To find the British "inverse snobbery"… weird?!?

[MillieV]

OK - first things first… I'm not a Brit, but have been here for over a dozen years. As an "international", I seem to not belong to any particular class. Hence, I'm not defined by the class system here, and I find it really weird how so many people think.

I mean… in all seriousness... I sometimes feel this place is some alternate universe ripe to be portrayed in the next dystopian novel, where one is meant to stay in their own class bubble, never moving anywhere else. In movies, it's always "snobbery" that's portrayed - rich people looking down on the poor. So I'm so surprised to have found that "inverse snobbery" exists. To be honest, this is the FIRST country I've ever encountered that in (and I've lived in many), below are just some of the symptoms:

• People not wanting to see other people better themselves (shock horror, how dare they?) - this one truly p*sses me off

• People saying things like they 'are a working class family with professional jobs'. Jeeez… what does that even mean?!? So what… your great-grandfather was a miner or something… and hence, you still define yourself as working class? Oh. My. God. How far back do you go? Middle Ages? Or back when the Neanderthal was still around?

• People never wanting to hear about a sport that's perceived as posh (and turn their noses up at any mention of them).

… and yes, don't even mention private schooling.

Can someone please tell a 'Non-Brit' why this is? What's this obsession about?!?

But Laurie, who said these families that you speak of are 'higher' than the queen? and you still haven't said who any of these families are. I'm inclining to think what you are describing is simple 'snobbery' within aristocratic families, they are not a class at all, just a bunch of snobs. I think its laughable that anyone can say that they are a class above the queen because her family have only reigned for a few hundred years.....in which case these other families who were there before hers, haven't reigned for hundreds of years also?

laurie

Some families go back centuries, but in that case how blooming humungous must they be. Unless you say only the eldest male line is the one that matters and the other hundreds or ?thousands have been forced to merge into the plebworld. In which case that is a sort of class movement.

And saying we have a caste system is a wind up imo. We don't have untouchables FGS. We do have lower classes but they are not excluded from education, working in any field except toilet cleaning, or to marry only those from their class (excluding british of Asian extraction).

I believe the family the Duke of Westminster comes from is older than the Queens.

Obviously I don't know who all of them are and of course it's snobbery that doesn't matter. My only points are that there is a distinct group in Britain and Europe who are higher in the class system.

And that even if it's a small group given how small the aristo group is, it's still a significant part.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/familyhistory/9975930/Britains-blue-blood-has-been-mixed-for-centuries.html

funny(ish) article (or snobbish?) with some comments about elite aristocracy

The one thing about the so called 'ruling' families is that they don't appear on facebook. Trying to find who they are and who they married by googling is largely a waste of time, only a few official mentions (Burts ?sp peerage?).

It would have been interesting had the Scottish Vote been Yes, how some of these landowners might have been treated, left as they are? or forced to sell up or pay more tax. Sadly we'll never know.

And saying we have a caste system is a wind up imo. We don't have untouchables FGS. We do have lower classes but they are not excluded from education, working in any field except toilet cleaning, or to marry only those from their class (excluding british of Asian extraction).

It's a kind of self-imposed caste system for the reasons explained above.

there are other jobs for the second/third etc sons of aristocrats - armed forces then priesthood (seeing any parallels with castes there perhaps?)

also, what are 'chavs' if not our untouchables?

bit tongue in cheek as our situation is nowhere near as bad as in india for example (which we ruled til 1945 and some say entrenched castes there)

Tess, I don't think it's the case that we had a couple of generations who had free grammar schools and now we are back to some kind of dark age. i think since the dawn of time the fittest have survived and whether you're fighting over who has the best woman or biggest penis gourd in the jungle or you're after the "best" job or biggest pot of gold today it is the same age old fight, part of what we are and why we are here, that the fittest survive.

If you look at money only there are plenty of people on the Rich List who came from nothing. if my immigrant cleaner's son can be doing the legal practice course (LPC for prospective solicitors) which my daughters did that surely shows that many people in the UK can go through the comprehensive school system, graduate and get good professional jobs. I am not saying it has ever been easy. My grandfather who left school at 12 had one brother who became a solicitor before their father took to drink, and 3 others who were alcoholics and shipped off to America where they basically starved in the depression.

Nor do I agree that it is getting harder to pass on wealth. We have never had as many people with a house when they die who pass that wealth on to the next generation. In my grandfather's day people didn't often own their own house, never mind have anything for children to inherit.

I think British, particularly middle class, particularly those in the SE, are utterly obsessed with their DCs doing well at school.

I think the emphasis on education or more specially achieving qualifications is fear.

House prices down SE are mad - you need two very good wages really - the better paid jobs more and more required good qualifications.

My Dad and FIL had the option of apprenticeships - they are not that common these days. There seem to be fewer routes up - I know several people who got stuck in career progression in their 30's as they didn't have degrees - which is surely madness.

I think there is a fear that of DC don't do well in education means they won't get the better jobs and will be excluded from the housing ladder - limiting their future options.

But you can't say they did well because you spent a fortune on tutors, fee paying school or even trips to the museum. You have to pretend they are just naturally super brainy. And their success is their due.

I don't hide the extra help my DC get at home - I see no shame in it - especially when they then fly but I have encountered some odd attitude when it comes up with other parents.

They have assuming and made comments in front of the DC that they are thick - which is unhelpful when the DC confidence is low during the struggling phase or they go on about how that skill, especially maths and spelling, isn't important or they will never be good at them - again massively unhelpful.

Other thing like going to museum, occasionally going to theatre and art galleries and doing on occasions odd science experiment or craft project at home - is what I consider normal parenting so I'm unlikely to go on about it - I wonder if that true of these parents as well.

Though it could just be snobbery.

I read the wikipedia page on class in uk.

the "class system" in the United Kingdom is widely studied in academia but no definition of the word class is universally agreed to.

Class was defined and measured according to the amount and kind of economic, cultural, and social resources, "capitals", reported. Economic capital was defined as income and assets; cultural capital as amount and type of cultural interests and activities, and social capital as the quantity and social status of their friends, family and personal and business contacts.[20] This theoretical framework was developed by Pierre Bourdieu who first published his theory of social distinction in 1979.

These jumped out at me - I know what I mean by class but when you look at it more closely does seem a whole mess of a concept.

Next time I see a blue collar type with a big telly and decent car, I will ask what kind of benefit they have been fiddling, then, sanfairyanne? Since stereotypes are completly alright?

Big telly or a better car is nothing special. But a 10 bedroom mansion and 2 jaguars when your background is unfinished secondary school... Oh well

I married a Brit. So I've pretty much stepped out of that expat bubble. Hence, I noticed this stereotype in the first place! You can't get to know someone better than marrying them, adopting in-laws as new family, etc

Sorry love, but that's utter bollocks. Getting to know someone and their family is not stepping out of the expat bubble. Sticking to a minute sample teaches you about the minute sample. Not the nation. Well, not without the sort of over enthusiastic extrapolation from teeny weeny samples that feeds sterotypes the world over.

I've had two husbands, lived with both of them in their countires, up to my eyeballs in their family and friends, for a quarter of a century. They don't pop our bubble. That's something we have to actively do for ourselves.

As long as you insulate yourself with a boundried circle of friends/warm aquaintences that by and large excludes host nation nationals, you are actively choosing to expat bubble yourself into a comfort zone that quite simply isn't equipped to challenge initial impressions and assumptions. It more often than not ends up being something of an echo chamber. Where sterotypes get reinforced via cherry picking evidence and fixed more firmly in place thanks to confirmation bias. One spouse + family is bugger all vaccination agaist that. At best they earn "exception to the sterotype" status.

When you pop your expat bubble, surprise of all surprises, one (extended) family and a light smattering of mates turns out not to have been enough to gain comprehension of the huge variety within "national characteristics/flaws". Most "national charateristics" ending up finally revealing themselves to be in need of mucho cherry picking of evidence to stay upright in the face of anything beyond the most superfical of observations. It does feel a bit 'duh! kind of obvious" post popping of bubble. But not so much beforehand.

You are entitled to have an opinion on anything. However it comes across as somewhat self important in an "oh we are soooo much more evolved!", expatty way to frame it as "challenging", be it the British class system, Spanish bullfighting, or the Indian caste system.

Rewrite your OP, with the same tone, for any issue in any country. It'll still read just like Sterotypical Brit Expat in Spain Person wrote it. Becuase it's not "challenging" issues. It's an exercise in pumping up one's daily quota of self satisfaction by contrasting oneself favourably with a faceless, homogenised mass of "the natives" who have been tidied away into a box called sterotypes in order to require minimum effort on the part of the person who is looking for a little covert "own halo" polishing. Possibly with a side serving of Rose Colored Glasses about the MotherLand.

What essential elements are required to sustain a class system and distract people into argy bargy between the classes with an emphasis on noticing their (alleged) differences rather than noticing their (very human) similarities ?

Stereotypes
Predjuice
Pejorative tone
Stoking one's sense of superiority at the expence of others

Given the tone and thrust of your OP, which contributed exactly the sort of ingredients that sustain a class system, whilst claiming to be "challenging" it, seems a touch contradictory.

Grabbing a cotton bud to deal first with the plank in one's own eye would seem a more genuine form of challenging.

I believe the family the Duke of Westminster comes from is older than the Queens.

I think all our families have the same age.

Indeed. We all came from Africa. All our families are as old as everyone else's family. I have freckles which means I have more Neanderthal DNA (5%) than most people and black Africans have none but other than issues like how much of your origins is homo sapiens and how much Neanderthal the issue of how old families are is not really the right question. Certainly those who have French names from 1066 tend still to be a bit better off than we mere Anglo Saxons I suppose.

I have also met plenty of people who had ancestors who were well off, rich even but then it all went badly and they definitely did move class 2 generations ago and have remained on low pay although if they were rich in the past because they were clever that can help future generations of that family move class/become better off again.

I would berate anyone for noticing differences between people. I think parents trying to helpt their children do well can help them a lot by ponting out those differences. It can certainly be done along the lines of if you want XYZ job you will need to be like ABC but of course you might not want that job so that would not then matter - whether that's how much full tattoos over your face or arms might help your recruitment at the Council tip and perhaps hinder you in certain other jobs or whatever. That information is useful. However it should not be used to be unpleasant to people who are different.

San Fairy "there are other jobs for the second/third etc sons of aristocrats - armed forces then priesthood (seeing any parallels with castes there perhaps?)"

I think you'll find this was the case a couple of hundred years ago, not now!

And although the Windsor's haven't been around all that long, the Queen can trace her ancestry back to William the Conqueror and beyond.

well, back 60 years or so i might concede

nowadays of course the women can become tv personalities and tell girls they dont need an education (kirstie allsop i am glaring at you) or simply marry a prime minister.

dont worry though, the armed forces still mostly recruit the officer class from the upper middle classes, perhaps having run out of aristos?

Dozie it's Burke's peerage you're thinking of. DH is in that. Having pootled around with his family tree there doesn't seem to be the slightest difficulty in finding out about marriages etc. Far easier than my bunch of wc labouring ancestors.

in fact i cant believe i forgot to point to
prince harry
to bolster my argument

second son
job?
army!

admittedly not head of anything
so times are changing

Er...William..First son...job...navy!

DC was far from being PM when they married and they are clearly pretty soppy about one another. How about they just got married cos they loved each other! and Sam Cam had a very successful and lucrative career in the fashion industry which she reluctantly had to give up when DC became PM. I seem to remember that she was earning more than her husband does as PM!

Correction Wills was in the RAF.

yeah you are right

so first and second born can go into the armed forces while waiting to inherit

prince charles is top general (vague) in charge of the whole lot apparently

totally disproving charges of elitism and top jobs for aristos obviously

It's not a classic caste system on the Indian model with Untouchables, etc, but birth and pedigree count for more than anything else when 'placing' people within the British system. That makes it not really a class system. Class systems are pretty much based on the definition provided by Hexu. In Britain there is the extra layer that means people are permanently 'placed' no matter how well off they are and no matter what part of Buckleberry they come from.

Going into the armed forces was the only option for both William and Harry. The civil service was out, and an association with private industry/business (even a 'PR firm' or suchlike - the art business for example) would taint the family. Service of Queen and country was the only option.

Laurie:
There are a lot of folk on Mumsnet who think they're middle class and they're not really. They're working class in new professions.

To those who say people can move classes -- no they can't. Or actually yes they can, only in the sense that Laurie indicates. No matter how much they make or how secure their home is, they will never be considered UC. There is an impenetrable barrier to UC ness that can only be crossed by foreign money (Jennie Jerome for instance) and even then only the offspring of foreign money are truly considered UC.

Burke's Peerage is like the General Stud Book.

Charles' position is only titular.

Math I'll tell DH :)

Mammuzza

Sorry, love - are you taking this a bit personally?! Everyone else seems to like to debate. And plenty of people (other than me) seem to have witnessed this phenomenon. Yet, you seem to only really 'attack' me.

For the record - I went to uni here. At uni, 97% of my friends were Brits. At work, my colleagues are about 70% British. It just so happens that many of my close friends are from abroad - wait, actually two of them are Brits. It's just that these are the ones who are basically like sisters, where we can all be really direct with one another without taking it the hard way. When I told other people outside our circle (other friends, colleagues) about the stuff we talk about, they actually think we're too frank with one another, and people would find the things we say to another offending at times (but between us, we all know we just want what's best for each other, and that sometimes means being completely honest to one another). However, you seem to have thought they are the only people I knew. Well, no.

You can hardly call that insular. I mean... how many 'friends' and 'acquaintances' do you think people IN GENERAL have?!? From your posts, I feel that you expect me to go around the nation and meet every single person here to be able to form an opinion about this issue.

Also - I would write exactly the same thing about the Indian caste system. Seriously. And I really don't care how you'd take it - you seem to build up a story in your mind about me coming across as superior. When the truth is... as the title says... I find the British "inverse snobbery" weird. I could also have started a thread saying "I find Americans' view on guns weird". And I would clearly say that other people seem to be able to live without guns (which some Americans can find annoying, by the way).

So I really think you should get that "British expat in Spain" idea out of your head - you're the one generalising here now. What makes you think that all British expats in Spain are the same? Maybe because they display certain traits???