USA and aristocracy

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,039
#51
The Black Watch was fashionable, but it wasn't as prestigious as the cavalry or Household Division. The same still rings true to this day. An old school associate of mine joined the guards (those guys with redcoats and silly hats). I asked him why he didn't join the cavalry and he said he couldn't afford the social life. Cavalry officers are expected to own their own horses and play polo,, as well as paying for their mess bill and whatever other fancy stuff they have to do. Being a general line officer from one of the county regiments still has some swagger, but the closer to the crown you get the posher things generally are. The hussars are fancy too due to their flashy uniform and the charge of the light brigade business.

Re the OP, the Americans may have an oligarchy but I don't think they have an aristocracy, you need a monarchy and titles for that.
I don't think anything like that goes on in the US. The US has 40 horses and men used for ceremonial purposes, and has used mounted special forces recently. However, traditional cavalry divisions and such are now tanks and helicopters.

There aren't posh military units, and being from some sort of background isn't a requirement of an officer. The second President Bush was in a sort of fancy air national guard regiment with others avoiding Vietnam. Diplomats are mostly from a certain background, as it is sort of needed for the job, which requires knowing how to act and what to say at fancy parties and so on. The US is more practical and less into aristocratic tradition.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,517
#52
I don't think anything like that goes on in the US. The US has 40 horses and men used for ceremonial purposes, and has used mounted special forces recently. However, traditional cavalry divisions and such are now tanks and helicopters.

There aren't posh military units, and being from some sort of background isn't a requirement of an officer. The second President Bush was in a sort of fancy air national guard regiment with others avoiding Vietnam. Diplomats are mostly from a certain background, as it is sort of needed for the job, which requires knowing how to act and what to say at fancy parties and so on. The US is more practical and less into aristocratic tradition.
In the modern U.S. military both the enlisted men and the officers are on the whole from similar backgrounds. The officers perhaps a bit more middle class and from families that could afford to pay for a college education, the enlisted a bit more working class and reliant on the the Montgomery G.I. Bill to help fund an education, but there isn't a sharp class divide like there used to be historically. In the modern U.S. military the sons of the wealthy are near absent entirely (there are a few exceptions of course) from the ranks.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,039
#53
There are still some officers from nice backgrounds, but not wealthy. You still need a nomination from a Congressman to go to a service academy. Something really changed where the elite decided military work was dangerous and didn't pay that well or something. The government bureaucracy is also way less preppy than in Britain.

There are certain fields in the US where it helps to be from a certain background, and generally hurts to be from certain ethnic backgrounds or low class. Major law firms, management at major corporations, academia particularly at top schools, elite private school teachers or headmasters, banking and finance, clergy in old line religions, such as Episcopal or Congregationalist tend to be "preppy".
 
Feb 2011
13,539
Perambulating in St James' Park
#54
I don't think anything like that goes on in the US. The US has 40 horses and men used for ceremonial purposes, and has used mounted special forces recently. However, traditional cavalry divisions and such are now tanks and helicopters.

There aren't posh military units, and being from some sort of background isn't a requirement of an officer. The second President Bush was in a sort of fancy air national guard regiment with others avoiding Vietnam. Diplomats are mostly from a certain background, as it is sort of needed for the job, which requires knowing how to act and what to say at fancy parties and so on. The US is more practical and less into aristocratic tradition.
In the modern U.S. military both the enlisted men and the officers are on the whole from similar backgrounds. The officers perhaps a bit more middle class and from families that could afford to pay for a college education, the enlisted a bit more working class and reliant on the the Montgomery G.I. Bill to help fund an education, but there isn't a sharp class divide like there used to be historically. In the modern U.S. military the sons of the wealthy are near absent entirely (there are a few exceptions of course) from the ranks.
There is one exception I can think of. First Troop Philadelphia City Cavalry - Wikipedia
 
Likes: Scaeva

Similar History Discussions