AHC: British Aristocracy survives Democracy
- Thread starter octaviuz
- Start date
The outcome of such a thought experiment (as I see it), is a world in which the vast majority of members of Parliament are younger or not-yet-titled sons of lords and voters essentially choose between the scions of prominent local families. Government, the military and commerce are controlled not merely by the rich (as today) but by the hereditary aristocracy. A simple conveyor belt from public school through Oxford/Cambridge to mastery of the world. No additional universities, instead vocational/technical colleges serve the educational needs of working classes.
Besides democracy the other major challenge to the maintenance of this state is economic. As land ceases to be the principal source of wealth, the nobility would need to invest their capital in the factories and shipping companies which were the next generation of wealth-creation. In this world, the self-made men of the 19th century explosion in British commerce would be well-compensated employees, rich but never wealthy.
The question is how such a world could come about.
Besides democracy the other major challenge to the maintenance of this state is economic. As land ceases to be the principal source of wealth, the nobility would need to invest their capital in the factories and shipping companies which were the next generation of wealth-creation. In this world, the self-made men of the 19th century explosion in British commerce would be well-compensated employees, rich but never wealthy.
The question is how such a world could come about.
Pretty much false. Just like any other workers some had bad employers, most didn't. It could be, and many times was, a good life.
The aristocracy of Gilded Age was, although somewhat diminished political influence, rich and country house building all the way to Edwardian Age. The inheritance tax and Parliament Act of 1910.
How to avert these? How to make sure that inheritance tax stays zero throughout 20th century, and the Lords keep the right of veto even if they rarely exercise it?
libbrit
Banned
Well, it did survive the advent of democracy-thats one of the examples of the bizzarely adaptive nature of the British upper echelons.
We still have one today, albeit without power.
Many aristocrats were actually maintained in positions of unofficial local influence by the fact that they were still, even when shorn of power, major land owners. Indeed, many rural villages had the local aristocrat as the major employer, such was their economic importance to the local area. Indeed, they were and are often popular in said local area.
It sounds silly, and although i take your point about undue nostalgia in our period entertainment, shows like Downton Abbey do contain more than a grain of truth, and are not far off as a depiction of the informal influence the landed gentry had in rural areas, and in some places, even today, still have. (Longleat is a country estate that is also a major tourist attraction, and if it was not there, the surrounding areas would find a massive amount of jobs going)
libbrit
Banned
That doesnt really hold up, considering the House of Lords was rendered moot a century ago, and is all but removed of heriditary aristos, and has become nothing but a dumping ground for political appointees.
And magistrates, local militia, yeomanry or volunteer officers, members of local political committees, patrons of charities, endowers of churches, and dispensers of more minor and personal forms of local patronage. I've not seen Downton, but I can't imagine much of that makes good TV.
Perhaps symbolic of the fate of the British aristocracy is Wentworth Woodhouse. Formerly the country house of the Marquis of Rockingham, Whig and (albeit briefly) Prime Minister, it was inherited by the Fitzwilliam family and held by them until 1979. In 1946, the Labour government turned its grounds into the largest open-cast coal mine in the world- despite protests from the local miners, many of whom had previously been employed by the Fitzwilliams. Death duties gradually dispersed the contents of the house, and an attempt to requisition it for housing for homeless industrial families was only forestalled when the Fitzwilliams rented the house to a women's PE teacher training college before eventually selling out.
The millionaire merchant class would never be employees - they would be raised to the aristocracy. If you can't beat them, make them join you.
I argue that this was the attraction of Freemasonry, fancy titles that aren't hereditary, and the royal family got involved in that very early on (within 15 years of Grand Lodge, I think). To this day this is true, the Queen's cousin The Duke of Kent is Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England. This means that an ordinary mason can claim things like "the royal family recognises me as a Knight of the East and West", though fellow masons would probably laugh him out of the lodge if he did.
I argue that this was the attraction of Freemasonry, fancy titles that aren't hereditary, and the royal family got involved in that very early on (within 15 years of Grand Lodge, I think). To this day this is true, the Queen's cousin The Duke of Kent is Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England. This means that an ordinary mason can claim things like "the royal family recognises me as a Knight of the East and West", though fellow masons would probably laugh him out of the lodge if he did.
Maybe you could somehow do away with the upper-class horror at making your money through business, so that noblemen would be more willing to try building factories of their own. Since they were quite rich to start with, they'd probably be able to raise capital relatively easy, giving them a headstart over more self-made individuals.
Alternatively, you could try and keep land ownership a major source of income, although I'm not entirely sure how that might happen. Widespread use of biofuels, maybe?
The Junkers in Prussia had a good amount of influence until the end of WWI, so maybe make the British aristocracy pump out excellent military men at a good rate?
I'd suggest somehow butterflying away the Industrial Revolution, but my rusty British history tells me that is before the desired start date
I'd suggest somehow butterflying away the Industrial Revolution, but my rusty British history tells me that is before the desired start date
And nothing stops someone else from having an industrial revolution and then everything would change.
So, the critical change was Lloyd George´s People´s Budget.
It wasn´t made in response of wider franchise: last electoral reform had been 1885, and next would be in 1919.
What changed in the 25 years between 1885 and 1910?
In the first half of that period, Marquess of Salisbury was the last prime minister in Lords. Supported in Commons elected under the 1885 franchise.
What happened to bring about People´s Budget?
It wasn´t made in response of wider franchise: last electoral reform had been 1885, and next would be in 1919.
What changed in the 25 years between 1885 and 1910?
In the first half of that period, Marquess of Salisbury was the last prime minister in Lords. Supported in Commons elected under the 1885 franchise.
What happened to bring about People´s Budget?
It's perhaps unfair of me to be snide about a show I've never seen, but all I can say is that it doesn't make it into the trailers. We may be looking at this the wrong way: rather than trying to keep the aristocracy alive longer, why don't we try to make "democracy" (by which I assume we mean a vote for all adult males regardless of property ownership) come sooner?
Before 1866, the Liberals pushed for a reduction in the property qualifications for voting (from £10 to £6 in boroughs and from £50 to £10 in counties). The Conservatives opposed this on the grounds that the same argument for a reduction from £10 to £6 could be used to £5, £3, £1 or universal suffrage- there was no underlying principle behind the argument. When they implement their own reform bill, they make all adult ratepayers in boroughs voters, on the grounds that paying your rates is a sufficiently clear demonstration of responsibility to merit the vote. In 1885, this principle is extended to the counties; it's only after the war that it's dropped, by which time the aristocracy are suffering. The Conservative decision to go for ratepaying in 1867 sets the basis for the franchise for the next fifty years.
Let's say that the American Civil War is defused by the Crittenden compromise without hostilities breaking out. Lord John Russell, the Foreign Secretary, now has time to rework his universally-condemned 1860 reform bill without being distracted by endless diplomatic spats with the North, and the Liberal majority passes it c.1863-4. With this basis, and under the right circumstances, you could potentially see a democratic franchise in the 1890s.
Interestingly aristocrats and the non-aristocratic landowners (gentry) retained significant positions in British government long after the First World War.
Install permanent Tory administrations from the 20s onwards and they retain that influence (public perception of inherited privilege is the key change that meant many avoided drawing attention to themselves and opted out of doing one's duty to the country in government)
To be fair British Politics continued and continues to attract men (and women) from that background especially within the conservative party.
31% of the members of the 1909 House of Commons came from that background in the widest sense and by the 1920s that figure had hardly changed.
Prior to the First World War, no British Cabinet contained less than 35 members of aristocratic families. That does drop for every party but the Conservative's in the 20th century but it wasn't until Heath in 1970 that a tory pm did not come from an aristocratic background.
Members of aristocratic families constituted 43 per cent of the Baldwin Cabinet of 1935, and 31 per cent of the Churchill Cabinet of 1951. The fall was then to 28 per cent in the Eden Cabinet of 1955, 22 per cent in the Macmillan Cabinet of 1957, 21 per cent in the Home Cabinet of 1963, and 22 per cent in the Heath Cabinet of 1970.
Landowners (untitled gentry) fall more dramatically from influence (replaced by people from business and industry throught the late 19th and early 20th century though many of those found themselves receiving titles as rewards for their success) but even Thatcher's cabinet still had major landowners as ministers.
Public schools (such as Eton etc) and the redbrick university's (Cambridge and Oxford for example) still today provide a huge number of politicians who end up at the Cabinet table.
Take a look at the current PM he wouldnt be out of place as leader of the country in 1905 rather than 2015
Eton and Oxford educated an upper middle class background with aristocratic and royal connections and a wife who is the daughter of a Baronet and whose mother's second husband is Viscount Astor.
Have they lost influence of course - have they vanished from political life no - many of them are certainly poorer - but taxation, war and labour governments haven't wiped them out completely and many have survived democracy quite well.
In fact if you go to Chatsworth (the principal seat of the Duke of Devonshire) for example or any of the great houses open to the public you will find that they still remain major employers (as they have turned their homes into major businesses in order to preserve them and their way of life) and exercise considerable influence locally.
Democracy, war and socialism did far more damage to the poorer aristocrats who couldn't or wouldn't diversify their interests or like the tragedy of Wentworth Woodhouse couldn't solve family squabbles in order to preserve their heritage. It also did hit the country gentry (the untitled country landowners - think Audrey Fforbes Hamilton lol) badly but even they survive in many parts of the UK.
Install permanent Tory administrations from the 20s onwards and they retain that influence (public perception of inherited privilege is the key change that meant many avoided drawing attention to themselves and opted out of doing one's duty to the country in government)
To be fair British Politics continued and continues to attract men (and women) from that background especially within the conservative party.
31% of the members of the 1909 House of Commons came from that background in the widest sense and by the 1920s that figure had hardly changed.
Prior to the First World War, no British Cabinet contained less than 35 members of aristocratic families. That does drop for every party but the Conservative's in the 20th century but it wasn't until Heath in 1970 that a tory pm did not come from an aristocratic background.
Members of aristocratic families constituted 43 per cent of the Baldwin Cabinet of 1935, and 31 per cent of the Churchill Cabinet of 1951. The fall was then to 28 per cent in the Eden Cabinet of 1955, 22 per cent in the Macmillan Cabinet of 1957, 21 per cent in the Home Cabinet of 1963, and 22 per cent in the Heath Cabinet of 1970.
Landowners (untitled gentry) fall more dramatically from influence (replaced by people from business and industry throught the late 19th and early 20th century though many of those found themselves receiving titles as rewards for their success) but even Thatcher's cabinet still had major landowners as ministers.
Public schools (such as Eton etc) and the redbrick university's (Cambridge and Oxford for example) still today provide a huge number of politicians who end up at the Cabinet table.
Take a look at the current PM he wouldnt be out of place as leader of the country in 1905 rather than 2015
Eton and Oxford educated an upper middle class background with aristocratic and royal connections and a wife who is the daughter of a Baronet and whose mother's second husband is Viscount Astor.
Have they lost influence of course - have they vanished from political life no - many of them are certainly poorer - but taxation, war and labour governments haven't wiped them out completely and many have survived democracy quite well.
In fact if you go to Chatsworth (the principal seat of the Duke of Devonshire) for example or any of the great houses open to the public you will find that they still remain major employers (as they have turned their homes into major businesses in order to preserve them and their way of life) and exercise considerable influence locally.
Democracy, war and socialism did far more damage to the poorer aristocrats who couldn't or wouldn't diversify their interests or like the tragedy of Wentworth Woodhouse couldn't solve family squabbles in order to preserve their heritage. It also did hit the country gentry (the untitled country landowners - think Audrey Fforbes Hamilton lol) badly but even they survive in many parts of the UK.
It was surprising how effective elements of the hereditary House of Lords were towards the end of their period. One of the joys of independent wealth is the ability to develop expert knowledge of a particular subject or cause. I heard one hereditary call it 'Government by the Well-Informed" and entirely more desirable than government by the people. Agriculture, the armed services, pensions, art, culture, foreign relations (especially with the less important nations), and some of the sciences all had their well informed champions in the upper house.
Its 'only' 50 years since the Tory party could only find a leader worth having from among the hereditaries - Alec Douglas-Home.
Have the goal of democracy, not to elect 'someone like me'/'someone who understands me', but rather to elect the best and brightest - the well-informed and make those people the landed gentry. Those will the money and resources to become well-informed.
Its 'only' 50 years since the Tory party could only find a leader worth having from among the hereditaries - Alec Douglas-Home.
Have the goal of democracy, not to elect 'someone like me'/'someone who understands me', but rather to elect the best and brightest - the well-informed and make those people the landed gentry. Those will the money and resources to become well-informed.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Turn the problem around.
Instead of making all aristocrats masters of business, make all masters of business aristocrats.
Introduce Life Peerages as a concept in 1832 - the idea of a Lord as a businessman or entrepreneur or technocrat becomes the norm. Have it introduced as a means of achieving the majority in the Lords that the Whigs needed to pass the Reform Act.
What's needed is to somehow segue from about 1910 to about 1980. The aristocracy were the perfect 1%ers. No need to bother with anything as dull as business when you can just employ a few clever bankers to sweat money out of your assets and a few tax lawyers to make sure you keep it.