| |
| Grace |
|
Upstart

Joined: 24 Jun 2008 Posts: 36
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:15 am Post subject: Aristocracy Definition |
| |
Definitions of aristocracy on the Web:
Nobility: a privileged class holding hereditary titles
Gentry: the most powerful members of a society
My questions:
Who was allowed into the aristocracy and its events? Was it mostly based on titles and all those in relation being considered part of it, or was it more vague?
Example: a baron's younger brother (including wife and children), being untitled, would he still be considered part of the ton? _________________ Writing and Re-Writing,
Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
| KalenHughes |
|
Viscountess of the Manor

Joined: 20 Sep 2006 Posts: 1100
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:49 am Post subject: |
| |
A lot of it is dependant not just on having a title*, but on having money and connections. If you're from a good family (and a baron's younger son is) and you have money (either unentailed from the father, or because he married a girl with a decent dowry) and your family is connected via marriage and blood to other wealthy, powerful families, then the doors of the ton are likely to be open to you. If you have two of the three, then you're still likely to be a guest worth having, but maybe more of a "b list" than an "a list".
*Remember, there are only a couple hundred titles, but the “ton” is the top ten thousand. All the relatives of the titled folk were still part of that same social set. And then there are the men who distinguished themselves in some way and became “celebrities” (men of science, politics, music, etc., who would be invited into the upper circles). _________________ -Kalen
w/a Isobel Carr
Ripe for Pleasure, May 2011
Book 1: The League of Second Sons
www.isobelcarr.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Grace |
|
Upstart

Joined: 24 Jun 2008 Posts: 36
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: |
| |
Awesome, awesome, awesome! Thanks!  _________________ Writing and Re-Writing,
Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nancy |
|
Upstart
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 Posts: 12 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject: nobility and aristocracy |
| |
the nobility was made up of the peers and peeresses. Only those who held peerages in their own right were nobles.
The aristocracy were their children and siblings, and any others who were considered among that group..
The Ton was made up of all those who were invited to attend the balls and the dinners and who could gain entry into Almacks'. It was an even less exact term than aristocracy..
The children of peers' younger sons had no titles, were not even honourables, and often had little money. They entered the army, the navy, and the church. Many were of the Ton, some were not, and not all were considered part of the aristocracy.
Mr. Darcy of Pride and Prejudice is the grandson and nephew of an earl. The question is : Is Mr. Darcy an aristocrat?
Nancy |
|
| Back to top |
|
| KeiraSoleore |
|
Moderator Princess

Joined: 03 Oct 2006 Posts: 5898 Location: Seattle
|
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:14 pm Post subject: Re: nobility and aristocracy |
| |
| Nancy wrote: | | Mr. Darcy of Pride and Prejudice is the grandson and nephew of an earl. The question is : Is Mr. Darcy an aristocrat? |
During the first ill-fated proposal, he talks about his "rank" when attempting to show how despite that he's proposing marriage. So I would think that Austen considers him an aristocrat. He couldn't sit the House of Lords, but he was most likely an influential man in society. _________________ Medieval & Regency Writer
keirasoleore.blogspot.com
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NoirFemme |
|
Upstart

Joined: 11 Jun 2007 Posts: 25
|
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:48 am Post subject: |
| |
| KalenHughes wrote: |
*Remember, there are only a couple hundred titles, but the “ton” is the top ten thousand. All the relatives of the titled folk were still part of that same social set. And then there are the men who distinguished themselves in some way and became “celebrities” (men of science, politics, music, etc., who would be invited into the upper circles). |
You know...I'm skeptical of the term "upper ten thousand" applied towards the Regency era. In the books I've read on the change in society throughout the 19th century, it's been stated that the "ton" of the Georgian/Regency era was only made up of about a few hundred families, and that it wasn't until the Industrial Revolution produced millionaires, the Reform Acts of 1832 and beyond (which loosened the hold aristocrats had on Parliament and voting), and the ennoblement of said millionaires, that the aristocracy swelled far beyond that seen in the early decades of the 19th century.  _________________ Edwardian Promenade // blog of all things Edwardian! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nancy |
|
Upstart
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 Posts: 12 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:11 am Post subject: upper ten thousand |
| |
Lord Byron wrote about the upper two thousand of which he was a member.
There were more peers than sat in the House of Lords because the Irish and the Scottish peers only had respresentative peers instead of having all have seats.
Ten thousand is not an outlandish number for all the people with titles including honourable. . There were thousands of of knigts aand baronets and aover 400 men who were MPs.
It really depends on the definition of upper ten thousand. .
I think the prhrase is more figurative than accurate and that Byron's two thousand is closer to the number who could receive vouchers to Almacks', if they applied.
Nancy
PS Byron's half sister Augusta was an honourable because her mother had been a Baroness in her own right. The title went to the mother's oldest son by the first marriage, of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NoirFemme |
|
Upstart

Joined: 11 Jun 2007 Posts: 25
|
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: upper ten thousand |
| |
| Nancy wrote: | Lord Byron wrote about the upper two thousand of which he was a member.
There were more peers than sat in the House of Lords because the Irish and the Scottish peers only had representative peers instead of having all have seats.
Ten thousand is not an outlandish number for all the people with titles including honourable. There were thousands of of knights and baronets and over 400 men who were MPs.
It really depends on the definition of upper ten thousand. .
I think the phrase is more figurative than accurate and that Byron's two thousand is closer to the number who could receive vouchers to Almacks', if they applied.
Nancy
PS Byron's half sister Augusta was an honourable because her mother had been a Baroness in her own right. The title went to the mother's oldest son by the first marriage, of course. |
I forgot to add that the phrase originated in 1850s America to satirize the number making up New York society. It only skipped across the pond in the 1870s to describe the British Society of that time and beyond. _________________ Edwardian Promenade // blog of all things Edwardian! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Choose Display Order |
|
| User Permissions |
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Skin Created by: Sigma12 Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
 |