First, I acknowledge that I am likely to misuse terms like aristocracy, privelEged class,royalty, etc. This is not something I know much about, so please have patience.
I am wondering what was the state of the European elite at the dawn of the 20th century and how their situation, privilege, wealth, etc. evolved over the century. I believe that life was still pretty good for them in ca. 1900, but how good? I also think that I have gleaned that WW I had a serious impact on them, and it seems that by the end of WW II it was pretty well over, at least in terms of wielding tremendous power. I am not sure about the wealth, but you certainly don’t hear too much about them today. At least, I don’t. I know there are a few well heeled aristocrats running around today, but I assume that at this point that is just family money in the same way that the Rockerfellers are still around and enjoying their trust funds. Of course we have the Royal family in England and a few other states, but surely they are but a small fraction of was once was.
I remember hearing that most of the European officer corps in WW I was from the aristocracy, and this had a big impact on the war, and the war on the aristocracy. But I don’t know any details or if this is even a generally accepted as true statement. Remember that Monty Python bit about sending men to their deaths to mov a drinks cabinet forward a few yards?
Anyway, I realize this is a bit of a disorganized question, so my apologies for that. If folks want to answer with what they know, great. If anyone can suggest any good books on the subject that would also be much appreciated.
The “low level” ones were small landholders; in some countries (Spain for sure), class pride stopped many of them from getting into the new, profitable fields of industry; in others, some smallholders had had the wit and ability to invest. Many of the smallholders wouldn’t have had it much easier than a factory worker to get an audience with the king. My ancestors were “knight-captains” (caballeros capitanes) of any troops levied from the lands around their “stronghouse” (casa fuerte); during the Carlista Wars of the 19th century, they led those men - as had been their duty for generations. In a more organized army such as the French or British armies, or the Isabelinos, this had stopped to make sense (even more so in those armies which did not organize regiments by geographical origin any more), but the Carlistas were guerrilleros: having each band or squad be led by the man who’d trained them worked.
The “high level” ones had more titles, more land, more connections and were unlikely to be found near a battlefield (their spare sons might be there); breakfast at home, second breakfast with the king. When the stronghouse was sold, it was sold to a man who already had about 20 titles including a Marquesado; my family couldn’t deal with the house’s upkeep while providing education for seven children, he could have provided for two dozen. All of those seven and their father joined the Carlistas (rebel side) during the Spanish Civil War (1936-9); they didn’t bring their own troops (no volunteers did in that one) so they didn’t get an automatic commision, but several of them eventually got promoted to sergeants (one of my two great-aunts) or officers (three captains IIRC, in different branches) - they still had more education, including some study of military history, and were more used to command, than the immense majority of the troops.
It’s a bit like asking “what was the situation of factory owners in 1850”: are we talking about Napoli, Stockholm, Glasgow? A shipyard, or a 20-employee consortium?
From your description it sound to me as if you are asking about “royalty” rather than “aristocracy”.
Royalty are people who, by virtue of blood lines and/or marriages, are given certain privileges or powers in government and society.
Royalty is a subset of the aristocracy. Aristocrats are a bit more loosely defined. People may become aristocrats through acquisition of wealth or power by other means, including skills, talent and knowledge.
It’s also possible for an aristocrat to “buy” his way into royalty, though marriage or even the outright purchase of a royal title – though there must be some kind of practical restrictions on the latter, and I don’t know enough to say what the limits are. I have heard of people gaining some kinds of titles when they buy lands that are tied to the titles, but I am extremely doubful that someone could simply buy himself into the kingship of some actual nation.
Well, there are some British aristocrats who are very wealthy. TheDuke of Westminster is the richest British man. On the other hand some Aristocratic families fell on hard times and had to sell their estate and or open it to the public and see their unmarried daughters do unspeakable things, like be a teachers assistant and gulp marry the Prince of Wales.
Least anybody be misled by my sloppy writing: the Carlistas weren’t the whole rebel/National side in the '36-9 war, they were one of the two larger factions within it.
I think you are a lot more confused about this than the OP is. Aristocracy (in its literal as opposed to metaphorical sense) is a matter of holding, or being closely related to holders of, hereditary titles, such as Duke, Earl, Count, Barron etc., which originally went along with feudal control over land. You are right that royalty is a subset of aristocracy, and some people holding aristocratic titles might be members of the royal family, or connected to it by blood or marriage but many would not be.
Generally speaking (although there were occasional exceptions, and perhaps the original founders of aristocratic lines were all such exceptions) people could not “become aristocrats through acquisition of wealth or power by other means, including skills, talent and knowledge”. You had to be born into it. It is true that people have sometimes been able to buy aristocratic titles from impecunious monarchs, but that has generally been considered a corrupt practice, inconsistent with the way the aristocratic, feudal system was supposed to work (and usually did work).
So far as I am aware, nobody has ever been able to buy their way into royalty. The royalty of any particular country is, quite literally, a family, and you can no more buy your way into it than you buy your way into any other family. If you are not born into it, the only way in is by marriage, or perhaps adoption when a child (though I think that has very rarely happened).
In short, the OP is talking about aristocracy, not royalty, and (certainly with respect to Britain) is right to think that both the power and wealth of the aristocracy has diminished greatly through the twentieth century. Indeed, it had already been rapidly declining for for a century or more before that. (Although, on the other hand, the power and wealth of many of them is still far from altogether gone.)
In World War I, although some of the top officers, generals and the like, may have been aristocrats (Earl Haigh was the British Field Marshall, for instance), the ones who got slaughtered (even more, proportionately, than the privates and NCOs) were the lower ranking officers. These were upper class, and many may have been related to aristocratic families, but very few, I think, would actually have been holder of or direct heirs to aristocratic titles. In those days, actual aristocrats (i.e., holders of major titles) still had enough power to keep themselves and close family out of the front lines.
Members of royalty, by virtue of birth or marriage, generally do enjoy certain privileges, titles, and forms of address, as well as an active role, at least potentially, in the country’s government.
In a country that still has an official aristocracy, like the UK, the Peers did traditionally have the right to sit in the Lords, and so they were participating in the government. But that didn’t make them Royalty, they were Peers, and except for dukedoms that belong to the royal family, even the dukes in the UK are not royalty. The same is true of the lower hereditary ranks marquess, earl, viscount and baron.
Moving down the scale to Baronets and untitled landed gentry, while not technically Peers they, too, might possess certain jurisdiction over their communities, such as controlling who would get the vicarage and so on. In another era these people might have been analogous to Nava’s ancestors. They might also adjudicate minor legal matters.
The only dukes who are royalty, except as noted above, are sovereign dukes who reign over sovereign nations, like the Duke of Luxembourg. Historically there were many more sovereign dukes, before their realms became united into larger countries like France and Germany.
I think the confusion is between Royalty, Peerage, titled and Aristocracy (at least in the UK). These are not synonymous nor are they mutually exclusive. A Royal is a member of the Royal family, usually direct line from the monarch and their spouses . A peer is someone who holds a peerage in the Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or the UK. A titled person is someone entitled to style themselves as something. Aristocrat is someone from an aristocratic (read old and landed) family.
So Winston Churchill, the grandson of a Duke was certainly aristocracy, but he was never royalty, a peer or until late in life; titled. Lady Diana was aristocratic, titled and after her marriage Royalty. The Duke of Cambridge is royal, titled and aristocratic, but before the granting of his Dukedom he was not a peer. Mr Peter Philips is royal and aristocratic, but not a peer or titled.
Incidentally, Earl Haig was the peerage Field Marshal Haig got after the war, and he was a peer and titled, but not Royal or aristocratic.
Also, your assertion about the British aristocracy and serving at the frony in WWI is dead wrong.Many many titled young gents met their end at the front and the aforementioned W Churchill also served in Flanders
Would this weaseling out have been socially acceptable among the ruling class in a nation which called itself, and truly was, an Empire? The very origin of the aristocracy hinged on who could fight better than the others, 1100 or so years ago, so I’d expect there to be some vestigial value placed on fighting for king and country. On the other hand, too, it’s usually not the work of a general or field marshal to shoot out the whites of the enemy’s eyes. Whether of high or low birth, flag and field officers generally do stay well back from the front, since ideally that’s where their greatest value lies.
I’d like to understand how Dukes get “promoted” to Kings. My impression is that, in Catholic Europe, it’s an honor bestowable only by the Pope.
The Grand Duke of Luxembourg is “His Royal Highness” but the Grand Duke of Baden was only “His Grand Ducal Highness.” But is having “Royal” or “King” in one’s title the key to whether one is “royal sovereign” ? What legal, moral, or religious implications are there about whether a sovereign is “royal” ?
I think a dictionary will define “Grand duke” as “duke who is sovereign” but German Dukes were sovereign before they were “promoted” to Grand Duke. Was the status of Dukes of Brittany, Burgundy, etc. similar to that of German Dukes, with King of France instead of Emperor being their overlord?
(Ignore use of “Grand Duke” as translation of Eastern European sovereign titles, which just adds further confusion.)
BTW, in at least one context (nominations for Knight of the Garter) English tradition uses three ranks (or “macro-ranks”?):
[ul]
[li] Princes (Earls, Marquesses, Dukes and Sovereigns)[/li][li] Lords (i.e. Barons, Viscounts)[/li][li] Knights (incl. Baronets)[/li][/ul]
The next two “ranks” were ineligible for the Garter (without first promoting to Knight or higher)
[ul]
[li] Gentry (link implying that Gentry and Gentlemen are cognate and nearly synonymous)[/li][li] Yeoman (property owners)[/li][/ul]
A Duke or a Count or an Insertinheritabletitlenamehere who is head of a country is a sovereign; Kings and Emperors aren’t the only possible sovereigns, and the one that you’re thinking of as “bestowable only by the Pope” is Emperor.
The title may have been created by a King or Emperor and later become independent, as was the case for several Countships in what’s now Spain; for example Castille and several in Catalonia (Barcelona, Urgell…). In the Middle Ages it was frequent for nobles to switch alliances/obeisance, specially those in borderlands, and if they saw the chance to become independent they grabbed it.
This is so very not true.
A big difference between WWI, WWII and our modern wars is that in those days everyone was expected to fight and to die. As most Europeans country were governed by some form of monarchy, the sons of the ruling class also fought and also died.
Just one example from each war. The son of H.H. Asquith died in WWI, at that time Asquith was the Prime Minister of the UK. The grandson of the Kaiser fought and died in WWII.
This is another illustration of how tricky the definitions can get. The German system of honors included many noble families who were untitled, except for the fact that nearly all of them had the word von and/or zu in their surnames. Like the untitled gentry in the UK, they stood below Barons in rank, but unlike UK gentry they were considered noble. Socially, an untitled but ancient noble family often carried more status than a family whose nobility was the result of a more recent progenitor having been raised to a countship by letters patent
So we can’t necessarily define nobles as those who hold heritable titles.
I’m suddenly feeling very German… memories of hidalgos (lit. “children of something” - descendants of such old families) sneering at “those Marquises and Dukes” as “noveau-noblesse, pfaugh!”