'There's nothing worse than a bunch of paupers staring into the windows of Harvey Nichols looking at things they will never be able to afford. Its really quite irritating, can't they just toddle off to Primark?' It is statements like these, that really boil the blood of some people- and rightly so. Such snobbery is truly appalling and modern society should not have to tolerate such things. The financial status of someone, ideally, should not be a key factor in whether you like them or not. But I would be interested to see if a phrase such as 'They're a bunch of wealthy toffs that get everything easy, can't they just run back to their private school?', would be taken with quite the same seriousness as the statement that started this article. I sincerely doubt it. Such phrases are what I like to call examples of 'inverted snobbery', something less apparent but no less abhorrent.
It is this rather Anglo-typical hatred of the rich that can sometimes be so socially acceptable, that its frightening. Other western countries such as the USA or countries with vibrant economies like China, have a culture that congratulates and respects those who are lucky enough to be financially sound. They don't have an inbuilt attitude of bitterness towards the rich, that can be so prevalent in the UK. Yet in the UK, mockery or discrimination of any minority is greatly frowned upon. Surely one of the most 'by definition' minorities is the rich, so why is there such tolerance of abuse orientated towards the wealthy and their lifestyles? I am genuinely stumped as to why is exists in the UK to a far greater degree than anywhere else. Does the green eyed monster really have such a hold over our green and pleasant land?
One thing that has become more apparent is just what easy targets they tend to be. Take inheritance tax, something that was firstly a cash generator but secondly, decimated the aristocracy, terminated their way of life and caused their future security to crumble. Inheritance tax effectively erased much of the British aristocracy and made the continuance of proud family lineage, centred around their cherished manors and estates, an impossibility. But did the masses cry out 'Foul play!'? No. They thought it was about time these people with cushy lives had to suffer a less pleasant existence. The fact that they provided much employment and rural care, not to mention the vast amount of English heritage tied up in these estates , did not seem to matter. Nor did the fact that these were real human beings, being singled out and treated quite terribly. If it was done to some racial or religious group, there would be national outrage- but if you have staff you may as well rot.
What this vile tax forced these people to do, is open their beautiful homes to the public. Just imagine how it must have felt at first. You have to live in a small section of what you did previously, whilst gawking tourists traipse through the rest of you house and critique each individual air loom or memory filled portrait on show. All this, so they can earn enough money to at least hold onto their immensely personal, historic family homes. Such trespass by the public into your ancient sanctuary must cause at least a degree of anguish. It is, quite simply, tragic. But of course, because they have a big garden and nice clothes they are unable to experience emotions.
What it did create, however, is a bunch of entrepreneurs setting up dynamic farming businesses, national parks and even safaris such as Longleet. A cross breed of old money- new money individuals. They had to turn their homes in to business capital in order to earn a living. But, it is my belief that they should never have been forced to turn a house in to an office. They should have been left to live their lives, unfortunately the government saw rich pickings and faced no public opposition. So the aristocracy were shot down like pheasants at Balmoral.
