To ask how do you know which things are 'tacky/common'?

[TheHydrangeas]

On here I sometimes see certain items, behaviours, homeware, fashion, makeup, etc classed as "tacky" or "common". Sometimes I can understand it, but other times it is things that seem pretty innocuous. Despite this you see this kind of unanimous belief that those things are "common". However I can't really find an underlying pattern to what is deemed to be tacky/common and what is not. Is there any kind of theme or pattern to this? One example is I remember reading a thread where a pretty popular brand of scented candles were classed as tacky.

I also want to say that I am not trying to portray other users negatively as judgemental or anything, we are all entitled to our opinions. I am just interested from a broader point of view - how do certain things become tacky or common?

Sorry should read 'having other people raise your children'.

I think the clean house thing is more about if your house permanently looks like a show home, and you don't have an army of housekeepers working 24/7 (or ocd) it is a bit try hard, and probably at the detriment to your kids.

No one is saying you should aspire to have a house that smells like dog and looks like you've got a hording problem. They're just saying a few toys scattered about and scuffs on the skirting boards is nothing to worry about.

I still think anyone going out looking like a mess or in their pj's is common and trampy, it doesn't matter how much money you have or what rank your dh is in the army. I would judge anyone of any wealth and class for walking round like a teenager with a hangover in public.

Black or white Range Rover with naff personalised number plate,baby girls with pierced ears and those awful bows round their head! Smoking ,drinking in public,chewing gum and any kind of ostentatious behaviour showing off wealth !!

What's classy if you're rich & trashy if you're poor?"

I've always said the people at the top and the people at the bottom often behave in much the same way. Hedonistic and not giving much of a fuck. I think it's its not needing to have responsibility over your life. At the bottom you have nothing to lose and at the top you have too much to fail.

Both groups often aspire to be like one another too. Rich kids often try and copy working class kids to look edgy and cool.

@CanICelebrate I agree with you that what you HAVE is not always a match of your taste. When I moved in to this house, I owned it, but I was BROKE. Nothing here reflects my taste but I'm so glad I poured every cent in to getting a house rather outwardly reflecting my 'taste' - what a pointless venture.

Wax melts and silver/grey interiors. Hinchers basically.

My gran used to refuse to have washing out at weekends. Common apparently. And on Sunday?! Absolutely not.

Also no eating in the street. I still feel naughty if I do it!!

Can I add really cheap looking "rose gold" accessories. Not copper, that lurid metallic pink toned stuff. Usually has mirrors attached eg. Mirrors and found in B&M etc. I bloody love b&m but not that stuff!!

@PatriciaPerch

can't people just be happy with who they are, without being horrible and judgmental about other people? most snobbery (both ways) is steeped in peoples insecurities

Yes!

that would be the end of MN if they were

My gran used to refuse to have washing out at weekends. Common apparently.

It'll be because women who had to go out to work will have only been able to do their washing at weekends. Hanging your washing out on a weekday indicated that you didn't have to work outside of the home, meaning that you were better off than those who did.

The shoes inside the house thing is similar. The upper classes wear shoes indoors because they don't clean their own floors. It's no bother to them if the carpet is covered in dirt, because it's not them who'll be scrubbing it.

Taking your shoes off indicates that you are being considerate of the person who cleans the floors, or maybe you even clean the floors yourself! (The horror!)

When I was at school it was a rule that you must not be seen eating in the street as it was "common". You also had to keep your school hat on and there were prefects patrolling every road leading away from the school to enforce this.

I had been to the sweetshop after school to buy a creme egg which I was going to illicitly enjoy on my way home when a prefect appeared from nowhere. I had no option but to shove the entire thing into my mouth to avoid yet another detention. This is not recommended!

(I am sure many MNetters would relish the idea of prefects patrolling the streets. They would be able to "report" everything )

It's amazing (but not surprising I guess, given how misogynist our society has been historically) how many of these things are very specific to women.

I mean, the thought process behind branding something common because it's something that only women who have to work for a living would need to do!

Respectable
Your point on hanging out the washing on weekends - oh my goodness!

There's something similar in relation to suntans; they were deemed low class because it signified you were compelled to be outside working the fields; instead of inside being fanned with palm leaves by a lackey who also peeled your grapes.
Pale complexions were a sign of wealth. As was being fat

Obvious displays of "wealth" is tres gauche. In fact anyone that boasts about money generally is usually beyond boring. Labels on the outside of clothing reminds me of the peacock parade Kensington Gardens on a Sunday pm.

There's something similar in relation to suntans; they were deemed low class because it signified you were compelled to be outside working the fields; instead of inside being fanned with palm leaves by a lackey who also peeled your grapes.
Pale complexions were a sign of wealth. As was being fat

Yes - anything that indicates that you might need to actually work for a living is usually considered non-U.

Nowadays the markers have shifted, but the underlying intent is still the same. Most people do sedentary office jobs, and convenience food is cheap, so being thin (i.e. having the leisure time to exercise and eat healthily rather than sitting at a desk all day and being too exhausted to cook well) is considered higher class than being fat.

Originally, tans were the mark of an outdoor labourer - definitely low class (particularly in a woman). Then in the post-war era, many of the working classes were working indoors in offices and factories, while foreign holidays had become available to the better off middle classes, so being tanned became seen as desirable. Now that holidays are cheaply available to the masses via EasyJet etc., being tanned no longer holds any cachet (that and skin cancer!).

There's something similar in relation to suntans; they were deemed low class because it signified you were compelled to be outside working the fields; instead of inside being fanned with palm leaves by a lackey who also peeled your grapes.
Pale complexions were a sign of wealth. As was being fat

What if you’re dark skinned and fat? Asking for a friend...

Pale complexions were a sign of wealth. As was being fat

And rotten manky teeth. A lot of royals seem to have stuck with that one.

@Faith50

Respectable Your point on hanging out the washing on weekends - oh my goodness!

The mad thing is that the true upper classes wouldn't have had a clue what day their washing was hung out. It's not as if they do their own washing!

The lower middles despise the WC (mixing coloured pegs! hanging out washing on a Sunday!)
The MC despise the lower middles (net curtains! buying the wrong kind of car!)
etc. etc.

Each layer scrabbles around desperately trying to differentiate themselves from the class immediately below them (for fear of falling downwards), while the ruling elite do what the hell they like and make up new rules about what is considered U or non-U whenever it suits them to do so.

The net curtains thing is interesting too. The houses that most need net curtains for privacy are the kind of houses where the front windows are very close to the street, or even right on the street. Many small terraced houses that would typically be lived in by WC families fit that description.

If you house is set several metres back and you have a front garden with shrubs in, you don't need net curtains to give yourselves privacy.

Quality is the underlying demoninator but you don't have to have or spend lots of money to "look like money".

Taste is one of those things that you either have or don't. It's subtle, unspoken but it can be learned and unlike many, I don't believe it's class or money driven.

Also: common is about how you behave, tacky relates to how you present yourself.

But taste is about class. Learning how to look upper class (even on a budget).
But it can never be done - middle class might be a bit flexible but upper class really is not, so there's no point in the MC scrabbling to achieve it. They just embarrass themselves. There are thousands of tiny social cues and family histories/connections that just cannot be acquired. The Duchess of Cambridge has married in but she is still MC.
There are aristocrats who think they are higher than the Queen!
It's ridiculous really. We should all just opt out and buy/do what we like/can afford with no thought about impressing people.