Oasis might be staging a comeback, yet the Pulp’s Common People tune seems more fitting for the current times. An interesting shift has been noticed among the UK’s aristocracy – they are supposedly sidestepping high-class activities like opera and hunting, favouring football and beer-drinking instead. However, this could be merely a public façade, suggest the sociologists behind an extensive study into the habits of the UK’s top echelon.
The sociologists argue that the British upper-class now value appearing ‘ordinary’ over maintaining an aloof stature, as it was in the past. There’s a growing sense of insecurity concerning their legitimacy that prompts many elites to act as if they are ‘common people’. This deceptive act is perhaps an effort to steer clear of being perceived as snobbish, although behind closed doors, their exclusive behaviours prevail.
Thus, while in public, the elites might express their love for quintessentially common pastimes like smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol, in private, they continue to indulge in more upscale activities such as enjoying expensive champagne.
This research conducted over seven years is the work of Sam Friedman from the London School of Economics and Aaron Reeves- an alumnus of Oxford but soon returning to LSE. Their findings are available in their new book ‘Born to Rule: The Making and Remaking of the British Elite’.
The study explores how wealthy Brits who are private school-educated, largely alumni of prestigious institutions like Oxford and Cambridge, continue to monopolise power and privilege in key sectors like politics, business, entertainment, and the media.
Nevertheless, as exhibited by former prime ministers like Oxford’s own ‘Just call me Dave’ Cameron, an old Etonian, and Winchester-schooled Rishi Sunak who once claimed sandwiches as his favourite food, the elites often publicise commonness without having the required understanding or empathy.
The sociologists identified the British elites using the annually published Who’s Who register. This publication, started in 1847, enumerates Britain’s influential personalities, based on their reputational status and roles.
Friedman and Reeves carried out a comprehensive analysis of data obtained from 125,000 Who’s Who profiles spanning the previous 125 years. This included the profiles of 33,000 individuals featured in the most recent edition. Furthermore, they collated data from various other sources such as probate records and published lists of wealthy individuals, to pinpoint approximately 6,000 members of the top-tier society who also belong to the wealthiest 1 per cent.
Additional data, such as responses from BBC’s Desert Island Discs by any of the Who’s Who elites, were used to compile a more detailed image of their publicly recognised behaviours and preferences. This data was supplemented with over 200 detailed and anonymised interviews with these individuals, disclosing private habits and contradictions.
Over 40 per cent of the elites asked, who declared they came from working-class backgrounds, were found to be from more middle-class families upon further investigation. According to Friedman, the general public identifies more with plainness over affluence, a sentiment expressed during a breakfast meeting near the heart of UK’s political sphere in Westminster.
Men comprise approximately 80 per cent of the current list of elites, and 96.8 per cent of them are white. Recent additions to the list saw female representation at 25 per cent, but only 3 per cent were men from ethnic minorities, and a mere 1 per cent were women from ethnic minorities.
According to the research, female and ethnic minority elites do not share the right-leaning political inclinations of their white male counterparts. A case in point was the observation that the views of prominent ethnic minority elites, like Sunak and Suella Braverman, deviated significantly from those typical of other ethnic minority elite members.
A major point the study emphasized was the predominant role of a select few private schools in forming Britain’s elite structures. As the data shows, 9 per cent of the elites had attended one of the nine secondary schools within the so-called Clarendon group, including prestigious institutions like Eton, Harrow and Winchester.
Approximately 35% of Britain’s elite graduated from either Oxford or Cambridge, a contrast to less than 1% of the total populace. The study identified that those attending Clarendon schools were 52 times more probable to attain a high-status position, as classified by their status in the membership of Who’s Who.
These high-profile educational institutions have accounted for two-thirds of all British prime ministers as well as more than half of the authorities holding the four significant offices of the British government – prime minister, home secretary, foreign secretary, and the chancellor of the exchequer.
The latest governmental shift derived from Labour’s victory in July’s elections has kickstarted a considerable change in the societal composition of the nation’s leadership. Approximately 70% of Sunak’s Tory cabinet had a private education, unlike 17% of Keir Starmer’s squad.
Reeves proposed that the UK should also address the perennial and institutional power of exclusive schools and sever the association between wealth and the reproduction of [the] elite – the paths leading individuals to become part of the privileged class, such as via specific professional fields.
The analysts suggest implementing wealth and property taxes, setting quotas on the number of privately educated students in prestigious universities, and other initiatives like including workers in company boards in efforts to expedite the diversification of Britain’s elite.