Uk class system

Twangist

This article https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/feb/21/who-is-working-class-and-why-does-it-matter-in-the-arts
Suggests three different ways of working out what class people are: parental career (specifically when you were aged 14); level of education; and current career/income.
On 2 of these metrics I am middle class with regard to the other I'm very much not.
I guess I would describe myself as culturally lower middle class and economically working class (albeit with relatives I can fall back on in emergency).
In many ways the old class distinctions don't really hold, but at the same time various institutions (not least the churches) are very class conscious and class driven.
What are your thoughts and experiences?

chrisstiles

We could discuss class distinctions or just reflect on the underlying issue being discussed, which is that the arts is becoming dominated by those who are privately educated and only make up 7% of the population of the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2024/nov/13/young-working-class-people-being-blocked-from-creative-industries-study-finds

Twangist

I think both are valid and important (the former informs how we discuss the later).
It feels to me as if the arts are a bit of a canary in the coalmine. The same thing happens in many other fields (how many Bishops, generals, MP's or CEO's were privately educated?)

Heavenlyannie

I was working class and am now middle class. My 7 siblings are all working class.

I was brought up in a council house, father worked in a dairy factory and my mother was a canteen cook, so that fits with the criteria. The education one is pertinent in my case, as I left school after my O levels and never went to college, which fits their working class criteria. However, I did an OU degree as a mature student while working as a nurse, and I am now an academic with a doctorate - my later education was the key to moving social classes. That, alongside marrying a middle class man. Still live on a council estate though.

I can relate to a lot of what that article says. Class still matters, imo, and it goes beyond the suggested criteria as it is also deeply cultural. I never went to college because my parents wanted me to get a job and pay rent - they did not value education. I still struggle with academic language in my 50s because it doesn’t come easily to working class people - my middle class sons have a far wider vocabulary than I did at their age. And my working class OU students have so many challenges in their lives, many studying while working full time, and often disabled or carers as well. I can relate to them more than I do some of my colleagues.

chrisstiles

Twangist wrote: »

It feels to me as if the arts are a bit of a canary in the coalmine. The same thing happens in many other fields (how many Bishops, generals, MP's or CEO's were privately educated?)

I think the latter was ever thus (maybe with a minor exception for MPs), whereas the situation during the post-war up to the middle of the Thatcher period was brighter for those entering the arts because there was a relatively more generous benefits system, and a better funded series of grants for various cultural activities.

Gamma Gamaliel

Yes. I think one of the saddest things there is that a generation or two of working class kids were finally offered something only to have it snatched away from those who followed them with raised expectations.

I think there's been a lot of uncharted social fall-out. Arty working class kids in limbo.

Telford

My parents were working class. Their parents were working class. I am working class. I know my place

Puzzler

I refuse to be categorised.
My ancestors were agricultural labourers, then built the railways or went down the pits, or were lace workers, or small shopkeepers. But my father, who was an office worker, went into Christian ministry, valued the arts and education and, though very poorly paid, encouraged my sister and me to go to university, fortunately in the days of full fees paid by the county and full grants. Most of my teaching career was in an independent school, though it was nothing like a public school with all its connotations.
My voluntary advice work was all about accepting people as they are and not being judgemental.

betjemaniac

As ever though, there’s wheels within wheels. The Navy is much more middle class, largely because you can’t get very far as a naval officer without being numerate. The current Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, is a comprehensive school boy.

The RAF is deeply middle middle, if not upper working, just because it’s so technical.

But…

If anything I’d argue that the class system props up the British army in particular as a viable proposition. In Britain the sons (and to an extent daughters) of the upper middle and upper class, whether out of a sense of duty, tradition, lack of imagination or whatever, continue to see being an army officer as a viable career. Also, maybe they can afford it.

The pay’s not great, the accommodation is very largely appalling, traditional ‘perks’ such as boarding school allowance are either massively watered down or actually gone, the kit’s inferior and ancient/obsolete when it’s not actually actively dangerous to the user, and people try and kill you.

Anyone not following in daddy’s footsteps, and being in position of half a brain, talent, ambition, and lacking higher class based social capital would be borderline insane to waste their lives and potential (social, earning, etc) on a career as an army officer. To be an army officer in Britain in the current conditions is a borderline act of masochism even for the younger sons of the gentry.


On the other hand it’s a brilliant booster and smart move for later developers with no qualifications joining in the ranks (ie not as an officer ).

If anything it’s a wonder we’ve still got people prepared to stick it out to general at all, never mind what class they’re from.

Basically, without investing billions in sorting out the terms and conditions of service in the armed forces ‘offer’ to its officers I struggle to mind very much that it just about manages to keep its head above water with the current skew to privately educated officers.

Almost anything else in the list feels like more of an issue and a more easily addressed problem.

Twangist

I have vague memories of John Major and George Carey being held up as examples of social mobility in the early 90s.

Jengie Jon

I do not think that modern social class systems in the UK map particularly well onto Upper Class, Middle Class, Working Class. We really have a four levels:

Economically Independent - basically can say "fuck you" to the rest of us, wealth that should take generations to spend, children always in private education, jobs tend to be rarified if beyond the management of their own wealth
Secure economically - usually carry inherited wealth, good savings as well as in good paying jobs and basically have a safety net, good jobs/pension, good education, likely to pass onto next generation. Has the choice to send children to fee paying schools
Economically insecure - good paying jobs but money in and money out, may have large debts and few if any reserves, unlikely to send children to fee paying schools
Economically dependent - reliant in some form or other on the social welfare to get by from one week to another. Maybe in low paying work or totally dependent on benefits

Stasis is the norm with social mobility, but up to one class per generation is not unusual, some manage two but three are exceptions that prove the rule. The way money buys the ability to make money for the next generation, not just that they inherit it, keeps the class structure pretty strong.

Jengie Jon

What we think of as working class fits within the economically insecure along with quite a bit of lower middle class.

Heavenlyannie

I don’t think looking purely at economics reflects the nature of social class, especially these days when middle class jobs can be more poorly paid than working class ones; education level is a much better indicator, imo.
I did not go to college in the 1980s because people from my background did not consider it necessary and it was not part of our culture - what was necessary was getting a job. I started working in a care home as soon as I left school. No amount of free university education or grants or bursaries got people from my background into university in those days - I do not know anyone from my school who went on to get a degree, none of us 8 siblings have A levels and only one of us went to college for a vocational course. I only trained as a nurse because the middle class people who owned the care home I worked in encouraged me to. It was that social capital that changed my career pathway and ultimately my class.
Social class still matters because it influences culture and attitudes. It is no accident that the only famous alumni from my school are Andrew Tate and his brother.

Arethosemyfeet

I'm pretty solidly culturally middle class - father's father was an estate agent and owned his own home (though his early death and poor financial planning led to my grandma taking in lodgers for about a decade or so until she could get her pension), my mother's father was an Anglican priest. My father went to prep school followed by an independent grammar (albeit on scholarship) and Oxford before theological college (Westcott). My mother had trained as a nursery nurse having been seriously ill during exam years and did retail and childminding to supplement their income. All three of us children went to state schools, took A-levels and went to university and now work in public sector jobs (my older sister is an assistant professor in Norway, my younger sister and I both work in education admin of some kind). We're all homeowners, with greater or lesser amounts of parental help, and reasonably financially comfortable. We can all exercise a little of my father's Oxford-trained confidence in interviews and public speaking, and our speaking register is very much middle class.

KarlLB

Jengie Jon wrote: »

I do not think that modern social class systems in the UK map particularly well onto Upper Class, Middle Class, Working Class. We really have a four levels:

Economically Independent - basically can say "fuck you" to the rest of us, wealth that should take generations to spend, children always in private education, jobs tend to be rarified if beyond the management of their own wealth
Secure economically - usually carry inherited wealth, good savings as well as in good paying jobs and basically have a safety net, good jobs/pension, good education, likely to pass onto next generation. Has the choice to send children to fee paying schools
Economically insecure - good paying jobs but money in and money out, may have large debts and few if any reserves, unlikely to send children to fee paying schools
Economically dependent - reliant in some form or other on the social welfare to get by from one week to another. Maybe in low paying work or totally dependent on benefits

Stasis is the norm with social mobility, but up to one class per generation is not unusual, some manage two but three are exceptions that prove the rule. The way money buys the ability to make money for the next generation, not just that they inherit it, keeps the class structure pretty strong.

I feel we're economically secure but we could never have afforded independent school fees. So that's another 2.5th group.

Gamma Gamaliel

Yes. I would say that what @KarlLB says applies to a lot of people. I have no idea how much 'school fees' are - except that they are expensive - and it would never have occurred to me to want to pay them even if I were able to afford them.

I think @Jengie Jon's categories need some tweaking. There are more gradations than that within each 'band'.

I agree with @Heavenlyannie that pure economics isn't the only consideration.

There were times when we were quite hard-up as kids - my parents split up and my Dad reneged on maintenance payments. My mother didn't pursue those but went without herself and had some false loyalty delusion that he'd come round, come back and all would be well. Bless her.

But culturally, if not monetarily we were quite middle class in terms of the TV programmes we watched, the newspapers we took and so on.

mark_in_manchester

Gamma Gamaliel wrote: »

Yes. I would say that what @KarlLB says applies to a lot of people. I have no idea how much 'school fees' are -

The place I went currently charges 26k for day pupils and double that for boarders. In today's money that would have consumed a bit more than all of my Dad's take-home pay (Mum was a housewife), so I would not have been there if they had not been working-class Tories with Aspirations for their kids, and the Thatcher govt had not thought that was a good thing and given me an 'assisted place' (in our case, effectively a free place).

I don't know what I think of it looking back. My eldest is at a higher-ranking university and my younger also wants to go, both comprehensive-educated all the way. The teacher I most admired and had fondest memories of, went down for 12 years for child sex offenses at the end of last year. I think I think this leaves me as an unreliable witness to the benefits or otherwise of private education. But I never learned to talk proper(ly), so I still sound like Arthur Daley, I still think twice (3,4 times) about putting the heating on, and my car is 20 years old - whatever class that makes me.

Alan29

Threads like this remind me of how ingrained class still is in the UK. And how important working class credentials seem to be to some.
Is this a feature of other countries?

Jengie Jon

What I want to make quite clear is the current talking of Working class, Middle Class, Upper Class and associating it with cultural values of fifty years ago is that it is hiding profound class divisions in the UK.

Most people who hold the working class culture of fifty years ago are in my group 2. I am not claiming to know class 1 culture, I will claim to be close enough to it to say

• It is dis-engaged socially but dependent
• It absorbs a diversity of marginalisation through immigration, disability, institutional poverty and chaoticness
• It is often short term in its approach
• it is far larger than it was in the past - no longer good enough to treat it as a small underclass.

We ignore it at our peril

Dafyd

By your groups 1 and 2 do you mean the final and penultimate groups in your original list?

Heavenlyannie

It is not clear what you mean by class 1 and group 2.
The class divisions of 5o years ago still exist today, at least from a working class perspective. And that is a class I know very well, as my family in Luton are still working class and some of them represent the very issues you discuss. Racism is rife in the council estates of Luton and always has been, and exists alongside other social issues. But I don’t think the language of ‘underclass’ is particularly helpful.

pease

In 2013, the BBC's Great British Class Survey of over 161,000 people identified seven social classes:

Class has traditionally been defined by occupation, wealth and education. But this research argues that this is too simplistic, suggesting that class has three dimensions - economic, social and cultural [capital].

• Elite - the most privileged group in the UK, distinct from the other six classes through its wealth. This group has the highest levels of all three capitals
  
• Established middle class - the second wealthiest, scoring highly on all three capitals. The largest and most gregarious group, scoring second highest for cultural capital
  
• Technical middle class - a small, distinctive new class group which is prosperous but scores low for social and cultural capital. Distinguished by its social isolation and cultural apathy
  
• New affluent workers - a young class group which is socially and culturally active, with middling levels of economic capital
  
• Traditional working class - scores low on all forms of capital, but is not completely deprived. Its members have reasonably high house values, explained by this group having the oldest average age at 66
  
• Emergent service workers - a new, young, urban group which is relatively poor but has high social and cultural capital
  
• Precariat, or precarious proletariat - the poorest, most deprived class, scoring low for social and cultural capital

KarlLB

pease wrote: »

In 2013, the BBC's Great British Class Survey of over 161,000 people identified seven social classes:

Class has traditionally been defined by occupation, wealth and education. But this research argues that this is too simplistic, suggesting that class has three dimensions - economic, social and cultural [capital].

• Elite - the most privileged group in the UK, distinct from the other six classes through its wealth. This group has the highest levels of all three capitals
  
• Established middle class - the second wealthiest, scoring highly on all three capitals. The largest and most gregarious group, scoring second highest for cultural capital
  
• Technical middle class - a small, distinctive new class group which is prosperous but scores low for social and cultural capital. Distinguished by its social isolation and cultural apathy
  
• New affluent workers - a young class group which is socially and culturally active, with middling levels of economic capital
  
• Traditional working class - scores low on all forms of capital, but is not completely deprived. Its members have reasonably high house values, explained by this group having the oldest average age at 66
  
• Emergent service workers - a new, young, urban group which is relatively poor but has high social and cultural capital
  
• Precariat, or precarious proletariat - the poorest, most deprived class, scoring low for social and cultural capital

Not sure I can place myself in any of those either.

Doublethink

It would be helpful to know what they mean by the - not in any way loaded ! - term “cultural apathy”.

HarryCH

I think George Bernard Shaw would have suggested speech patterns as an indicator.

Twangist

I wonder if there is a matrix of different aspects to class - finance, education, work, communication style and networks all seem to be in play.

Jengie Jon

Firstly sorry, this morning was posting in haste, I am now repenting in leisure.

1=4, 2=3

or more accurately in that post
1=Economically dependent
2=Economically insecure

If you want Financial categories
Economically Independent - International consumers/participants/Patrons/funders
Economically Secure - creator/leaders/consumers/fund raisers
Economically insecure - consumers/participants/fee payers
Economically dependendent - consumers/deviant participants/supported.

North East Quine

pease wrote: »

In 2013, the BBC's Great British Class Survey of over 161,000 people identified seven social classes:

Class has traditionally been defined by occupation, wealth and education. But this research argues that this is too simplistic, suggesting that class has three dimensions - economic, social and cultural [capital].

• Elite - the most privileged group in the UK, distinct from the other six classes through its wealth. This group has the highest levels of all three capitals
  
• Established middle class - the second wealthiest, scoring highly on all three capitals. The largest and most gregarious group, scoring second highest for cultural capital
  
• Technical middle class - a small, distinctive new class group which is prosperous but scores low for social and cultural capital. Distinguished by its social isolation and cultural apathy
  
• New affluent workers - a young class group which is socially and culturally active, with middling levels of economic capital
  
• Traditional working class - scores low on all forms of capital, but is not completely deprived. Its members have reasonably high house values, explained by this group having the oldest average age at 66
  
• Emergent service workers - a new, young, urban group which is relatively poor but has high social and cultural capital
  
• Precariat, or precarious proletariat - the poorest, most deprived class, scoring low for social and cultural capital

Like KarlLB, I can't place myself in any of those.

Telford

pease wrote: »

In 2013, the BBC's Great British Class Survey of over 161,000 people identified seven social classes:

Class has traditionally been defined by occupation, wealth and education. But this research argues that this is too simplistic, suggesting that class has three dimensions - economic, social and cultural [capital].

• Elite - the most privileged group in the UK, distinct from the other six classes through its wealth. This group has the highest levels of all three capitals
  
• Established middle class - the second wealthiest, scoring highly on all three capitals. The largest and most gregarious group, scoring second highest for cultural capital
  
• Technical middle class - a small, distinctive new class group which is prosperous but scores low for social and cultural capital. Distinguished by its social isolation and cultural apathy
  
• New affluent workers - a young class group which is socially and culturally active, with middling levels of economic capital
  
• Traditional working class - scores low on all forms of capital, but is not completely deprived. Its members have reasonably high house values, explained by this group having the oldest average age at 66
  
• Emergent service workers - a new, young, urban group which is relatively poor but has high social and cultural capital
  
• Precariat, or precarious proletariat - the poorest, most deprived class, scoring low for social and cultural capital

I no longer do the lottery but if I suddenly won £10 million, I would merely be rich working class.

Traditional working class for me, but I doubt that I would score low on capital, even without the lottery win.

Gill H

I grew up never knowing where I fitted. Clergy father, big house, therefore mocked for being posh. Couldn’t afford heating, all holidays were locums therefore free, all clothes were hand me downs, never able to save - not poor but certainly living month to month.

Puzzler

I once did audience research for the BBC. Clergy ( +families )were in the highest social category.

Baptist Trainfan

Was that Anglican clergy, though? Baptists have tended to sit lower in the social order, though nowadays that may be less so.

Arethosemyfeet

Puzzler wrote: »

I once did audience research for the BBC. Clergy ( +families )were in the highest social category.

Is that social classifications using ABC1/C2DE though? That's largely decoupled from economics.

Gamma Gamaliel

Yes. I'd certainly consider myself middle-class but in a different kind of way to @Arethosemyfeet and certainly without making any value judgements about his particular background.

I had a reasonable job and standard of living but would never have been able to afford the eye-watering school fees cited here, even if I'd wanted to.

I'd see these things in 'cultural' rather than purely economic terms, although that runs the risk of patronising attitudes and so on.

I remember hearing Grayshon Perry on Radio 4 observing how daft he thought it was that arts officer jobs were being created to encourage more working class people to appreciate the arts.

Why weren't there jobs to encourage posh people to attend working-class sporting events like stockcar racing, wrestling or greyhound racing dahn the East End?

Ok, that's flippant but it raises some questions about values and what is considered important and why.

It's purely by historical accent that Cockney rather than RP ended up as the accent of the Court.

What if we lived in a parallel universe where stockcar racing rather than Glyndeborne was considered the apogee of taste and chic?

Gamma Gamaliel

Whoops ... historical accident

chrisstiles

Arethosemyfeet wrote: »

Puzzler wrote: »

I once did audience research for the BBC. Clergy ( +families )were in the highest social category.

Is that social classifications using ABC1/C2DE though? That's largely decoupled from economics.

Is it? Are you referring to the episode a few years ago where pensioners were automatically classified as working class unless they were independently wealthy apart from their pension?

Arethosemyfeet

chrisstiles wrote: »

Arethosemyfeet wrote: »

Puzzler wrote: »

I once did audience research for the BBC. Clergy ( +families )were in the highest social category.

Is that social classifications using ABC1/C2DE though? That's largely decoupled from economics.

Is it? Are you referring to the episode a few years ago where pensioners were automatically classified as working class unless they were independently wealthy apart from their pension?

Partly that, but also that it retains a blue collar/white collar, and supervisory, divide that doesn't really relate directly to pay. A shift manager at McDonalds or a school receptionist are C1 while a time-served electrician is C2. Classroom teachers are generally B but mostly earn less than the electrician.

Baptist Trainfan

Would there be any difference in an electrician who has learned their craft through an apprenticeship, and one who did so via a college course? (I accept that apprenticeships may well include an element of study, and that both may get certificated).

And what about the husband of a friend of mine, who qualified and worked as a solicitor but is now retraining to be an electrician?

Gamma Gamaliel

I suspect he would fit into a new category. A Solicitrician. Or Electricitor.

I'll get me coat ...

Or my donkey jacket / barbour jacket / harris tweed jacket / 'whose coat is that jacket hanging on the door by there?' [delete as appropriate]

Arethosemyfeet

Baptist Trainfan wrote: »

Would there be any difference in an electrician who has learned their craft through an apprenticeship, and one who did so via a college course? (I accept that apprenticeships may well include an element of study, and that both may get certificated).

And what about the husband of a friend of mine, who qualified and worked as a solicitor but is now retraining to be an electrician?

It's about your current occupation, not your qualifications or how you got them. Apprentices and trainees might count as students, not sure.

Hugal

Arethosemyfeet wrote: »

Baptist Trainfan wrote: »

Would there be any difference in an electrician who has learned their craft through an apprenticeship, and one who did so via a college course? (I accept that apprenticeships may well include an element of study, and that both may get certificated).

And what about the husband of a friend of mine, who qualified and worked as a solicitor but is now retraining to be an electrician?

It's about your current occupation, not your qualifications or how you got them. Apprentices and trainees might count as students, not sure.

Was current meant to be humorous here. Electrician, current.

betjemaniac

Gamma Gamaliel wrote: »

Why weren't there jobs to encourage posh people to attend working-class sporting events like stockcar racing, wrestling or greyhound racing dahn the East End?

Ok, that's flippant but it raises some questions about values and what is considered important and why.

It's purely by historical accent that Cockney rather than RP ended up as the accent of the Court.

What if we lived in a parallel universe where stockcar racing rather than Glyndeborne was considered the apogee of taste and chic?

Clearly you missed Brian Sewell’s (yes, that Brian Sewell) documentary on stock car racing for Radio 4 a decade or so ago.

Randomly, he was an aficionado/expert on it, this wasn’t at all a ‘fish out of water’ programme, and Radio 4 gave him time to explain at length why their audience should give it a go.

Arethosemyfeet

Hugal wrote: »

Arethosemyfeet wrote: »

Baptist Trainfan wrote: »

Would there be any difference in an electrician who has learned their craft through an apprenticeship, and one who did so via a college course? (I accept that apprenticeships may well include an element of study, and that both may get certificated).

And what about the husband of a friend of mine, who qualified and worked as a solicitor but is now retraining to be an electrician?

It's about your current occupation, not your qualifications or how you got them. Apprentices and trainees might count as students, not sure.

Was current meant to be humorous here. Electrician, current.

Nope, though clearly you spotted the potential (that one was deliberate - I couldn't resist).

Gamma Gamaliel

betjemaniac wrote: »

Gamma Gamaliel wrote: »

Why weren't there jobs to encourage posh people to attend working-class sporting events like stockcar racing, wrestling or greyhound racing dahn the East End?

Ok, that's flippant but it raises some questions about values and what is considered important and why.

It's purely by historical accent that Cockney rather than RP ended up as the accent of the Court.

What if we lived in a parallel universe where stockcar racing rather than Glyndeborne was considered the apogee of taste and chic?

Clearly you missed Brian Sewell’s (yes, that Brian Sewell) documentary on stock car racing for Radio 4 a decade or so ago.

Randomly, he was an aficionado/expert on it, this wasn’t at all a ‘fish out of water’ programme, and Radio 4 gave him time to explain at length why their audience should give it a go.

Sure, but Sewell wasn't employed to develop middle-class audiences for stockcar racing.

I suspect he was on a deliberate 'slumming it' pose, but I might be doing him a disservice, old boy.

betjemaniac

Gamma Gamaliel wrote: »

betjemaniac wrote: »

Gamma Gamaliel wrote: »

Why weren't there jobs to encourage posh people to attend working-class sporting events like stockcar racing, wrestling or greyhound racing dahn the East End?

Ok, that's flippant but it raises some questions about values and what is considered important and why.

It's purely by historical accent that Cockney rather than RP ended up as the accent of the Court.

What if we lived in a parallel universe where stockcar racing rather than Glyndeborne was considered the apogee of taste and chic?

Clearly you missed Brian Sewell’s (yes, that Brian Sewell) documentary on stock car racing for Radio 4 a decade or so ago.

Randomly, he was an aficionado/expert on it, this wasn’t at all a ‘fish out of water’ programme, and Radio 4 gave him time to explain at length why their audience should give it a go.

Sure, but Sewell wasn't employed to develop middle-class audiences for stockcar racing.

I suspect he was on a deliberate 'slumming it' pose, but I might be doing him a disservice, old boy.

Point taken on ‘employed’ but he did leverage his platform to attempt to interest a middle class audience in stock car racing.

You are doing him a disservice - even though the whole thing feels like a spoof, he was an attendee at the stock cars at Wimbledon dog track pretty much weekly from the 1970s to his death!

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2010/sep/06/brian-sewell-stock-car-sewell-review?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Heavenlyannie

Going to watch stock car racing and greyhound racing were both regular features of my childhood. The latter we used to do when on holiday at either Blackpool (my parents were Lancastrian so we used to go and see ‘the lights’ for a weekend) or the Ladbrokes holiday camp at Caister. This last location highlights that betting on the horses was a regular feature of my childhood.

Arethosemyfeet

Trips out for us tended to be stately homes (on National Trust membership so not paying every time) or other historic sites. Or at a pinch browsing in Great Mills to keep us entertained on a wet afternoon. Holidays were self-catering or camping; when I was very young they were often out of the Church Times with discounted rates for clergy. One memorably had only garden furniture in the living room. Activities while on holiday were heavy on museums, galleries and walking. We did once manage Blackpool Pleasure Beach in the days when you bought a book of lettered tickets that gave you a fixed number of "goes" on different rides, but most activities were beyond our budget.

Gamma Gamaliel

betjemaniac wrote: »

Gamma Gamaliel wrote: »

betjemaniac wrote: »

Gamma Gamaliel wrote: »

Why weren't there jobs to encourage posh people to attend working-class sporting events like stockcar racing, wrestling or greyhound racing dahn the East End?

Ok, that's flippant but it raises some questions about values and what is considered important and why.

It's purely by historical accent that Cockney rather than RP ended up as the accent of the Court.

What if we lived in a parallel universe where stockcar racing rather than Glyndeborne was considered the apogee of taste and chic?

Clearly you missed Brian Sewell’s (yes, that Brian Sewell) documentary on stock car racing for Radio 4 a decade or so ago.

Randomly, he was an aficionado/expert on it, this wasn’t at all a ‘fish out of water’ programme, and Radio 4 gave him time to explain at length why their audience should give it a go.

Sure, but Sewell wasn't employed to develop middle-class audiences for stockcar racing.

I suspect he was on a deliberate 'slumming it' pose, but I might be doing him a disservice, old boy.

Point taken on ‘employed’ but he did leverage his platform to attempt to interest a middle class audience in stock car racing.

You are doing him a disservice - even though the whole thing feels like a spoof, he was an attendee at the stock cars at Wimbledon dog track pretty much weekly from the 1970s to his death!

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2010/sep/06/brian-sewell-stock-car-sewell-review?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Yeah, but it wasn't authentic was it? Not like it would have been for @Heavenlyannie.

I'm not doing Sewell a disservice at all. I'm calling him out. I've been to a few wrestling matches. Giant Haystacks. Kendo Nagasaki. I enjoyed them. But I was there in a middle-class and ironic postmodern kind of way.

Sewell would have been like that at stockcar racing events.

If he was honest he'd have admitted it.

Enoch

Odd, isn't it, that racing horses is upper class but racing dogs very definitely isn't? And odd too that the Senedd proposes to ban the latter but hasn't said anything about the former, that Ystrad Mynach is in its sights but Chepstow doesn't seem to be.

TheOrganist

Enoch wrote: »

Odd, isn't it, that racing horses is upper class but racing dogs very definitely isn't? And odd too that the Senedd proposes to ban the latter but hasn't said anything about the former, that Ystrad Mynach is in its sights but Chepstow doesn't seem to be.

Equestrian sports in Wales have always been very different from the English and Scottish scene - rather more like Ireland. Wales has produced notable jockeys - Dick Francis, Geoff Lewis, Hywel Davies and Carl Llewellyn - and of course there is the wonderful story of Dream Alliance, the horse bred on an allotment by Jan Vokes that won the 2009 Welsh Grand National.

If you want a typical example of Welsh racing people you should look at Norton's Coin - a horse which won the Cheltenham Gold Cup at record odds of 100-1 and to which I personally will always be grateful for funding the original work on the house!

Gamma Gamaliel

I'm not sure how 'typical' that is. Growing up on the edge of the Valleys we always associated horses with posh people. You know. 'Out Usk', as we'd say.

The horses and hounds of the Llangybi Hunt might appear at a carnival in Caerleon, say, but you'd never see them in Cwmbran or Abersychan I don't expect or up The Varteg.

There was a miners' fox hunting group up the Valleys at one time. I'm not sure they had horses though.

I'd say it varied. In some places equine culture may have resembled Ireland's rather than England's but South Wales is strange. You didn't have to head very far east from the Eastern Valley to find 'Yoicks! Tally ho!' types and Tory farmers in 'The Middle of Monmouthshire.'

The transition from the industrial Valleys to rolling countryside that seemed an extension westwards from the Cotswolds but not as twee was quite abrupt. It was if someone had drawn a line down the middle of the county.