Quote Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost View Post
I am intrigued by the apparently common acceptance that class is inextricably linked to income (not even to capital). It must be the influence of the meritocratic aspiration of the United States, as is the idea that class is flexible - in that a single person, let alone a single generation, may easily transfer between classes.

Fascinating. I might submit for discussion that a gentleman is not measured by his wallet.
I'm rather inclined to agree, money has nothing to do with Class, merely the ability to affect the trappings of it. I was discussing this on Saturday with a friend of mine in rural Hampshire while we ruminating on the severe lack of English tennis players. What he said was this:

In the Working Class you are expected to earn money with your hands.

In the Middle Class you earn with your brain.

In the Upper Class you suceed by virtue of your inheritence and inate talent.

I think this is true, though I would add that ownership is a mark of the Middle Class and up. A wealthy farmer will amass land not only by hard work, but also by good management, placing him above the Working Class.

Interestingly, this also places most artisans (builders, Carpenters, Plumbers) in the Wrking Class, unless they are what we used to call a Master, in which case they would be Middle Class, I suppose.

I think this works even in the US, where you have Blue Collar, White Collar and Old Money. Even here the consistant picture is that although you can, with difficulty, move between Working and Middle Class, you can only be born into the Upper Class; or perhaps marry into it.