Med Illegal Immigrants NOT our problem.

A place to socialise and share opinions with other members of the BGAFD Community.
max_tranmere
Posts: 4734
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Essex Lad

Post by max_tranmere »

All classes took large numbers of casualties during World War 1, a relative of mine died at the Somme and he was working class, just like vast numbers of others. The fact the aristocracy lost large numbers was no more important as any person is worth just as much as any other, but it was more significant as far as what happened to do with the running of the country and things concerning the Empire were concerned.

It was always said that if the nation was under threat the first people who would step forward to defend it were the aristocracy. They signed up in huge numbers, and perished in huge numbers. I've copied and pasted the following from something I saw online:

STARTS
World War I and the Decline of Downton Abbey's Aristocracy

The First World War had a devastating impact on the British upper classes. Those sons of the British upper classes fortunate enough to survive the First World War returned to find a country in a state of flux and their place in it no longer automatically assured. Their diminished numbers ? until late 1917 the upper classes suffered proportionately greater losses in the fighting than any other class ? ensured that a resumption of the prewar status quo was physically impossible.

"The apprentices for the postwar were no longer there; they were lying in Flanders Fields," says Joanna Bourke, professor of history at Birkbeck College, London. "This had a devastating impact: the prime minister's son was killed, a number of cabinet members' sons were killed and this meant that in the immediate postwar, those apprentices who were expected in the natural order of things to become leaders ? particularly in politics and business ? were no longer there."

But not only were the numbers of the male upper-class members severely diminished; there was also a fall in the number of those willing to serve them and their families as they had done for hundreds of years. Many of the women whom the war effort had forced out of domestic service and into factories found themselves unwilling to relinquish their new independence [and better pay].

"You get the delegitimisation of the whole structure that maintains upper middle-class life," says Bourke. "In the past, the servant class in upper middle-class homes were those people whose family tradition was to work there. When someone left, the cook would recommend her niece ? and that no longer happened, so there's a real crisis in terms of the labour that's required to keep up these lifestyles."

The decline of the upper classes was further hastened by the passing of the Representation of the People's Act in June 1917, which gave the vote to an additional 5 million men and nearly 9 million women. The extension of the franchise, coupled with an explosion in trade unionism, afforded the working classes greater social representation and with it the freedom to challenge the power of the establishment parties and question the wisdom of those who had sent so many soldiers to their deaths.

But perhaps the greatest harbinger of the decline of the upper classes emerged from the mud and blood of the Western Front as the institution charged with protecting the traditional British way of life became the unwitting agent of its dissolution. The introduction of conscription in 1916 turned a professional army into a civilian one and flooded its ranks with middle-class men whose mothers and fathers occupied powerful places in society and used those positions to demand that their children's sacrifices were not in vain. It also led to the rise of new officers from humble backgrounds who, like so many thousands of female Britons at home, were not prepared to abandon the possibility for social advancement that the war had brought them.

As Bourke puts it: "These people came back ? some of them with medals ? and they weren't going to go back to being shopkeepers."

Written by Sam Jones, presented in the Guardian 15 January 2014
ENDS

Most aristocrats had their country house and a second home in London. These second homes were put up for sale by the family in the years following World War 1, and the trend for the second home declined. The trend for live-in staff began a decline after World War 1, "going into service" as it was called. All this because of the huge depletion in numbers the aristocracy took during the First World War. All very sad. And to think just 21 years later the same countries were at it again, in the same place! I bet many relatives of those who died were wondering what the point of fighting and dying in World War 1 was when a few years later Britain and Germany were back in France fighting again.
frankthring
Posts: 962
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Med Illegal Immigrants NOT our problem.

Post by frankthring »


Should David Johnson read this - are you absolutely certain that Livingstone
kept complaining about the Brits and the slave trade. While agreeing with
you that he was rather "odious" and made a living saint - which he was not -
I thought he simply exhorted Her Majesty`s Government to fight slavery in
Africa (as we had outlawed it within British colonies many years before he
became famous).
It is in fact to this country`s very great credit, while America was splitting into
civil war over slavery, and until the 1900s the Royal Navy led the fight
against the arab (that is muslim) slavers who were a giant plague across
central and east Africa.
David Johnson
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Frank

Post by David Johnson »

"Should David Johnson read this - are you absolutely certain that Livingstone
kept complaining about the Brits and the slave trade"

Livingstone? Not sure what you are on about, Frank!
Essex Lad
Posts: 2539
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Frank

Post by Essex Lad »

David Johnson wrote:

> "Should David Johnson read this - are you absolutely certain
> that Livingstone
> kept complaining about the Brits and the slave trade"
>
> Livingstone?

David or Ken?
David Johnson
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Frank/Essex Lad

Post by David Johnson »

Err, a double case of mistaken identity, Frank.

1. It was Essex Lad who mentioned Livingstone, not me.

2. Essex Lad was referencing Ken Livingstone not David Livingstone. As far as I am aware Ken Livingstone was never made a "living saint", not outside his own household, anyway.
Essex Lad
Posts: 2539
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Frank/Essex Lad

Post by Essex Lad »

I was ? referring to his blubbing when he apologised for something that was fuck all to do with him.
Locked