Well, yes, but the Hiltons were only founded in the 20th century, weren’t they? I mean, before 1900 there weren’t any posh Hiltons running around putting their children in day schools or whatever. I know and agree that everyone got their “start” somewhere, but it seems very odd to call a family that only made its fortune (as it were) less than a hundred years ago “old money”. It makes the term kind of meaningless.
Class is pretty much a meaningless distinction in America. Money is all that matters. Old money or new money it all spends the same. The biggest class differential today is education. I think it matters less where you receive your education too these days.
Are there still some very wealthy families in America who see their wealth as a call to public service and stewardship of American culture? Maybe. I grew up on the Main Line outside Philadelphia where there was a considerable concentration of wealth and power from the earliest days of the country though the 19th century industrial boom and some of those families are still there.
I Googled for a quote from Catch-22 about how old money is the sort nobody worked to earn, and the first hit was a post in this thread wherein BrainGlutton had already beaten me to it. :smack:
There’s a difference between a rich man and a poor man with money.
Since the invention of the media there has been overlap between socialites and celebrities. We can go back further, but Georginia, Dutchess of Devonshire would be a good example of “the cross between socialite and celebrity did not start with Paris Hilton.”
Personally, I like Pamela Harriman and Slim Hawks for the celebrity socialite. They did it with so much more class than the Kardashians.
Now is time for me to unleash my rage
Supposing you move (or I do) to the Ozarks.
The local big shot place --and only standing structure in sight–is a run down “Babtist” church and the ‘trustees’ are the ones trusted to hand over the collection plate (and fix the leaky roof in the summer).
What then, is the class structure? Is agnostic pagan girl on the outs? Or is she the new Yankee royalty?
How can the ‘babtists’ be upper class, in the scheme of things?
Certainly PH had a fondness for sleeping her way to fortune and living a billionaire’s lifestyle on millionaire income. She ran through all Leland Hayward’s money, and managed to spend or lose most of Averill Harriman’s before he died
She may be the only true 20th century courtesan. Fascinating woman. But she wound up being the Ambassador to France - that is quite the career path for sleeping around.
Worked for Ben Franklin!
I suppose as far as the Hiltons go they did not quite make it to old money status, though Conrad was making all the right moves. Paris definitely had all the means to keep doing so, but most socialites prefer to avoid the spotlight, which is probably not in her family’s genes. Same with the Kardashians. Their dad was a socialite, though I am not sure how old the money was.
There is an overlap between socialite and celebrity, but the heydays of the Social Register and society pages in most newspapers where socialites shared the spotlight with “Hollywood” crowd are over. I don’t think they miss it. Some don’t care if their picture is ever in the paper, and many actively avoid it. They have enough connections they have no need for personal PR, while celebrities have to cultivate it if they wish to remain so and make top dollar.
It is sad how many D-list celebs are running around working on utter trash hoping at least one or two paparazzi are still desperate enough to take a couple snapshots. The paparazzi are another reason why socialites don’t miss the society pages. Photographs at a charity fundraiser are fine; being hounded while shopping - not so much.
That is true. The social upper class is not the same as the economic upper class, though there is considerable overlap there also.
The political upper class is much more fluid in a democracy, and much harder to maintain. I am not even sure how to define that class, other than some people get their calls returned, and others don’t. And those at the top get their calls answered immediately.
Many Americans try to deny that an upper social class exists here, since it goes against the principles of equality and individualism, but it does exist. It has a different flavor than old world aristocracy. It is based more on meritocracy rather than privilege, and has a stronger sense of stewardship and philanthropy. It is possible for anyone to enter the class - learning to know the right people and to get the right education - even with limited means. Though like I said above, a good income helps, especially if one wants to make the leap in one generation. Getting there and staying there does depend more on culture than income.
Personally, even if greater economic equality is achieved, even if total parity was achieved, that class will always exist. Their motives are not based on money and power. It is more about stewardship and status. Though that is often not true of the first generation and why they have no small dislike for the nouveau riche who think it is all about money and power. But there will always be a class of those who are better educated, more cultured and be patrons of the arts, regardless of how much money is in anyone’s pockets.
And that class will still be likely to have ‘older’ money since they value stewardship over going on mad spending sprees and thus have to keep finding ‘new’ money.
Class and power are not equivalent, but almost every area has its social hierarchy which mirrors the power hierarchy. The baptist minister may not be upper class compared to Westport housewifes, and may not hold himself up any higher than the members of his congregation, but I bet he knows who is who in his community and one could probably find a job or open a business a lot easier with his help than without it. And if he doesn’t like you, you better hit the road and try the next town. Or even the next county or state if you want to avoid his cousins or in-laws.
And there is no agnostic pagan girl at this time.
Plus even Arkansas and Alabama have their day schools also. Maybe not as prestigious or as old as the ones in New England, but the same dynamic applies, and the quality of education is pretty close too.
That’s always been the case, though - that some actively avoid it. There have always been the wealthy that avoid the limelight and those that seek it out. The saying “a lady only has her name in the newspaper three times - at her birth, her marriage, and her death” is not new - even in the era of society pages. Nor are Paris Hilton’s shenanigans.
America does have a class system, although it is often not admitted. And upper-class Americans can distinguish between old money and nouveau riche.
A dirt poor younger brother would still be of the “old money” class, but in his case, the term probably wouldn’t be used. “Old money” isn’t definitional; it’s just shorthand.
It’s only high class if you have other high class characteristics as well. A lot families that later became part of the “old money” class were from rich New York Dutch and Boston families who had connections to the Mayflower.
You don’t get it because you’re trying to oversimplify it. There isn’t one sole characteristic like a Mayflower ancestor that gives you membership in a particular class.
Money = Class until the .com boom.
Then the game changed. Now, class = money, and in places where it doesn’t, money > class. Sure, the bluebloods themselves are free to pooh-pooh some nouveau riche guy’s faux pas. But a) who gives a shit and b) the blueblood needs the nouveau riche more than vice versa.
The difference being that prior to the digital revolution, acquisition of wealth was far more linked to ones elite status.
That isn’t new either. In the 18th century, British nobility started marrying the daughters of rich merchants - by the end of the 18th century, they were marrying rich American merchants daughters.
I would counter with that being a perceived rare phenomena. Given the relative increase in information speed in the past 15 years, such isolated incidents would be generally ineffective at changing the perception of monied people being upper class and high culture.
After all, where’d the term nouveau riche come from, anyways? It had to start somewhere, but it’s really seen a tipping point, I’d argue, only at the end of the 90s.
You’re kidding right? The term nouveau riche has been standard formsecades, possibly centuries there’s absolutely nothing new about it. And the concept of new money and old money is possibly coexistant with civilization.
origin 1813 - used a lot in the 1920s.
This is a really longstanding debate - a couple hundred years of debate. Gossip traveled pretty quickly before facebook, not instantaneously, but quick enough in a small set of people in London or New York or Paris - and the people who had control over “who is accepted and who is not” knew where money came from. However, the source of your money is only one component to whether you are accepted. People with “old money” are sometimes shunned for behavior (and always have been) and people with “new money” are sometimes welcomed off force of personality or usefulness. I think its likely to be a rather silly distinction unless you run in Edith Wharton’s circles (Wharton was very much from the “old money” circle that was upset by the “new money” of the Vanderbilts, etc.).
Old money is not about the acquisition of wealth, but the preservation of wealth. Getting rich is not easy, but not that hard either if one is determined. The trick is trying to ensure one’s grandkids are rich too. And their grandkids.
Class equals old money not because of their wealth, but because of how they maintain that wealth - sending their kids to the same schools to learn to socialize and network. To learn etiquette and other proper behavior. Like to not engage in something so crass as insider trading, but to build alliances and joint ventures and marrying one’s sons and daughters to the right people to strengthen those alliances.
Old money does not like new money since they have not learned those lessons most of the time, and do not realize it takes hard work in often very subtle ways to keep their money. And one foolish generation can make it all come tumbling down. Look at the Busch family, the once favorite sons of St Louis. Not anymore, especially after the latest scandal. [just google August Busch IV]
Numerous comedy shows have been built around this premise - new money buys old money’s estate, old money watches enviously, old money falls in love with new money …
New money buys its way into the country club, makes all kinds of social gaffes, somehow manages to come up ahead / gets ritually humiliated week after week …