GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-06 > 0928246670


From: John Carmi Parsons <>
Subject: Re: Morganatic - Royal House - Royal family
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:17:50 -0400 (EDT)


On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Renia Simmonds wrote:

> You explain it very well, Leo. The class system, though full of hypocrisy and
> cruelty, kept society in check. In some ways, since the class system has begun to
> collapse, it seems that so has society. People don't know who they are any more,
> and assume that just because they have money, or can go on holiday to Lanzarote,
> that they are of a higher class. Noblesse oblige, duty, contributions to society,
> these seem to count for too little any more. So few contribute. (Or is this
> another topic?)
>
> Renia

Is "keeping society in check" simply on the basis of birth or background the
function of any state as we would understand it today? Undeniably society and
social conventions have become increasingly vulgarized in the past few decades,
though sociologists would interpret this as an altogether suitable exchange of
values because it privileges the "lower" classes as well as the "higher."
Certainly the current ease with which great wealth can be accumulated has
contributed to this by allowing the newly rich to indulge their buying power
and create displays that "old money" might well regard as lamentable in taste
or style, chiefly a way of setting themselves apart from and of course *above*
the nouveaux riches--so in one sense a money-oriented society can harden some
class lines even as it dissolves others. (Just think of the eyebrows that get
raised whenever a man of "good" family decides to marry somebody out of daddy's
secretarial pool--remember "Love Story"?) But neither do I think that any
system that leaves an individual dependent solely on a birth certificate for
status is ideal.

John Parsons

This thread: