Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 17th, 2011, 07:55 PM   #1

PolishK's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: TOKYO
Posts: 132
Bourgeoisie vs. Aristocracy


Okay, I understand the 1848 revolutions and that the middle-classes suffered in making any lasting changes to the political order.
I also know that with WWI came many changes in politics and much of the aristocracy fell in European countries.

What happened between then?
Surely, the bourgeoisie battled with the aristocracy in between these times, right?
PolishK is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 17th, 2011, 10:44 PM   #2

Toltec's Avatar
Fiddling as Rome Burns
 
Joined: Apr 2008
From: Hyperborea
Posts: 7,923

The non-aristicratic-bourgeoisie on the whole dislike the aristocratic-bourgeoisie and despise the non-bourgeoisie-aristocracy. Saying that it doesn't stop them leaping at becoming aristocratic-bourgeoisie at the first opportunity.
Toltec is offline  
Old April 19th, 2011, 02:25 PM   #3

Black Dog's Avatar
Idiot of the year 2013
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: Damned England
Posts: 8,274
Blog Entries: 2

Very well put, Toltec. That's certainly the truth.

Another problem is that the Bourgeoisie rarely actually see themselves as just that. It's a term of derision, really: cosy, social climbing middle class, conservative. Which implies a level of effeteness, of snobbishness, and concerns with their own welfare and no-one else's. They're alive and kicking today, that's for sure.

Those aristocracies which fell following WW1 were like those from the past: they were absolute or wannabe monarchies, and therefore the rising middle classes resented not having enough say in the running of their country, despite playing an increasing role in wealth creation. Those monarchies that DID survive, like the British, did so because they had compromised over this matter a long time ago. Although plenty of monarchs since attempted to regain something resembling full power.

Deep down, though, the Bourgeoisie want and respect monarchy and therefore aristocracy: the British Honours System would lose it's validity if there was not a crowned head at the top of it, or the bait of a knighthood at the end of a career. Such are the levers of the British system. Most of all, though, the Bourgeoisie aspire to be aristocracy. Thatcher is living (unfortunately!) proof. Most of our cabinet MPs get a knighthood when they retire. But as Toltec so rightly says, the Bourgeoisie refer to the aristocracy as "the idle rich", but can't wait to become idle rich themselves.
Black Dog is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 04:56 AM   #4
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Central Macedonia
Posts: 17,763
Blog Entries: 4

Black Dog is right (once) again!
Thessalonian is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 05:22 AM   #5

blacksmit049's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Manila
Posts: 1,247
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Dog View Post
Deep down, though, the Bourgeoisie want and respect monarchy and therefore aristocracy: the British Honours System would lose it's validity if there was not a crowned head at the top of it, or the bait of a knighthood at the end of a career. Such are the levers of the British system. Most of all, though, the Bourgeoisie aspire to be aristocracy. Thatcher is living (unfortunately!) proof. Most of our cabinet MPs get a knighthood when they retire. But as Toltec so rightly says, the Bourgeoisie refer to the aristocracy as "the idle rich", but can't wait to become idle rich themselves.
That last sentence reminds me of the pigs of the animal farm.
blacksmit049 is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 05:33 AM   #6

Gaius's Avatar
Big Cheese of the Seven Seas
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Tennessee
Posts: 591

Oh come on guys, the Bourgeoisie had it tough, give them a break! It must have been hard fighting against the aristocracy to rise up while simultaneously beating the proletariat down with a stick.
Gaius is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 05:52 AM   #7

Toltec's Avatar
Fiddling as Rome Burns
 
Joined: Apr 2008
From: Hyperborea
Posts: 7,923

The wannabe bourgeoisie are not really fighting against the aristocracy to make it, they fighting against other wannabe bourgeoisie and the existing bourgeoisie. The aristocracy are well behind the bourgeoisie in the pecking order, in fact struggle to compete with the upper middle classes these days.

As someone once said, what's the difference between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy?

One pays their rent on time.
Toltec is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 06:03 AM   #8

Gaius's Avatar
Big Cheese of the Seven Seas
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Tennessee
Posts: 591

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toltec View Post
The wannabe bourgeoisie are not really fighting against the aristocracy to make it, they fighting against other wannabe bourgeoisie and the existing bourgeoisie. The aristocracy are well behind the bourgeoisie in the pecking order, in fact struggle to compete with the upper middle classes these days.
We are talking specifically about 1848-1918 though, during which time the aristocracy were well above the bourgeoisie politically, socially, and financially.
Gaius is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 06:04 AM   #9

Black Dog's Avatar
Idiot of the year 2013
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: Damned England
Posts: 8,274
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
That last sentence reminds me of the pigs of the animal farm.
Yes "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Is that the one?

Good quote, Toltec. I like that
Black Dog is offline  
Old April 20th, 2011, 06:24 AM   #10

Black Dog's Avatar
Idiot of the year 2013
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: Damned England
Posts: 8,274
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
We are talking specifically about 1848-1918 though, during which time the aristocracy were well above the bourgeoisie politically, socially, and financially.
Socially, definitely, but not really politically or socially. In England, the Liberal Party was the party of the rising middle classes; the reforms put in place were aimed at removing trade restrictions and laws which were usually defended by the party of the Upper classes, the Conservatives, or, to be more accurate, Tories. The Tories saw society as patriarchal in the true sense, not the feminist sense: the rich had privileges but also responsibilities, however few. The Corn Laws are a case in point. At sales of corn (which in England means any cereal grain after harvest), the parish poor bought first, and then upwards to the highest in the area: that way, if anyone did without or endure higher prices, it would be those who could afford it.

To this day, the English countryside still tends to vote Conservative; the towns tend to vote labour or Liberal. As you know, the Liberal party was more important, probably, than the Tories in advancing reforms to help the Industrial Revolution along.

And as far as money goes, well, class in the old days was never about money: Toltec's quote suggests that the Aristocracy had a reputation for being late payers, and during the mid Industrial Revolution, there were many (middle class) industrialists with far more money than the aristocracy. Titus Salt was an example:

Titus Salt

As you can see, he became a baronet. That a weaver's son could become a baronet was unthinkable just a short time ago.

George Eliot's "Silas Marner" tells of two families: the landed gentry squire Cass family, and the up and coming farmers, the Lammeters. The former was was plainly on the decline, being profligate and a spent force (a popular opinion about many upper class families at that time), whilst the essentially Yeoman farmers, the Lammeters, were thrifty, hard working, prudent and honest: typical of the "new blood". These were common themes in Victorian writing. Conversely, Thomas Hardy's "Tess of the D'Urbervilles" has the heroine (?) as the long spent offshoot of the ancient aristocratic D'Urbervilles, worn away to ordinary peasantry, and even their name descended to "Durbeyfield". This conflict between old blood and new money is a strong theme throughout: it is not written as conflict, but as the way things are.
Black Dog is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
aristocracy, bourgeoisie


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The "Bourgeoisie" Revolution? Eve History Help 8 March 5th, 2011 02:08 PM
Roman Aristocracy in Late Republic/Early Empire tdhigg01 Ancient History 4 January 14th, 2011 03:42 AM
Welfare and the Bourgeoisie philosopher Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 December 4th, 2010 08:40 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.