I’m based in Belgium. A lot of people of European nobility (not just Belgians) actually live here. I’ve had the chance of having dinner with a few of them and it’s actually quite interesting. They don’t really think in terms of class these days. A lot of it has to do with values. They accept people without significant wealth, and see them as equals (which might not have been the case 200-300 years ago).
For example, most of them are still quite wealthy (i.e. a net worth of >€5m). One cardinal rule is you don’t flaunt your wealth. You can talk about investment returns etc, but you don’t drive around in flashy $500k-1m cars. Some capitalism is good, too much of it is bad. Most also like art. They enjoy living outside of the spotlight. A lot of people of nobility have been brought up to help fellow citizens in any way they can (i.e. not just giving money, helping them out with various stuff).
Overall, these are mostly good members of society that enjoy living their life outside of the spotlight. They respect the society they live in. It's not because you have you money that you shouldn't have respect for society. If you are well educated and respectful, you won't have too much trouble being accepted.
But only in the abstract. Saying "I bought some IBM shares which then went up 7%, which was nice" is fine. Saying how much your capital gains were in the last fiscal year is absolutely faux pas.
I suspect talking about wealth in concrete numbers is deemed unacceptable because it confronts people with the moral consequences of hoarding wealth and inequality, and they really don't want those uncomfortable conversations.
> They don’t really think in terms of class these days.
Because their social networks are ruthlessly narrow. They don't think in terms of class because they never interact with people who aren't at least at the social level of an educated professional.
Yep. Well, you can probably push it, and say like, I made 7% / €100k on that investment. That’s acceptable. But saying that you increased your net worth from €4m to €5m is not.
Another reason why they often don’t talk about their total net worth is because most are actually incapable of growing their wealth, even if they wanted to. A few percentage points of yield, sure. But taking calculated risks to double their money is hard for them.
> They don't think in terms of class because they never interact with people who aren't at least at the social level of an educated professional.
What I find interesting is that wealth is often not the main driver behind their relationships. You can be relatively poor, and be accepted by them (but maybe not by society as a whole), as long as you share their values. They will regard certain people as their peers who, while looking at it from a monetary perspective, should not be.
But yes, their social networks can be extremely interesting. In Belgium especially, it is not uncommon to see people of nobility achieve great things (whether that is in business or in public service). They carry around genuine chauvinism / patriotism. At the same time it has shown that, for example judges in court, tend to be less strict in applying the laws on nobles. Not exactly sure why that is, but it makes for an interesting case study. Maybe because some judges carry a title themselves?
> At the same time it has shown that, for example judges in court, tend to be less strict in applying the laws on nobles.
This one is easy. For the same reason judges give harsher sentences to people of color than to white people. Harsher sentences to men than to women. Harsher sentences for street crime than for financial crime. They give harsher sentences to uneducated people than to educated people. Good looking people get lighter sentences too. Confidence and charisma pays off too.
It's so much easier to empathize with somebody who looks exactly like the people you went to school with, you went drinking with in college, who talks like you do and who cares about the things you care about. So naturally their defense will sound reasonable in your eyes, and a lighter sentence follows.
> unacceptable because it confronts people with the moral consequences
Or more likely, because it gives out confidential information about how much you're really worth, which one should never do (for reasons varying from "avoiding hangers-on" to "avoiding loss of status").
I'm skeptical of your explanation because there are no "hangers-on" in that social class (the nouveau-riche have to worry about that) and status is only loosely correlated with wealth.
The more I think about, especially in Europe, the more it seems that status has little to do with money / wealth. It very much has to do with your values and the company you hold.
> It's not because you have you money that you shouldn't have respect for society.
That's because old-money knows very well that society as it is underpins their status. Disrespecting it, you disseminate an attitude that will ultimately dismantle it, bringing about your own demise.
European old-money dynasties have seen quite a few upheavals, some of them prompted by their own carelessness, and have learnt what is necessary to survive and prosper: anonymity, peace, and making sure nobody will rock the boat.
Very true. The noble family I know was stripped off of €75m worth of land in a certain Belgian town, that they had owned since the 1700s, in the 90s by the government.
Regardless of how they acquired that land in the first place, that's pure theft. And I've also heard several stories of how they lost significant wealth due to shady characters.
"Regardless of how they acquired that land in the first place, that's pure theft."
Regardless? Really? Even if the way the family acquired the land was also "pure theft"? At bottom it's conquest + inheritance for nobility. IOW, pure luck. I think it appropriate that government redistribute such land someway.
Ditto for the various religious organizations too. Henry VIII took much land and wealth from the Roman Catholic Church.
In this case, I believe they inherited it from the last remaining heir of another noble family that had owned it for nearly 600 or 700 years.
If I remember right, that family received it as a gift from a king at the time. While in principle I agree with your notion, I don’t think the government should be taking away property in this day and age anymore.
At the end of the day, how far do you have to go back to protect property rights? If a family has owned a plot of land for nearly a thousand years, is it not yours then? Do we need to go back further?
For example, most of them are still quite wealthy (i.e. a net worth of >€5m). One cardinal rule is you don’t flaunt your wealth. You can talk about investment returns etc, but you don’t drive around in flashy $500k-1m cars. Some capitalism is good, too much of it is bad. Most also like art. They enjoy living outside of the spotlight. A lot of people of nobility have been brought up to help fellow citizens in any way they can (i.e. not just giving money, helping them out with various stuff).
Overall, these are mostly good members of society that enjoy living their life outside of the spotlight. They respect the society they live in. It's not because you have you money that you shouldn't have respect for society. If you are well educated and respectful, you won't have too much trouble being accepted.