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).		That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ '''[source, please]''' - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of aristocracy (this, however, was a long-term project). Hence, the term Open Aristocracy was coined '''[source??]''' to describe this new situation. Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall 34). A comment in ''The World'' from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).

	Anyway, this principle did work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if one was a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, one's fall was often brutal and at the most, one became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor. [source??]		Anyway, this principle did work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if one was a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, one's fall was often brutal and at the most, one became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor. '''[source??]'''

	In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during medieval and Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification” [page??]. Unlike other European aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, since Britain was highly marked by a "mentality of property" [source??]. It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall 29-30).		In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during medieval and Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification” '''[page??]'''. Unlike other European aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, since Britain was highly marked by a "mentality of property" '''[source??]'''. It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall 29-30).

	Sources:		Sources:

	Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for ~~plebes~~. Consumption and ~~social identity~~ in ~~early eighteenth~~-~~century~~ England.” ''The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text''. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997. [pages??]		Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for Plebes. Consumption and Social Identity in Early Eighteenth-Century England.” ''The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text''. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997. '''[pages??]'''

	Marshall, Dorothy. ''Eighteenth Century England''. London and Southhampton: Longmans, 1962.		Marshall, Dorothy. ''Eighteenth Century England''. London and Southhampton: Longmans, 1962.

Pankratz at 16:38, 17 December 2013

2013-12-17T16:38:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 17 December 2013
Line 6:		Line 6:
	That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ [source, please] - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of aristocracy (this, however, was a long-term project). Hence, the term Open Aristocracy was coined [source??] to describe this new situation. Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall 34). A comment in ''The World'' from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).		That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ [source, please] - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of aristocracy (this, however, was a long-term project). Hence, the term Open Aristocracy was coined [source??] to describe this new situation. Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall 34). A comment in ''The World'' from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).

	Anyway, this principle did ~~of course~~ work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if ~~you were~~ a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, ~~your~~ fall was often brutal and at the most, ~~you~~ became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor.		Anyway, this principle did work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if one was a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, one's fall was often brutal and at the most, one became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor. [source??]
	In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification”. Unlike other European ~~Aristocracies~~, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, since Britain was highly marked by a ~~Mentality~~ of ~~Property~~. It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall~~, 29f.~~).
			In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during medieval and Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification” [page??]. Unlike other European aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, since Britain was highly marked by a "mentality of property" [source??]. It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall 29-30).

	Sources:		Sources:
	Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for plebes. Consumption and social identity in early eighteenth-century England.” The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997.
	Marshall, Dorothy. Eighteenth Century England. London and Southhampton: Longmans, 1962.		Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for plebes. Consumption and social identity in early eighteenth-century England.” ''The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text''. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997. [pages??]

			Marshall, Dorothy. ''Eighteenth Century England''. London and Southhampton: Longmans, 1962.

Pankratz at 16:34, 17 December 2013

2013-12-17T16:34:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 17 December 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility~~, as it had never been acknowledged before~~. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that rather oriented ~~among~~ personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.		Possibility to rise and decline in status.
	That was particularly interesting for the ~~Middle Sorts~~ – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ - whose members were now able to make their way into gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by ~~simply~~ marrying a member of ~~Aristocracy~~. Hence, the term Open Aristocracy was coined to describe this new situation of uprising middle class-members, who managed to gradually work their way up. However, what was of course strikingly important was the personal wealth, since one could only afford an adequate piece of land if one had become almost impudently rich by their work, or, when it came to marrying their way into Aristocracy, if one could pay the dowry to their spouse-to-be. Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall, 34). A comment in The World from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham, 364).
	Anyway, this principle did of course work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families ~~‘suffered’~~ from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if ~~you were~~ not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit ~~your~~ father’s property, ~~you~~ had to chose a career, which was usually below the class ~~you were~~ born into, such as a military career or becoming a clergy, lawyer etc. Again, for upper class-daughters, who were mainly restricted to marrying in order to maintain their social status or to move either up- or downwards, it was nothing unusual to be married to middle class-men, such as merchants. However, if you were a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, your fall was often brutal and at the most, you became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor.
			Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that was rather oriented towards personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.

			That was particularly interesting for the middle classes – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ [source, please] - whose (male) members were now able to make their way into the gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by marrying a member of aristocracy (this, however, was a long-term project). Hence, the term Open Aristocracy was coined [source??] to describe this new situation. Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall 34). A comment in ''The World'' from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham 364).

			Anyway, this principle did of course work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families suffered from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if one was not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit one's father’s property, one had to chose a career, which was usually below the class one was born into, such as a military career or becoming a member of the clergy, lawyer etc. However, if you were a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, your fall was often brutal and at the most, you became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor.
	In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification”. Unlike other European Aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, since Britain was highly marked by a Mentality of Property. It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall, 29f.).		In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification”. Unlike other European Aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, since Britain was highly marked by a Mentality of Property. It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall, 29f.).

Amelie at 12:01, 14 December 2013

2013-12-14T12:01:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:01, 14 December 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility, as it had never been acknowledged before. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that rather oriented among personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.		Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility, as it had never been acknowledged before. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that rather oriented among personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.
	That was particularly interesting for the Middle Sorts – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ - whose members were now able to make their way into gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by simply marrying a member of Aristocracy. Hence, the term Open Aristocracy was coined to describe this new situation of uprising middle class-members, who managed to gradually work their way up. However, what was of course strikingly important was the personal wealth, since one could only afford an adequate piece of land if one had become almost impudently rich by their work, or, when it came to marrying their way into Aristocracy, if one could pay the dowry to their spouse-to-be. Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall, 34). A comment in The World from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham, 364).		That was particularly interesting for the Middle Sorts – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ - whose members were now able to make their way into gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by simply marrying a member of Aristocracy. Hence, the term Open Aristocracy was coined to describe this new situation of uprising middle class-members, who managed to gradually work their way up. However, what was of course strikingly important was the personal wealth, since one could only afford an adequate piece of land if one had become almost impudently rich by their work, or, when it came to marrying their way into Aristocracy, if one could pay the dowry to their spouse-to-be. Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall, 34). A comment in The World from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham, 364).
	Anyway, this principle did of course work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families ‘suffered’ from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if you were not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit your father’s property, you had to chose a career, which was usually below the class you were born into, such as a military career or becoming a clergy, lawyer etc. Again, for upper class-daughters, who were mainly restricted to marrying in order to maintain their social status or to move either up- or downwards, it was nothing unusual to be married to middle class-men, such as merchants. However, if you were a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, your fall was often brutal and at the most, you became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor.		Anyway, this principle did of course work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families ‘suffered’ from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if you were not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit your father’s property, you had to chose a career, which was usually below the class you were born into, such as a military career or becoming a clergy, lawyer etc. Again, for upper class-daughters, who were mainly restricted to marrying in order to maintain their social status or to move either up- or downwards, it was nothing unusual to be married to middle class-men, such as merchants. However, if you were a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, your fall was often brutal and at the most, you became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor.
	In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification”. Unlike other European Aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, since Britain was highly marked by a Mentality of Property. It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall, 29f.).		In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification”. Unlike other European Aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, since Britain was highly marked by a Mentality of Property. It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall, 29f.).

	Sources:		Sources:
	Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for plebes. Consumption and social identity in early eighteenth-century England.” The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997.		Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for plebes. Consumption and social identity in early eighteenth-century England.” The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997.
	Marshall, Dorothy. Eighteenth Century England. London and Southhampton: Longmans, 1962.		Marshall, Dorothy. Eighteenth Century England. London and Southhampton: Longmans, 1962.

Amelie: Created page with "Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distingui..."

2013-12-14T11:56:19Z

Created page with "Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distingui..."

New page

Although very much alike in terms of hierarchical structure and different shares of the population, British society of the 18th century had but one key feature which distinguished it from other European countries, namely the fact that it was marked by a kind of social mobility, as it had never been acknowledged before. Economically speaking, Britain shifted from a rural to an urban society and turned from feudal relationships to market relationships. Along with these processes went a shift from a social hierarchy, which used to be defined by birth and heredity only, to a hierarchy that rather oriented among personal wealth and status. People were no longer bound to the class they were born into, but they could now rise or fall and therefore move upwards or downwards in the ranking of classes.
That was particularly interesting for the Middle Sorts – contemporarily labelled as ‘the Middling Sort’ - whose members were now able to make their way into gentry or even nobility, by either becoming rich enough to claim a “Stake in the Country” or by simply marrying a member of Aristocracy. Hence, the term Open Aristocracy was coined to describe this new situation of uprising middle class-members, who managed to gradually work their way up. However, what was of course strikingly important was the personal wealth, since one could only afford an adequate piece of land if one had become almost impudently rich by their work, or, when it came to marrying their way into Aristocracy, if one could pay the dowry to their spouse-to-be. Very often, middle-classed people were in fact very rich and could spend more money than members of the gentry could. Plainly enough, historians describe that “those that made enough [money] passed into the ranks of the gentry” (Marshall, 34). A comment in The World from 1755 even went so far to say that “We are a Nation of Gentry. We have no such thing as Common People among us” (Bermingham, 364).
Anyway, this principle did of course work the other way round, too. Especially younger sons of upper class families ‘suffered’ from this because the principle of primogeniture was still at work at that time. Consequently, if you were not the first-born son and therefore were not entitled to inherit your father’s property, you had to chose a career, which was usually below the class you were born into, such as a military career or becoming a clergy, lawyer etc. Again, for upper class-daughters, who were mainly restricted to marrying in order to maintain their social status or to move either up- or downwards, it was nothing unusual to be married to middle class-men, such as merchants. However, if you were a member of the Middle Sorts but failed to become rich and successful, your fall was often brutal and at the most, you became a part of the large numbers of the labouring poor.
In other words, social hierarchies in Britain became more fluid in the course of the 18th century. People were no longer stuck in the “chain of being”, as it was the general idea during Elizabethan times, but had the chance to change. Lawrence E. Klein even argues that the “eighteenth century social change and particularly social mobility disrupted inherited categories of social classification”. Unlike other European Aristocracies, the British one did at least give the impression of being inclusive. However, one’s only chance to really rise up socially was to get property, since Britain was highly marked by a Mentality of Property. It is therefore said that “whatever the source of his wealth, as soon as he could, a man bought land”, in order to “enter the charmed circle of the landed gentry” (Marshall, 29f.).

Sources:
Klein, Lawrence E. “Politeness for plebes. Consumption and social identity in early eighteenth-century England.” The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800. Image, Object, Text. Eds. Ann Bermingham and John Brewer. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Marshall, Dorothy. Eighteenth Century England. London and Southhampton: Longmans, 1962.