Norman yoke is still alive (UK)

[oday1kenobi]

After reading through @Duchess thread about a Somali British barrister and the lengths he took to reach his position, I thought it would be wise to post this informative (albeit old) article about how the decendants of the aristocratic class still dominates UK society to this day.

Duchess thread: https://www.somalispot.com/threads/adventures-in-social-mobility-hashi-mohamed-bbc-radio-4.22170/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People with "Norman" surnames like Darcy and Mandeville are still wealthier than the general population 1,000 years after their descendants conquered Britain, according to a study into social progress.

Research shows that the descendants of people who in 1858 had "rich" surnames such as Percy and Glanville, indicating they were descended from the French nobility, are still substantially wealthier in 2011 than those with traditionally "poor" or artisanal surnames. Artisans are defined as skilled manual workers.

Drawing on data culled from official records that go back as far as the Domesday Book as well as university admissions and probate archives, Gregory Clark, a professor of economics at the University of California, has tracked what became of people whose surnames indicated their ancestors had come from either the aristocratic or artisanal classes.

By studying the probate records of those with “rich” and “poor” surnames every decade since the 1850s, he found that the extreme differences in accumulated wealth narrowed over time.

But the value of the estates left by those belonging to the “rich” surname group, immortalised in the character of Fitzwilliam Darcy, in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, were above the national average by at least 10 per cent.

In addition, today the holders of "rich" surnames live three years longer than average. Life expectancy is a strong indicator of socio-economic status.

Popular names of the medieval elite who were descended from Norman families include Balliol, Baskerville, Bruce, Darcy, Glanville, Lacy, Mandeville, and Venables.

Popular artisanal names that emerged in the 14th century include Smith, Carpenter, Mason, Shepherd, Cooper and Baker

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...orman-names-wealthier-than-other-Britons.html


Also, here's a fitting proverb from Walter Scott's Ivanhoe:

@Amun @horumar

English forever cucked...

 

[horumar]

Mick from Eastenders is related to William of Normandy, he's swimming in that bbc taxpayer money

 

[Apollo]

Very true. Once you have money it is simply much easier to continue to make money, yet people deny this obvious truism. This is why some form of socialism is always necessary.

See Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty.

 

[Human]

Of course, this form of elitism and social inequality would still exist in the UK. The only difference between the Norman Yoke in the past and now is that it is more greatly concealed from the mass public as well as being an indirect threat to the mass public.

Our society may have greater technological advances and greater opportunities for many people but evident issues like the Norman Yoke would always be part of the UK. Greater concealment does not mean nation states are improving but are becoming more corrupt. That's why nation states like Cuba and North Korea have always been a better place to live than tax evasion orientated Britain.

 

[oday1kenobi]

Students with traditional surnames such as Darcy and Percy have dominated the roll-calls at Oxford and Cambridge Universities since the Norman Conquest, a new study has revealed, sparking concerns over social mobility.

Despite the upheavals of the last 800 years, there have been Darcys, Mandevilles, Percys and Montgomerys at the two elite institutions for 27 generations.

Researchers found the same names which were associated with great wealth and privilege under William the Conqueror are still found at the top echelons of society today.

Family names which signalled poverty 150 years ago, such as Boorman, Defoe, Goodhill and Ledwell, also tend to remain low on the social scale, the team from the London School of Economic (LSE) concluded.

The researchers, Dr Neil Cummins and Professor Gregory Clark, claim their findings suggest social mobility in England has not improved much since the Middle Ages, with people continually inheriting their status from their parents.


“What is surprising is that between 1800 and 2011 there have been substantial institutional changes in England but no gain in rates of social mobility for society as a whole.”

The LSE study suggests 150 years of mass education has failed to challenge the power of the well established elite.

It found the same families have held positions of power for centuries despite religious wars, revolution, industrialisation and the rise of democracy and the welfare state.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ended-Oxbridge-since-the-Norman-Conquest.html

Excerpts from a similar article.

 

[oday1kenobi]

Very true. Once you have money it is simply much easier to continue to make money, yet people deny this obvious truism. This is why some form of socialism is always necessary.

See Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty.

Especially since a significant portion of the aristocratic/landholding class have obtained their wealth due in part to their ancestors smashing skulls on behalf of their king/lord a millennia ago and not due to merit.

Highly barbaric I say.

 

[Apollo]

Especially since a significant portion of the aristocratic/landholding class have obtained their wealth due in part to their ancestors smashing skulls on behalf of their king/lord a millennia ago and not due to merit.

Highly barbaric I say.

My greatest concern is that this principle might be active at the geopolitical level and the West will simple always stay much richer than the rest of the world unless some major revolutions happen.

 

[Human]

Students with traditional surnames such as Darcy and Percy have dominated the roll-calls at Oxford and Cambridge Universities since the Norman Conquest, a new study has revealed, sparking concerns over social mobility.

Despite the upheavals of the last 800 years, there have been Darcys, Mandevilles, Percys and Montgomerys at the two elite institutions for 27 generations.

Researchers found the same names which were associated with great wealth and privilege under William the Conqueror are still found at the top echelons of society today.

Family names which signalled poverty 150 years ago, such as Boorman, Defoe, Goodhill and Ledwell, also tend to remain low on the social scale, the team from the London School of Economic (LSE) concluded.

The researchers, Dr Neil Cummins and Professor Gregory Clark, claim their findings suggest social mobility in England has not improved much since the Middle Ages, with people continually inheriting their status from their parents.


“What is surprising is that between 1800 and 2011 there have been substantial institutional changes in England but no gain in rates of social mobility for society as a whole.”

The LSE study suggests 150 years of mass education has failed to challenge the power of the well established elite.

It found the same families have held positions of power for centuries despite religious wars, revolution, industrialisation and the rise of democracy and the welfare state.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ended-Oxbridge-since-the-Norman-Conquest.html

Excerpts from a similar article.

Yeah, that's why there have been multiple backlashes against Oxbridge for the over-representation of private school students and the lack of state school students being accepted in Oxbridge. This is a great phenomenon that Oxbridge tries to tackle by trying to accept more ethnic minorities but the fault isn’t necessarily also Oxbridge but schools themselves for not encouraging more pupils to apply to these prestige universities instead they push the more capable students to apply to Oxford or Cambridge.

It’s hard to tackle the elite as they are greatly embedded in our UK society so trying to eradicate or minimise this growing threat would mean that UK society would be greatly impacted and our Tory government would cry about not being funded by these rich snobs.

 

[anonymous34]

interesting.

 

[oday1kenobi]

Yeah, that's why there have been multiple backlashes against Oxbridge for the over-representation of private school students and the lack of state school students being accepted in Oxbridge. This is a great phenomenon that Oxbridge tries to tackle by trying to accept more ethnic minorities but the fault isn’t necessarily also Oxbridge but schools themselves for not encouraging more pupils to apply to these prestige universities instead they push the more capable students to apply to Oxford or Cambridge.

It’s hard to tackle the elite as they are greatly embedded in our UK society so trying to eradicate or minimise this growing threat would mean that UK society would be greatly impacted and our Tory government would cry about not being funded by these rich snobs.

To be fair, Oxbridge and other educational institutions that are tied to elitism have been trying to crack down on this (as you said in your post) plus regional public/grammar schools have historically (and recently) been better at preparing their students to reach the higher echelons than typical comprehensives regardless if the pupils there are sky-high achievers/star pupils.

So in my simplistic view, it's more so govt state mishandling of the problem than private institutions (universities) and the Tory govt thinks it's imperative to fix this leak by opening more grammar schools when working class children are less likely to be selected/attend them.

Here's a very recent article (29 May) from the BBC about the above point:

A senior academic has accused the Conservatives of a "sleight of hand" over the justification of its grammar schools policy in its manifesto.

Prof Alice Sullivan challenges the party's statement that selective schools have proportionately more pupils from "ordinary working class families" than non-selective schools.

She says families in the bottom third for income have been excluded from the calculation supporting this data.

The Tories stand by their manifesto.

The party argues that increasing the number of grammar schools will improve social mobility as more poor bright children will be taught by them.

It says that is because the achievement gap between rich and poor children closes to near zero in grammars.

However, Prof Sullivan, professor of sociology at University College London, said the main reason grammar schools were an "unlikely tool for promoting social mobility" is that working class children were far less likely than richer children to attend them.

The party's manifesto says: "Contrary to what some people allege, official research shows that slightly more children from ordinary, working class families attend selective schools as a percentage of the school intake as compared to non-selective schools."

Prof Sullivan disagrees with this statement, which is based on a piece of Department for Education research which sought to define the government's term "ordinary working families".

It described a new group of families existing on below average income, but not on the pupil premium or free school meals

Read the rest here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40043891

 

[Human]

To be fair, Oxbridge and other educational institutions that are tied to elitism have been trying to crack down on this (as you said in your post) plus regional public/grammar schools have historically (and recently) been better at preparing their students to reach the higher echelons than typical comprehensives regardless if the pupils there are sky-high achievers/star pupils.

So in my simplistic view, it's more so govt state mishandling of the problem than private institutions (universities) and the Tory govt thinks it's imperative to fix this leak by opening more grammar schools when working class children are less likely to be selected/attend them.

Here's a very recent article (29 May) from the BBC about the above point:

A senior academic has accused the Conservatives of a "sleight of hand" over the justification of its grammar schools policy in its manifesto.

Prof Alice Sullivan challenges the party's statement that selective schools have proportionately more pupils from "ordinary working class families" than non-selective schools.

She says families in the bottom third for income have been excluded from the calculation supporting this data.

The Tories stand by their manifesto.

The party argues that increasing the number of grammar schools will improve social mobility as more poor bright children will be taught by them.

It says that is because the achievement gap between rich and poor children closes to near zero in grammars.

However, Prof Sullivan, professor of sociology at University College London, said the main reason grammar schools were an "unlikely tool for promoting social mobility" is that working class children were far less likely than richer children to attend them.

The party's manifesto says: "Contrary to what some people allege, official research shows that slightly more children from ordinary, working class families attend selective schools as a percentage of the school intake as compared to non-selective schools."

Prof Sullivan disagrees with this statement, which is based on a piece of Department for Education research which sought to define the government's term "ordinary working families".

It described a new group of families existing on below average income, but not on the pupil premium or free school meals

Read the rest here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40043891

I think the government should carry on making academies and free schools because they are known to help schools in my local area. Like, in my area in seven to eight years ago, most of the secondary schools in my borough were one of the worst performing schools in London and had an Ofsted rating of 'Satisfactory', 'Inadequate', aside from my secondary school having a Ofsted rating of 'Outstanding' and some Catholic school as well, and these secondary schools transformed by most of them becoming academies. My older sisters went to a secondary school that was one of the worst in my borough and it had a bad reputation amongst everyone in our area but this secondary school incredibly transformed and they have students that are going to elite universities like Cambridge or Oxford as well as having one student that went to Harvard.

Grammar schools are not the shit at all and I admit they have amazing results in average but academies and free schools really changed my borough in the last seven years. Taking into account nearly all of a working class background and we are mostly ethnic minorities, these forms of schools had a positive impact on all students. It's funny that the government apparently was thinking of changing my secondary school into a grammar school and I was laughing at that idea. Entrance exams and shit like that to get into my secondary school is hilarious.

I agree with you completely though.