I find this strange. I lived in the UK for three years, my wife’s English, I visit regularly. I can’t think of anyone ever using the term except in jest.
The acerbic needler Paul Fussell, all of whose books I ended up collecting because I couldn’t resist his style, wrote a lovely book two decades ago that is now out of date, called Class: A Guide Through the American Status System. He began by saying that if you ask Americans whether they have classes, ninety-five percent of them deny that any such thing exists. Then if you get them comfortable and ask them how they identify people from other classes, they tell you all about it. They turn out to be very good at identifying people’s class from a few sharp visual and aural cues.
He was very funny about some of the cues; for instance, when describing the “prole gap”, a space between the back of a badly-fitting man’s suit and the man’s neck, he used a cartoon of Ronald Reagan as an illustration. And he was also quite clear about the fact that you can migrate from class to class in America, that wealth is very far from the only deciding characteristic, and that cues like accent are important in America as well. (Compare Jimmy Carter’s Southern-tinged humble voice with John Kerry’s voice. Which man is higher class? Not which has more power, which is higher class?)
He came up with his own divisions for class in America. They were: top out of sight (people so rich they won’t let you know they exist), upper class (inborn millionaires; one distinguishing characteristic is they’re not interested in solving intellectual problems by thinking), upper middle (wealthy surgeons and lawyers as an example - they do think in their jobs - consider it a required characteristic to belong to their class), middle class (the majority), high prole (top of the line manual workers who may own their own company or be foreman of their floor - electricians, plumbers, etc), middle prole (manual labor that doesn’t require advanced training and skill - painters who are not in charge of the company), low prole (really unskilled labor - fast food, cleaning commercial property, picking food in fields; distinguishing characteristic is that whatever they do, someone suspicious and hostile is always monitoring them, and they have no freedom to make decisions at work); bottom out of sight (homeless - out of sight because they have no impact in society - no vote, no protest, no nothing except destitution).
One of the things that really amused me about his book was his description of what people in each class tend to spend their money on. High prole and lower middle may make the exact same amount. But high prole will have a trailer or a tiny house with a big SUV and a satellite dish (back then; nowadays would be “a flat-screen TV”), while lower middle will have a neat and tidy house with an encyclopedia (back then) in all its volumes. Reminds me of my husband’s class, which he calls “lace-curtain Irish”.
(A quick and pleasant review of the book with more info: Class by Paul Fussell
One of the things that really depressed me about his book was his dissection of the worth of “a college education”. Because my class, which was an uneasy blend of one upper-middle and one lower-middle parent (and I realized after reading it that my best friend at the time was the product of the exact same cross-class union), always believed in two firm goals: 1) education 2) escaping your class to move up. (Not everyone wants to escape his or her class even in America; high proles often have no wish for their kids to grow up middle.)
The point he made about a college education was that all colleges are not created equal. In the eyes of those who make hiring and firing decisions at the upper middle and upper level, only Ivy League colleges are colleges. All the religious universities, most of the state schools, all the community colleges, do not count. There was a lovely if painful vignette when a hirer asked an aspiring applicant (aspiring to change class as well as jobs) where his college was located? “Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, sir.” Hirer (turning his face aside as if in front of an unfortunate death in the street) “I see.”
Any time I hear Americans claiming that we have no class in America, or that class and race aren’t intertwined, I think of Paul Fussell.
I do remember with hope that the last word of his text was a slim chapter of a few pages called “Class X”, dedicated to those who had managed to bollix the system and create a classless class of their own.
I appreciate that things have changed from Victorian days, when servants lived below stairs, and being ‘in trade’ was common.
Nevertheless, ‘public’ schools (which in Britain means private expensive schools 
) are where politicans send their kids.
Inheritance tax is paid by the middle classes who inherit a house. Upper class people have tax accountants who set up trusts to avoid this sort of inconvenience.
Getting into Oxbridge (Oxford + Cambridge, our top two Universities) is far easier if you have money for private education.
Hereditary class structure is actually pretty much a dead letter in the U.K. though the extreme left politically still try to make a meal of it . Our H.O.S is hereditary for the most part,though our parliament as a whole , can and does "deselect "the heir apparent if they are considered unsuitable for the job,precedents Charles1,James2 and in the 20thc Edward who was forced to abdicate NOT because Wallis Simpson was a divorcee(that was merely a face saving excuse for all parties concerned) but because she and her ex husband (with whom she was still close )were “swingers” into group sex or any sort of sex for that matter !were not above performing currency frauds and the like but most seriously of all were N.A.Z.I. sympathisers and were almost certainly working for the Germans and this on the eve of W.W 2. Our H.O.S. functions differently from the U.S. president ,the president actually formulates and sees to the implementation of policy ,a role performed by our primeminister. Our H.O.S. s MOST important job is to act as an apolitical legitimiser of elected government and its democratically arrived at legislation .If a British government tried to outstay its time by not standing for reelection at the required intervals,or refused to accept the results of a fair ballot , declared a state of emergency for no good reason,or if elected into an overwhelming majority then proceeded to try and enact some totally fundamental legislation (like nationalising the banking system or requiring certain ethnic groups to wear identification patches) that was NOT in its election manifesto then the Queen would dissolve parliament (wether or not the "government “wanted to or not) and call for a general election .Our H.O.S. has to sign EVERY single peice of legislation passed by parliament for it to become law. If a government refused to step down the Queen would withdraw her labour ,no legislation would become law ,the civil service would refuse to implement the legislation without any individual having to fear repercussions ,the police and the armed forces would likewise not even attempt to enforce new laws . The “government” would have no legitimacy so that other countries wouldnt bother entering into any treatys or trade deals with them ,or even send new ambassadors for accreditation. Ah but this is Britain !I hear you say,it hasnt happened in modern times and is unlikely ever to!Thats the beauty of it , any of our politicians with ideas of ruling by “dictat” know that there is no point even trying so they dont ! But you may still think that it is unfair and unjust that one particular family (unless parliament gives them the boot !) inherits the top position in the land ,over the years and the centuries a little tinkering here ,a little tinkering there has turned it into a most effective system ,not being a political hack the Queen /King does not have to go through all the process of political wheeling and dealing with political cronies and opponents ,favours given here ,concessions made there ! They have the position for life and they dont even need to dicker for someone of their choice to take over when theyve gone ,its already settled !so in effect they are unbribable and unpressurable with political favours ,independantly wealthy (while theyve got the job the r/f have “lent"the crown estates to our gov. who accrues all the revenue from them so we actually make a profit out of the Windsors !) they are financially unbribable and frankly haven`t got very much to spend their money on ,routinly granted a plethora of titles ,the Duke of this ,the colonel of that etc. they cant even be bribed with titles so we have just about as much of an” honest broker” that is feasibly possible. Being brought up from birth in diplomatic circles thay have instilled in them the way international politics functions ,for example the Queen knows most of the worlds major leaders past and present ,personally and as such their little idiosynchrancies and how they think ,and as a dynastic job they very much have a sense of history AND duty drilled into them so that their commitment to the task is much more engrained then in any other form of employment . They pay for the position by (until now) not being able to marry who they want to but who the politicos tell them to,by having no privacy from the media FOR LIFE and for they and their loved ones being under threat from terrorists ,criminals ,stalkers and loonies FOR LIFE. it must be somewhat like being in prison.
Fussell’s book, while entertaining, has some pretty serious issues. The major problem is that he doesn’t seem to get that he’s dealing with stereotypes, and that not everyone fits the molds he casts. Add to that the lack of any context, historical or otherwise, and you’re not dealing with a great book about class in America.
This was the worst chapter on the book. It should be painfully obvious to Fussell that the class he’s describing here (the bohemians) is operating largely in the same way as his middle class (the bourgeois), but he can’t get by his stereotypes.
The three best books on class in America that I’ve seen are Nelson Aldrich’s Old Money, David Brooks’ Bobos in Paradise, and the NY Times’ Class Matters. If you’re interested in the topic, you should track those down.
If you think that, I suspect that it’s an issue of your being inside the system, rather than an outside observer. All evidence presented in the article supports their conclusion.
Lust4Life, I’m saying this to you because I truly would like to understand your posts. Please take much more time re-writing and editing your posts. First, divide your posts up into paragraphs. Second, use ordinary punctation in them. Third, try to make your sentences relatively short. Although they’re not, in general, run-on sentences, your sentences tend to be rather rambling and hard to understand. Fourth, don’t use abbreviations that most people don’t understand. I realize that you’re writing them very fast and don’t want to be bothered by editing your own words, but it’s nearly impossible to understand what you’re saying in that last post. Please, I’m not trying to insult you in saying this. I genuinely would like for your posts to be more understandable.
I think in the UK there’s more of a class based on local accents rather than on income.
Squeak 
Arrrgh, there’s two of them now!!
Lust4Life, in the name of all that’s holy, what on earth are you blithering on about? If you’re going to write that much, at least split it into paragraphs so we can read it.
Anyway, having been out of the country for 13 years and just having returned, I must say that the class thing appears to be as strong as ever, yet subtly altered in my absence. It’s a lot down to accent, something to do with dress sense, and only partially down to profession.
I speak with an accent that many people think is “public school” - it isn’t; I have attended state education all my life. My father’s side is working class and my mother’s is descending upper-middle - they met in the lower middle class, thanks to educational advantages afforded to my father’s family by the post-war welfare state.
I have a managerial job where I work for the government, in an office with people from all sorts of class backgrounds, though mostly degree educated. It doesn’t seem to be an impediment to rising through the ranks at all. Yet still I can tell that my accent is occasionally beneficial to interacting with people, especially when I deal with government types.
The people I’ve known in England who have treated class seriously have been either aspirant nouveau riche, or the working class kids at school who hated me for my accent. And there’s one guy at work who has risen from post-boy to facilities manager and seems overly deferential, but that might be his manner anyway.
Paragraphs dear boy, paragraphs!
And please heed the rest of Wendell Wagner’s advice!
Apart from the Monarchy, landed estates and wealthy businessmen.
Our Head of State is entirely hereditary. There may be a war, the line dies out or an abdication, but the new family keeps the same arrangement. (Note how Charles II came back after Cromwell.)
What is your evidence for any of this?
'2 December 1936: Baldwin tells the King none of his (Dominion) governments are willing to agree to a morganatic marriage, and that he now has three choices: to finish his relationship with Mrs Simpson, to marry against the advice of his ministers who would then resign, or to abdicate. ’
The Monarchy’s most important job is to act as host to visiting Heads of State.
In practice, the Government can declare war, raise taxes or alter the terms of the Civil List without worrying about the Monarchy.
I disagree, though it’s just our opinions.
As for the Queen ‘withdrawing her labour’, who would notice? 
A man walks down the street scattering paper. A policeman tells him to stop.
"No, I’ve got to do it to keep the aliens from invading. :eek: "
"What aliens? 
"
“Exactly, I’m keeping them at bay!”
Yes, but they can be stupid, racist, adulterous and gambling addicts.
Hereditary is not a valuable system for a Head of State.
So the Duke of Edinburgh is the ideal man for diplomatic relations? :smack:
The Queen has certainly met many world leaders over a cup of tea (I doubt the majority, though). There is no evidence she contributes anything beyond being a gracious hostess at State dinners.
Or like being David Beckham. 
That’s specious reasoning, dad
Thank you, Lisa
I’m quite confused by your use of “commoner”, Una. Usram tangentially referred to this in post #9, and Princhester commented on it in post #21. To me (born and raised in the UK, now living in California), “commoner” means “one who is not royal or a member of the nobility”. I’m a commoner, as are the vast majority (>99.9%) of Brits. It’s not an insult, although it’s admittedly not the first self-identifier that people usually think of.
Una, are Fierra’s relatives members of the British nobility? If not, IMHO it’s bizarre that they would refer to other people as “commoners” in a derogatory manner. AFAIK its only usage is in phrases such as “Princess Anne married a commoner”.
[As an aside, during the only four years in which I’ve interacted with members of the British nobility, I don’t recall any of them using the term “commoner” ever in my presence. Now that I come to think of it, they didn’t use the word “common” either – I suspect that they were sufficiently secure in their social status that they didn’t need to.]
Now, for a person of a certain social status – usually a “social climber” as typified by characters that are a staple of Britcoms – those that are a couple of rungs or more below them on the social ladder are “common”. I’m sure that Margaret Thatcher (daughter of a grocer) ran into that early on. IMHO, the bar for “common” in the UK is higher than “trailer trash” in the US (see Usram’s post #9); the kind of person who refers to others as “common” would consider a plumber who lives in a reasonably nice house to be “common”.
The fact that some Brits still refer to others as “common” says more to me about them than it does about the people to whom they are referring. If Fierra’s family are really calling people “commoners” in a derogatory manner in your presence, then they are laughably off-base in their terminology, IMHO.
To me, “commoner” refers to “anyone who isn’t an aristrocrat” - including the non-aristo upper classes. It’s also rather archaic. Are you sure it isn’t a jokey usage?
Just because someone is working class, it doesn’t mean that they can’t take pride in it. I’ve seen a few people wearing these, and not all of them were wearing it with irony.
Hey, I’m a commoner, and I’m much more insulted by the fact that anybody may think the term’s insulting than by the term itself!
Commoner is just “anybody not owning a nobility title”. So, great-grandpa José was a noble, but I’m not; even if great-grandma Honoria hadn’t sold the manor to pay for their children’s schooling I’d still be a commoner, since the manor and title would have gone to my granfather’s eldest brother. I can call myself hidalgo (lit. “son/descendant of ‘something’”, the something meaning nobility) but that term’s rarely used outside of the Quijote nowadays, plus in the non-literal sense it’s understood to mean “too proud to do manual work”, which is not the case. If there’s an English-language term with the same meaning as that Spanish word, I’d love to learn it, by the way.
Lust4Life:
I was rather impressed with your post and was rather surprised at the responses you got from it.
That being said, I thank you for enlightening a dumb american. I won’t remember the specific examples of your post, but I think you put a good argument forth for the merit of a monarchy such that England has. Here in the United States, I would venture to guess that if polled, most folks would rate the probability of corruption and collusion among our elected officials as pretty darn close to 100%. “Everyone has a price.” is a fairly common phrase. I do not pretend to think that royal families are without ANY sort of corruption or influence, but you put forth some pretty good arguments about why it would be much harder to do so.
I once went to Belize (Formerly British Honduras) and was routinely told how much more stable their government is compared to the surrounding countries. I made the joke that no one messed with them because their position of being one of the Queen’s former playthings and that no one screwed with the Queen.
I don’t know other folks look at the British Monarchy, but I personally, would think twice about pissing off the Queen. I’m not sure how rational it is, but there it is. I’ve never even considered pissing off Parliament even remotely in the same way.
From what I can tell, reporting on royal goings on certainly pumps a ton of money into the economy. It may be Englands greatest export.
Forgive me for any run on sentences, abusive comma-izing or failure to or excessive use of the double space.
Either way, Thanks Lust4Life
I hesitated stepping in here but … after all I’ve been out of the UK a while now but as the former owner of a double-barrelled surname whose mother was presented at court … 
I’d like to reiterate the “commoner = not nobility” thing.
I’d add “common = not posh”. These two adjectives are subjective and often relate to the way a person behaves rather than where they are from socially (ie. “Don’t chew gum, it looks common.” “There’s posh they are, using napkins.”) Some accents however are considered ‘posh’, some common. In fact as GorrillaMan said most prejudice these days is based on accent - often in reverse tinged with the grudge that most of the money and jobs are in the South East and that a ‘posh’ accent often denotes higher education and better job prospects.
A few of real life examples
My parents both have RP (that’s the “classic” “acentless” English) whereas I have shorter vowels and tend to echo the predominant accent around me - a university housemate answers the phone, “Cat there’s a lady on the phone for you” … “Oh Hi Mum …” when I finish the call … “Cat what happened? you’re a different class to the rest of your family!” :eek:
Some of the names of the ex-mining villages where my parents live have two possible pronunciations - me to the lass washing my hair at the hairdresser “So you live there, should it be pronounced “X” or “Y” ?” her shocked ““X” ! I might be common but I’m not that common!!”
Dad, doing a hedge laying course, introduced himself in his “posh” accent - the guy running the course “‘Ey oop do ah detec uh bit uv un axunt tha’ ?”
I guess in everyday life the class system means that some people will give other people breaks or not because of simple preconceptions based on accent, geographical origin, educational background until that person has a chance to prove their merit (or lack of). You know, at one level, this is normal human behaviour - feeling more at ease with those similar to yourself - it’s when actual contact doesn’t manage to change those preconceptions that it becomes a problem.
I’d bet that for the majority of people they only think about what “class” they are when someone asks them to put a label on themselves. As Irishgirl hinted it is now considered an honour to be part of the “working class” while at the same time we are having to coin the new term “Under-Class” to denote those living in areas of high unemployment where once working class families are now entering a third generation of being on the dole.
I’ve lived in the UK all my life, and the only time I’ve ever heard the word “commoner” used seriously, it was during the media flap about Princess Anne’s wedding to Captain Mark Forgotthebloke’snamealready.
At one time or another, I’ve been called lower-class, middle-class, and upper-class. Each time, it’s been meant as an insult. Go figure.
What I am, really, is a classless product of the post-war education reforms … I come from a thoroughly working-class background, but I talk proper like. Thanks to the good Mr. Butler and his ilk, I managed to get an education which more or less matched my inborn abilities (as opposed to, say, my father, who was a highly intelligent man, but was forced to leave school at the age of fourteen to work on the Liverpool buses for five shillings a week.)
Class doesn’t mean as much in the UK as it did … except I suspect it never did mean as much as people think it did. Wealth and privilege will demand deference; that’s how the aristocracy got started, for goodness’s sake. And wealth and privilege tend, even now, to get passed down from generation to generation - a lot of the very wealthy in this country got to be that way by the simple expedient of being born to the right parents. Frankly, I suspect the same is true of the USA to some extent - just because George Bush isn’t called “Le Comte de Frou-Frou” doesn’t mean he’s not a product of inherited wealth and privilege, for example.
(And, conversely, there have always been opportunities, to some extent, for the enterprising lower-class folks to break into the upper classes. Look at Cardinal Wolsey, if you can stand it. The test of social justice, really, is how easy this sort of social mobility is … some people, myself among them, feel the odds are against the hard-working poor, and in favour of the idle aristocracy, these days.)