Social mobility

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.