# U and non-U - American equivalent



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

While just making pasta for lunch, I heard myself saying the word in a certain US accent, paaaaas-ta, that I've heard and heard parodied on TV so often.

And it got me wondering if there is a US equivalent of U and non-U, whereby you can identify a person as being middle or upper class from the way they pronounce certain words, and simply by the use of certain words, identified as only belonging to either the middle or upper class.

The whole U and non-U argument is well old now but still of interest...albeit a bit comical.

Now I'm not saying paaas-ta is either one or the other, just using that as a possible example, becauae it always seems to be rich, New England types on yachts that say it like that. :icon_smile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

Funny enough I grew up using most of the words on the right in the U column. But I am a Glaswegian from the east end and not a member of the upper classes.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

There *are* upper and lower class variations in speech in the US, yes.

It's not simple though, because there are *also* regional differences superimposed on these - so upper/lower class speech in the Southeast will be different from upper/lower class speech in the Northeast.

On top of THAT you can add demographic differences - so an upper-class person of Cuban descent in Miami might speak quite differently from an upper-class black person in Atlanta. And so on.

What I think is more universal, classwise, than pronunciation in the US is word choice; for example:

Lower-class: "in a family way"/"with Jesus now"
Middle-class: "expecting"/"passed away"
Upper-class: "pregnant"/"died"

While even word choice has regional and demographic variation, I think it's more constant than dialect... upper-class Southern and Northeastern folk, amusingly, can sound lower-class *to each other*, even if they sound upper-class to others in their region!

DH


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Dhaller said:


> ... upper-class Southern and Northeastern folk, amusingly, can sound lower-class *to each other*, even if they sound upper-class to others in their region!
> 
> DH


I like that.

You're correct in identifying vocabulary, or choice of words, rather than accent as the principal 'U/non-U' factor.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

These examples are idiotic.

Everyone knows that greens are not synonomous with vegetables, they are collards!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> There *are* upper and lower class variations in speech in the US, yes.


*Let me stop you there please before you go any further.* The U and non-U discussion is far more subtle than the differences between the upper and working classes. *It specifically looked at the differences in speech between the upper class (i.e. the nobility & gentry) and the aspiring middle class.* The working classes weren't studied at all. So it was a very particular study. And it is that which I'm interested in from a US perspective as well i.e. is there, in the USA, an identifiable upper class discernible from the middle class by, for example in this case, speech. That's what makes it trickier, differentiating two neighbouring, very close, social strata classes that in many respects are viewed as or are or might be the same or similar.

The interesting thing I discovered about 30 years aog when I first studied this, was that (as Douglas alluded to) the pronunciation of the London working class both the cockneys in the East and the Middlesex Londoners in the West (myself included) was in many cases identical to the gentry and nobility, while the aspiring middle class of London had a pronunciation system all their own, not dissimlar to Estuary English - Tony Blair for example.

But back to the US, staying focused on the subject in hand, is there a handful of words or pronunciations (as there are in British English) that immediately place a person using them in the American upper class as opposed to the middle class and vice versa?

So please try and stay on subject at least initially.


----------



## Pleasant McIvor (Apr 14, 2008)

I think the sofa and couch distinction persists in the American South, in older generations (my grandparents, e.g.). Something about the French origin of the word?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

I use a mixture of both. Where does that put me?


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> *
> 
> But back to the US, staying focused on the subject in hand, is there a handful of words or pronunciations (as there are in British English) that immediately place a person using them in the American upper class as opposed to the middle class and vice versa?
> 
> *


*

I would have to say "no". As recently as 30 years ago (or so) the answer would have been "yes" (the word "patina" comes to mind, with "pAHtina" being upper and "patEEna" being lower class, almost definitively, for example), but I think the roaring expansion of the economic, technological and demographic landscape post-Carter Era have created such a socioeconomic scramble that class origins (the source of received pronunciation) have become largely disconnected from current class positions.

The result of this is that speech and social position no longer particularly correspond, outside of basic trends.

It's worth pointing out that the "upper classes" in the US 30+ years ago were a small fraction of the population, so it was more of a distinct (and basically white) community; in 2010, 9% of Americans are millionaires, so the upper-echelons are both far more numerous AND far more various.

They no longer all know each other, which tends to reduce common pronunciation!

DH*


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> I would have to say "no". As recently as 30 years ago (or so) the answer would have been "yes" (the word "patina" comes to mind, with "pAHtina" being upper and "patEEna" being lower class, almost definitively, for example), but I think the roaring expansion of the economic, technological and demographic landscape post-Carter Era have created such a socioeconomic scramble that class origins (the source of received pronunciation) have become largely disconnected from current class positions.
> 
> The result of this is that speech and social position no longer particularly correspond, outside of basic trends.
> 
> ...


Thanks DH, fascinating stuff. Your last sentecne is of particular interest and importance in that the absence of socialising dilutes a class more than anything else


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Pleasant McIvor said:


> I think the sofa and couch distinction persists in the American South, in older generations (my grandparents, e.g.). Something about the French origin of the word?


As in Settee??

Around these parts, it isn't in how you say it, it's where you put it.

In the living room. Upper

On the front porch. Middle (Or considerably lower!!)


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

First of all: there's no native nobility in the US, and historically there's generally not been any equivalent of a gentry either. The Constitution outlaws the granting of aristocratic titles by the US, as well as the acceptance of foreign titles by US officials. Indeed, the Constitution was very nearly amended to provide that an American would forfeit his or her citizenship by accepting a foreign noble title.

By the time America was settled by Europeans, feudalism was dead (at least in Britain and Western Europe); plus there was lots of land and not very many people. Thus the "specialness" of the landed gentry never really existed in America. The South was a bit of an exception, as the existence of slavery made something akin to feudalism possible - but the Civil War changed all that in multiple ways. Some families in rural parts of the South do still claim special status as something akin to landed gentry, though. In the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast: not at all.

The visible, and (to a limited extent) emulated "higher" class in the US is really the upper middle class, _i.e._ people who with educations and well-paying careers, who nonetheless - unlike a true upper class - work for their money: high corporate executives, lawyers, doctors, etc. Basically what Charlie Black called UHBs: urban hautes bourgeoises.

There are, of course, various people wandering about the US (New York, particularly) who come from other countries, some of whom have, or at least claim to have, aristocratic titles from those countries. Once you've bumped into a few dozen semi-soignee sorts who claim to be Polish counts or something like that (or had them borrow money from you or vomit on your shoes), the appeal of aristocratic presumptions wears off altogether. Hence the term "Eurotrash."

Without titles and the like, all there is is money. There are certainly rich families in the US, but many of the richest ones have only been so for a generation or two, if that. Bill Gates has a lot of money, but it would be hard to describe him or his kids as "upper class" in any meaningful cultural way. Their upbringing and cultural education is really no different from ordinary upper-middle-class people. The same goes for various tech-equity-play millionaires, hedge-fund managers and lottery winners.

There are some families with hereditary wealth that's runs back a bit longer, but they're generally neither emulated nor particularly enviable, to the extent they're even visible at all.

The real American equivalent to an aristocracy might be celebrities: just substitute Justin Bieber for Prince William.

So there really aren't any pronunciations or other cultural touchstones that distinguish anything like an "aristocracy" or "gentry" from the middle class. On the other hand, there are lots of details that can be used to distinguish the various layers that do exist: upper-middle from middle, them from lower-middle, them from trully lower, and those from the really truly impoverished. However, another distinguishing characteristic of the US is that it is very deeply multi-enthnic and multi-cultural, so those fault lines run across the whole topic, making it, to a non-American, both more confusing and more incendiary than you might expect.

Incidentally, I don't think I've ever heard and American pronounce "pasta" otherwise than in the normal American way (which is a rough equivalent to how it's pronounced in Italian). The English way sounds weird and would, to me, sound affected coming from an American: kind of like if an American moving into a new apartment were to say he had to queue up to hire a lorry to carry the telly to his new flat.


----------



## Dr. François (Sep 14, 2008)

https://www4.uwm.edu/FLL/linguistics/dialect/maps.html

The cart leads the horse a bit on this issue...we have regional and micro-regional dialects in the US, and some accents are associated with certain "types" of people, which is then essentialized to mean "types" of people talk this way because they are that type, not because they are from a particular discourse or geographical community.


----------



## mjc (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> simply by the use of certain words, identified as only belonging to either the middle or upper class.


These phrases are not found in the upper class lexicon:

Wassup?
Youse ready to order?

Anyone who uses the word "Apollonian" is upper class.

Easy!

- Mike


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Pleasant McIvor said:


> I think the sofa and couch distinction persists in the American South, in older generations (my grandparents, e.g.). Something about the French origin of the word?





WouldaShoulda said:


> As in Settee??
> 
> Around these parts, it isn't in how you say it, it's where you put it.
> 
> ...


Not a davenport? (giving away my midwestern origins)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Starch said:


> First of all: there's no native nobility in the US, and historically there's generally not been any equivalent of a gentry either. The Constitution outlaws the granting of aristocratic titles by the US, as well as the acceptance of foreign titles by US officials. Indeed, the Constitution was very nearly amended to provide that an American would forfeit his or her citizenship by accepting a foreign noble title.
> 
> By the time America was settled by Europeans, feudalism was dead (at least in Britain and Western Europe); plus there was lots of land and not very many people. Thus the "specialness" of the landed gentry never really existed in America. The South was a bit of an exception, as the existence of slavery made something akin to feudalism possible - but the Civil War changed all that in multiple ways. Some families in rural parts of the South do still claim special status as something akin to landed gentry, though. In the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast: not at all.
> 
> ...


Thank you Starch,very imformative. On the British pronunciation of pasta, that's how my first Italian girlfreind (from Genoa) said and how the Italians in England also say it, including the Italians I worked with in my first job in a deli.

I've noticed while watchng The Sopranos that their pronunciations of some Italian words are often quite different to the pronunciations of native Italians.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Let the record show that when I was growing up it was called a "settee" in our house. But some of our "English" neighbours said couch. The word "sofa" I didn't first hear until probably the mid-1980s.

Sofa-bed also 1980s. In my childhood it was called a bed-settee.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Let the record show that when I was growing up it was called a "settee" in our house. But some of our "English" neighbours said couch. The word "sofa" I didn't first hear until probably the mid-1980s.
> 
> Sofa-bed also 1980s. In my childhood it was called a bed-settee.


Well where I grew up it was neither sofa, couch or settee it was "Lounge"

We used to a have a very comfortable lounge on our veranda which was a great place to enjoy the twilight in 41c heat with a cold G'n'T.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

As an American who has lived all over the US, you have to keep in mind that Upper/Middle/Lower classes are a completely different concept for us. 

In the Post WW2 era, when the original GI bill (& various other forms of government sponsored education benefits) became available to returning veterans, it changed the rules in the USA. 

1) Pre-WW2, we had a traditional Upper/Middle/Lower class system (whatever class you were born in, you would likely die in).
2) Educational benefits became available to a HUGE amount of Americans, allowing anyone regardless of previous class to gain the education to meet their actual intellectual potential.
3) Over the years following WW2 (& each successive US war/conflict/peacekeeping operation/etc), the traditional boundaries became completely blurred. 
4) You now have Millionaires/Billionaires (Upper class denizens), who are the grandchildren of LIVING lower class people. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of opportunities for someone to reach their full economic potential regardless of their stating economic class. 

As someone else has said, the closest thing we have to royalty/gentry is celebrities, and their background is as diverse as most other Americans. Even if you go to the "old" money, we are talking about bootleggers from the 1920's. Wealth in the US is just not old enough to have created or maintained true class distinctions.

Since vocabulary is inherited from our parents/grandparents/surroundings, those class based vocabulary is just blurred to an extreme level.

With the amount of land-mass that the US has, combined with the sheer number of people and backgrounds, unless you are from the same area as another person, you just can't make a determination on class based solely on Vocabulary/Accent/Syntax. As a Texan, I can sound like a downright hick/uneducated/lower class person if someone were to judge solely on accent & speech speed, even though I'm "middle class" by an economic standpoint.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Some alternative names in British Englsih for what I refer to as the sitting room

Living room
Parlour
Lounge
Front Room
Back Room
Sitting room


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

mjc said:


> Anyone who uses the word "Apollonian" is upper class.


Unless he is referring to Creed.

Possible example

Lower middle class: "Where's he at?"
Middle class: "Where is he?"
Upper middle class: "Where is his office?"
Upper class: "Why the hell do I care where he is? Let him come to me."


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Since vocabulary is inherited from our parents/grandparents/surroundings, those class based vocabulary is just blurred to an extreme level.
> 
> With the amount of land-mass that the US has, combined with the sheer number of people and backgrounds, unless you are from the same area as another person, you just can't make a determination on class based solely on Vocabulary/Accent/Syntax. As a Texan, I can sound like a downright hick/uneducated/lower class person if someone were to judge solely on accent & speech speed, even though I'm "middle class" by an economic standpoint.


The inheritance of word choice in America was addressed by David Hackett Fischer [sp?] in "Albion's Seed" in which he demonstrated that a goode deal of regional variation in word choice in the U.S. depended on from what areas in England the original settlers came. By and large, accent is a terrible indicator of class in America (though, there are some exceptions); word choice too, is a very poor indicator. I think, really, grammar is the best indicator (adjusting for regional idiosyncracies) of, at least, whether someone is at least middle class or lower.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Some alternative names in British Englsih for what I refer to as the sitting room
> 
> Living room
> Parlour
> ...


And also, of course, drawing room. This, however, is not a term I have ever heard used in any way other than a semi-ironic reference to the room in which social life takes place.


----------



## Ed Reynolds (Apr 13, 2010)

Isn't the parlour where you would meet with guests? My grandmother's house has both a living room and a parlour. The former is where we would spend a majority of the time, the parlour smaller, more intimate and had nicer furniture.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Col Mustard, with the knife, in the Lounge!!


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Col Mustard, with the knife, in the Lounge!!


Of course that is the American edition of the game...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Centaur said:


> Of course that is the American edition of the game...


Yes, the board itself. But Col. Mustard is in the British version.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Centaur said:


> And also, of course, drawing room. This, however, is not a term I have ever heard used in any way other than a semi-ironic reference to the room in which social life takes place.


Yes, but like you say I've never heard anyone in real life actually use it.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

A few I can think of. . . .

Upper / Lower

ai-ther / ee-ther (either)

nai-ther / nee - ther (neither)

raa-ther / rath-er (rather)

in-*sur*-ance / *in*-sur-ance (insurance)

*the*-ah-tre / the-*ay*-ter (theatre)

skahn / skone (scone)

noo-kle-ar / nook-ye-lar (nuclear)

Fe-broo-ary / Feb-yoo-ary (February)

real-tuhr / real-tohr (realtor) (and other words ending with -or)

refrigerator / icebox

roast beef _au jus_ / roast beef with _au jus_

quickly, differently / quick, different (-ly adverbs)

Grant and I / Me and Grant (courtesy "Ghost Hunters")


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Beresford said:


> A few I can think of. . . .
> 
> Upper / Lower
> 
> ...


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

I suppose it is the great success of the American experiment that a direct correlation of what you speak of is impossible.

Levels of education can be discerned I suppose, perhaps how well spoken one is - as I've noticed I must take pains to speak in a "middle dialect" that sounds friendly and approachable. At my "job" I am most likely the most educated person they've run into. It doesn't pay, however, to sound like it all the time. People won't talk to you if they think you are too "high above them" - death for someone in my line of work.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Pink and Green said:


> I suppose it is the great success of the American experiment that a direct correlation of what you speak of is impossible.


Indeed, that is the conclusion I am rapidly moving towards.

What I've seen here in response are comparisons between the following: 
1, uneducated and educated English - grammar, vocab etc.
2, north and south - amd other regional comparisons 
3, black and white
4, maybe working class and middle class
But none of those 4 are what I asked about.

In short it seems, from the answers provided here, that American English cannot via pronunciation and/or word choice alone differentiate between upper class and middle class. Probably because there is no true upper class, and what might possibly be called upper class is not socially distinct from the middle class. Would that be a fair assessment?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> In short it seems, from the answers provided here, that American English cannot via pronunciation and/or word choice alone differentiate between upper class and middle class. *Probably because there is no true upper class, and what might possibly be called upper class is not socially distinct from the middle class.* Would that be a fair assessment?


I would call that an accurate assessment. We don't have true "social" classes, but rather economic classes. Those economic classes are constantly in flux.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Beresford said:


> A few I can think of. . . .
> 
> Upper / Lower
> 
> ...


Silly.

Everyone I know goes to the picture show and keeps their popsicles in the Frigidaire!!


----------



## mjc (Nov 11, 2009)

Pool / cee-ment pond


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Even in England these differentials are constantly changing. Many younger members of what I would call the upper classes adopting "Estuary English", at least for a while, until they revert to the usual form of their class. What I deplore is the increasing use of the "ar" or "ah" sound for "a". Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan, for example should have short "a"s, yet are now called "Arfgharnistarn", "Irarn" and "Parkistarn" by those who should know better.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Even in England these differentials are constantly changing. Many younger members of what I would call the upper classes adopting "Estuary English", at least for a while, until they revert to the usual form of their class. What I deplore is the increasing use of the "ar" or "ah" sound for "a". Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan, for example should have short "a"s, yet are now called "Arfgharnistarn", "Irarn" and "Parkistarn" by those who should know better.


Good point. However, it could be worse in that we could have everyone in Britain using the Irish and American pronunciation for the I nations: Eye-raq, Eye-raqi, Eye-ran, Eye-ranian, Eye-talian but not Italy. When I was younger it used to really grate on my nerves to hear my parents pronouncing names like that.
Related subject and a classic U or non-U word: Keen-ya or Kenn-ya


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> ...but not Italy.


That's two syllables... "It-lee"


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes, the board itself. But Col. Mustard is in the British version.


He's both actually. Reverend Green however was known as Mr. Green in the US edition.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> In short it seems, from the answers provided here, that American English cannot via pronunciation and/or word choice alone differentiate between upper class and middle class. Probably because there is no true upper class, and what might possibly be called upper class is not socially distinct from the middle class. Would that be a fair assessment?


I think there is definately an upper class in America, but it's permeable and fluid and basd entirely on income/wealth - not quite the caste it is/was in the UK. One can think of the great American "names" from the turn of 19th century and I'm sure there are atill some scions with pleasant trust funds and old homes, but all of those names (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, etc.) have been supplanted by Buffets, Waltons, and Gates, etc. for real power and wealth. Without primogeniture and with income taxes and estate taxes (which I know the UK has as well) wealth dispates over the generations and the social force of "democracy" compels those in the upper class to embrace middle classness if they seek a life in the public sphere. There wasn't the time in America to develop a true caste system - a lack of feudalism and progressive taxation within 120 years of the nation's founding all helped to preclude this as well. I really don't know, but I wonder how many, if any, of the great summer houses of Newport, the Hamptons, etc. have remained in the same family for more than, say, 60 years? Heck, how many main houses in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston, etc. have remiained in the same family or more than 80 years?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Epaminondas said:


> I think there is definately an upper class in America, but it's permeable and fluid and basd entirely on income/wealth - not quite the caste it is/was in the UK. One can think of the great American "names" from the turn of 19th century and I'm sure there are atill some scions with pleasant trust funds and old homes, but all of those names (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, etc.) have been supplanted by Buffets, Waltons, and Gates, etc. for real power and wealth. Without primogeniture and with income taxes and estate taxes (which I know the UK has as well) wealth dispates over the generations and the social force of "democracy" compels those in the upper class to embrace middle classness if they seek a life in the public sphere. There wasn't the time in America to develop a true caste system - a lack of feudalism and progressive taxation within 120 years of the nation's founding all helped to preclude this as well. I really don't know, but I wonder how many, if any, of the great summer houses of Newport, the Hamptons, etc. have remained in the same family for more than, say, 60 years? Heck, how many main houses in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston, etc. have remiained in the same family or more than 80 years?


Fascinating stuff yet again. I can just imagine all those great summer houses on the east coast and in Virginia.

Dare I ask, dare I? Shall I? Or would the board erupt?  Sod it, I'll ask and then run for cover 

Ok, all those great summer houses in mind, is it possible to say that certain states are more upper-middle class than others?
Most of New England I suppose (with the excpetion perhaps of New York and DC). The Virginias, the Carolinas?


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

As already pointed out by Epaminondas and Earl of Ormonde, the distinctions people have posited are generally either (a) not class based at all, but regional - or, in some cases (rather, scone), nonexistent - and (b) not really distinctions between upper and middle, which is what the original question was, but between middle and lower-middle or lower.

I'd also note that if a group doesn't have any continuity or distinct cultural identity, it's not really a "class," it's just a fluid economic stratum.

America most certainly does have classes, and class distincitions, but the most clear distinctions fall around the middle and lower ranges. Though it's not always obvious, you can generally distinguish people who come from a family with a history of professional careers from those who don't. To bring it all back to the purported subject of this forum, the Preppy Handbook was essentially a description of the distinguishing characteristics of the upper middle class. Of course, regionalism and race play a major role: so, to be more accurate, it described the WASP upper middle class of the Northeastern states (though it approximately described those in other regions as well, just not as closely).

On the immediately preceding question: certain areas do contain a larger concentration of the upper middle class. I think it's possibly backwards from the Earl's guess, though. Manhattan has the largest collection (and largest percentage) of upper middle class people. Virginia and the Carolinas are probably on the low side. New England isn't exactly a hotbed of the upper middle class either (it also doesn't contain New York or DC, but that's beside the point I suppose). Outside of Boston, most of the cities are kind of fading; and the stereotypical Bostonian is probably more a Southie than a scion.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Starch said:


> On the immediately preceding question: certain areas do contain a larger concentration of the upper middle class. I think it's possibly backwards from the Earl's guess, though. Manhattan has the largest collection (and largest percentage) of upper middle class people. Virginia and the Carolinas are probably on the low side. New England isn't exactly a hotbed of the upper middle class either (it also doesn't contain New York or DC, but that's beside the point I suppose). Outside of Boston, most of the cities are kind of fading; and the stereotypical Bostonian is probably more a Southie than a scion.


Thank you, excellent. I love this sort of stuff, human geography,demographics that is. We (the rest of the world) base a lot of what we think we know about the US on what we are fed by the media of course, and most readily from American films. In the same way that millions of Americans now think that Notting Hill is an upper class area.  Hence my thinking that the areas I mentioned were "grand" and so on.

New England - I was never 100% sure where the southern/western boundary went.....sorry!  Please enlighten me.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> New England - I was never 100% sure where the southern/western boundary went.....sorry!  Please enlighten me.


Conventional definition is New England = Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

New York - though it runs as far north as Vermont or New Hampshie is considered a Middle Atlantic state.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

In common parlance, New England = everything east of New York's eastern border, i.e. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Rhode Island. You might, if you wanted, make an argument for excluding the portion of Connecticut that's really New York suburbs, but people generally don't.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Thanks guys.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Ok, all those great summer houses in mind, is it possible to say that certain states are more upper-middle class than others?


New Egland and Mid-Atlantic as previously described.

On the opposite end of the scale??

Lets just say West Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Indiana can't get no respect!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Keep in mind with 300 Million people, and 3000 miles between coasts, it gets real confusing when talking about the US. Especially when you are looking at demographics. The state of Florida is bigger in land mass than England, and it's not a "big" (land mass) state by any means. From a population standpoint, the East (of the Mississippi) has more people than the West, even though it's under half the size.

Each state should be viewed as its own country, rather than as a region. In essence, we're much more akin to the British Empire, than anything else. You wouldn't lump Canada, Australia, & England into the same categories any more than you would lump Texas, California, and New York.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Maryland is an oddly shaped microcosm.

Suburban DC is hoitier than Baltimore, Baltimore hoitier than Frederick, Frederick hoitier than Cumberland and all of them moreso the the Eastern Shore.

The Eastern Shore doesn't give a damn!!

Just leave you money and go home, you city trash!!


----------



## D&S (Mar 29, 2009)

On the topic of locales...

A (by no means definitive or complete) list of places with sizable, socioeconomic upper middle class populations:

New York City (Manhattan and Riverdale, but not Brooklyn or Queens) and immediate suburbs (Westchester County in New York, Fairfield County in Connecticut, and some towns in New Jersey). Locust Valley, Cold Spring Harbor, Oyster Bay.

Boston, Cambridge, and some of the immediately surrounding suburbs (Wellesley, Concord, Andover, etc.).

Philadelphia and the Main Line.

Sewickley, near Pittsburgh.

Baltimore, Roland Park, and the Maryland Hunt Country.

Washington DC, Georgetown, Alexandria, Chevy Chase, Bethesda, Potomac, McLean, and similar towns.

The West End of Richmond, Virginia.

Charlottesville, Virginia.

The Research Triangle of North Carolina.

Charleston, South Carolina.

Atlanta, Georgia - specifically, Buckhead. Metro ATL, not so much.

Spring Hill, Mobile, Alabama.

New Orleans, Louisiana; specifically, Metairie Park.

Mountain Brook, Alabama.

Highland Park, Dallas, Texas.

Houston, Texas. Particularly River Oaks.

Lake Forest, Illinois. Also: Winnetka.

Grosse Pointe, Michigan. Includes Grosse Pointe Farms and other similar towns.

And, of course, the preferred vacation spots - Nantucket, Aspen, Vail, Beaver Creek, Jackson Hole, Stowe, Hilton Head, Mackinac Island, Gibson Island, Sea Island, Martha's Vineyard, Buzzard's Bay, etc.

I have little to no experience with the Midwest or the West Coast, so I can't speak to those places.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

D&S said:


> On the topic of locales...
> 
> A (by no means definitive or complete) list of places with sizable, socioeconomic upper middle class populations:
> 
> ...


No - all you've done is identified high income areas. That's not the same as "class" in the British sense (which goes to my point that there isn't much of an American equivalent). A well paid crack whore or a successful used car saleman can live in Buckhood (i.e., Buckhead, Atlanta, GA).

Have you been to Charelston? If so, you know that Charleston can be old money and it can be the absolute dregs.


----------



## Peachey Carnehan (Apr 18, 2009)

Starch said:


> Unless he is referring to Creed.
> 
> Possible example
> 
> ...


That reminds me of the Boost mobile ads a few years back..."Yo, where you at?"
To which I ask "Where the verb at?"


----------



## D&S (Mar 29, 2009)

Epaminondas said:


> No - all you've done is identified high income areas. That's not the same as "class" in the British sense (which goes to my point that there isn't much of an American equivalent). A well paid crack whore or a successful used car saleman can live in Buckhood (i.e., Buckhead, Atlanta, GA).
> 
> Have you been to Charelston? If so, you know that Charleston can be old money and it can be the absolute dregs.


I was in Charleston last month, and yes, I can attest to this. Some neighborhoods are downright scary. But I wasn't listing places that were homogeneously upper middle or upper class; I was naming spots where a significant concentration of such people could be found. If I was making the mistake of equating money with class as being one and the same, I would have named a bunch of places in California and New Jersey.

And as far as Buckhead goes, sure, there is a mix of people living there with money from a variety of sources, but with a sizable portion of old southern families still living there, I think it meets the criteria that I set.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Dhaller said:


> It's worth pointing out that the "upper classes" in the US 30+ years ago were a small fraction of the population, so it was more of a distinct (and basically white) community; in 2010, 9% of Americans are millionaires, so the upper-echelons are both far more numerous AND far more various.


I don't think the _nouveau riche_ are necessarily part of the upper class, though.


----------



## Peachey Carnehan (Apr 18, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> I don't think the _nouveau riche_ are necessarily part of the upper class, though.


I am no sociologist, but when I hear the term "upper class" I associate it with blue blood rather than income. I see it as more of a cultural term.


----------



## Frog in Suit (Mar 27, 2007)

I suspect many if not all towns/cities in the US have their own "aristocracy". I think it is composed of the descendants of the founding families, or the ones whose wealth is more than three, four or five generations old. 
My Dear Wife comes from an old Rust Belt town in the Midwest, an economic and industrial disaster area in most respects, but which still has a very few families, or individuals, who are clearly upper class (based on money - never mentioned - education, manners, etc&#8230. The money mostly came from industrial companies of the late XIXth or early XXth centuries, all of which are now defunct. Once the older generations die out or their children move away, there may only be a middle class of professionals (medical, mostly) and a large underclass trapped in poverty.
On quite a different scale, I think this survival of an upper class applies to large cities as well. The Cabots etc.., may not rule Boston anymore, but there must be pockets of their descendants here and there, keeping as much of the old manners, lifestyle, summer haunts, prep schools, dress, sports and so on, as practical/affordable.
We spend a few days every year on the Maine coast and there are evidently some people who have owned their summer houses for generations and who look very Sloane Ranger-like, in an American context.
Just my two cents.
Frog in Suit


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Peachey Carnehan said:


> I am no sociologist, but when I hear the term "upper class" I associate it with blue blood rather than income. I see it as more of a cultural term.


Correct, in the UK and Europe at least, where the upper class are solely the nobility. It has as you indicated nothing to do with wealth or success, and as such the middle classes can never become upper class, it's just not possible.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> I don't think the _nouveau riche_ are necessarily part of the upper class, though.


You're right, they're not and never can be. The nobility are the upper class, that's it, end of list.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Correct, in the UK and Europe at least, where the upper class are solely the nobility. It has as you indicated nothing to do with wealth or success, and as such the middle classes can never become upper class, it's just not possible.


Not so, in fact the term utter twaddle is appropriate. Half an hour spent looking through Who's Who, or Debrett, will uncover an endless succession of 18th and 19th century industrialists, engineers, brewers, publishers and others, of originally perfectly humble origin (Highland crofters, some of them) whose descendants now rank among the titled 'upper classes' and 'nobility'. Yesterday's 'nouveaux riches' are tomorrow's nobility. If that had not been the case, the nobility would simply have died out long ago through in-breeding.


----------



## Frog in Suit (Mar 27, 2007)

Centaur said:


> Not so, in fact the term utter twaddle is appropriate. Half an hour spent looking through Who's Who, or Debrett, will uncover an endless succession of 18th and 19th century industrialists, engineers, brewers, publishers and others, of originally perfectly humble origin (Highland crofters, some of them) whose descendants now rank among the titled 'upper classes' and 'nobility'. Yesterday's 'nouveaux riches' are tomorrow's nobility. If that had not been the case, the nobility would simply have died out long ago through in-breeding.


Indeed. Conversely, it may be noted that to become a duke in the UK, at least before he XIXth century, one had to 1) finance the current monarch in time of civil war, 2) bet correctly on the outcome of dynastic infighting (betrayal of the legitimate king at the right juncture being especially helpful), or 3) best of all, be borne by a royal mistress (Charles II begat a few such lines in his days). Bess of Hardwick started three different ducal lines, unless I am mistaken. Her special talent, not to be sneered at, mind you, was to marry the right man at the right time and to hold on to the money.
No doubt some of today's unfrequentable plutocrats will become tomorrow's aristocracy, assuming the monarchy survives.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Frog in Suit said:


> No doubt some of today's unfrequentable plutocrats will become tomorrow's aristocracy, assuming the monarchy survives.


Quite so. Peerages were sold under Prime Minister Lloyd George, during the 1920s, with a scale of charges relating to the various ranks of peerage. Since then, peerages have been gifted by all prime ministers as a reward for various favours done; quite often (by sheer coincidence, no doubt) these peerages are awarded to people who have made large donations to whichever political party happens to be in power at the time. Occasionally peerages are also awarded for merit.

The constant creation of new peerages, one would assume, might eventually devalue such titles of rank, if it has not already done so; the more ancient peerages, baronetcies etc of course are of much greater distinction than recent life peerages.


----------



## Frog in Suit (Mar 27, 2007)

Centaur said:


> Quite so. Peerages were sold under Prime Minister Lloyd George, during the 1920s, with a scale of charges relating to the various ranks of peerage. Since then, peerages have been gifted by all prime ministers as a reward for various favours done; quite often (by sheer coincidence, no doubt) these peerages are awarded to people who have made large donations to whichever political party happens to be in power at the time. Occasionally peerages are also awarded for merit.
> 
> The constant creation of new peerages, one would assume, might eventually devalue such titles of rank, if it has not already done so; the more ancient peerages, baronetcies etc of course are of much greater distinction than recent life peerages.


Sadly, the same thing happens in France with the "Légion d'Honneur" which is too often given to politically-connected scoundrels.

Frog in Suit


----------



## Tooch (Jun 26, 2010)

I think it's worth emphasizing the vastness of the United States relative to Europe, and the deep (and sometimes unappreciated) divisions this breeds in terms not just of language, but also of overall culture. I'm a displaced New Yorker living in Arizona, and I remember the mantra upon my parents' early visits when my mother would comment, "she looks like a call girl," about every woman in sight. Note that she was referring to bankers, TV anchors, physicians and the like -- educated, professional women, not actual ladies of the evening. It took a while before I realized that the "call girls" weren't unaware of East Coast standards as I'd originally assumed -- they just considered easterners hilariously dowdy, or simply ludicrous. (Male standards vary far less, in my experience.)

Regional variation and economic fluidity make it impossible to assess people based on simple linguistic tell-tales. My wife and I tend to find ourselves socializing with relatively new arrivals like ourselves -- it ends up being more about cultural touch-stones than language or money, though education and sophistication (and what that implies) play a large role.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

^^ +1

And the influence of television in the last half-century can't be downplayed. How many young girls have that stupid "Valley Girl" accent, and how many young men are "YO"-ing around, when their parents and grandparents never spoke like that?

The British "U" accent, to a lot of us, is Eton _et al /_Oxbridge, which has been around quite some time and had a chance to become established, whereas the American "U" accent was never solely Groton/Harvard, but UNC, UMich., UVa, NYU, Tulane, etc. To tie into my first paragraph, that "U" accent was, I blieve, the voice of the BBC, your main communication system, for a very long time and established a standard known to all. We never had that, though our network (national) radio & TV comentators did strive for a "neutral" accent


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

Centaur said:


> Not so, in fact the term utter twaddle is appropriate. Half an hour spent looking through Who's Who, or Debrett, will uncover an endless succession of 18th and 19th century industrialists, engineers, brewers, publishers and others, of originally perfectly humble origin (Highland crofters, some of them) whose descendants now rank among the titled 'upper classes' and 'nobility'. Yesterday's 'nouveaux riches' are tomorrow's nobility. If that had not been the case, the nobility would simply have died out long ago through in-breeding.


Have you ever noticed that the greatest periods of social upwards movement occured during the female reigns: Elizabethan, Victorian and during the reign of the current monarch? Students of armory learn that the greatest number of grants of arms (being a 'proof' of gentry) happened during these eras. While the gentry are not necessary upper class, they are spread across that and the upper middle class. Baronets as well as dukes were created in return for funding regal pursuits.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Similarly in pre-Revolution France it was relatively easy to become a Noble if one had money. Purchase a noble estate, purchase a noble office, or sinecure (a job or post which was really a non-existant job, that attracted noble status) become a member of a regional Parlement, bribe a Royal Minister to get the King to grant you a patent of nobility, bribe the King to grant you a patent of nobility. In 1789 most nobles were recently ennobled.


----------

