‘Posh’ isn’t a class. ‘Posh’ tends to be used as a descriptive word to describe other people. Often, when describing other people, it’s used in a slightly offensive or dismissive way, or at least in a way to ‘other’ that person. The inverted snob version of chav. And when describing things - houses, rooms, cars, food, etc. - as a treat or something to aspire to or something that might put the user slightly in a position they don’t feel at ease. And the labelling of ‘posh’ is undefined and totally based on one’s own experience and take. One person might describe a certain place or thing as posh while someone else may view it as distinctly average. It’s about one’s own experience really. And isn’t it wonderful we all have different experiences!
Class distinctions are something altogether different and far, far, more complex. And money does and doesn’t play a part, but certainly makes it far more complicated.
Essentially, there are three classes (or 5):
- working class;
- middle class (you can add lower m, middle m, and upper m) to that; and,
- upper
Based on these very basic distinctions, the working class would be doing more manual roles. These might be skilled, but they would be non or less academically skilled roles; the middle classes have jobs that require certain levels of academic study; the upper class (generally) would talk of the aristocracy, so titles in the (reasonably) immediate family.
Movement between these classes is possible, but again complex and is often only fully achieved over generations.
So, you may have someone who grows up in a very working class background, but goes to university and becomes a teacher/ doctor/ lawyer, etc. and moves into the middle classes. However, they may be proud of their roots and their achievements and that of their parents and so still say they are still proud members of the working classes (though others would probably view them very much as middle class). But their children would almost certainly grow up thinking of themselves as middle class, with things like professions and university seen more as a matter of course than something amazing.
Equally, someone from the M or U classes may grow up to do a more manual job. But they would probably still see themselves as the class they were born to and have the background, educational beginnings and background to set them apart. But, if through choice or circumstance their children grew up in different circumstances, they or their children may one day think of themselves in a different class.
Certainly, because titles generally only pass one way, and money and houses are limited, the middle classes have many members who’s ancestral background might be U. Even within Royalty. Take someone like Princess Beatrice, she’s a princess, her children might have titles (I’m not sure), and their children may well not. Aren’t we all supposed to be able to take our bloodlines back to kings somewhere along the line?
And, of course a W or M may well marry into the U. Now they may not be fully accepted into this world, but their children will be.
Now things get complicated… while titles and education and professions are all markers of the three classes, money isn’t. You can be a Duke and penniless and you can be a plumber with a massive national company and richer than many a lawyer or aristocrat and still be working class. Money and property or lack of do not change your class. Helps generationally certainly, but not before. This is when terms such as nouveau riche come into play and certain members of the U might start using horrid words like ‘vulgar’.
And where does power fit in? Influence and such? Snobbery (either looking up or down) is classless (in both senses) and is used as a defence against something scary and threatening.
Manners are a marker. Words and speech. Dress and knowledge of their rules and traditions (‘who would dream of wearing brown shoes in the city’?!). Education. Jobs perhaps. But really it’s about where you come from.
All nonsense set up to build divides and ‘keep people in their place’ really.