WI: Aristocratic US, where would Nobility come from?

But its probably how most aristocracies started. People become rich and powerful, marry and socialize with other rich and powerful people, and their offspring inherit the wealth, connections, and power that comes with this status. Eventually it crystallizes into a system that is hard for newcomers to break into while it is easy for pampered offspring who lack the skill and abilities of the founders to get by only on their name and connections.

There is a difference between a business elite and an aristocracy. A business elite is not the means by which a true aristocracy is made, especially since business elites are far more permeable. But it's also the nature of the wealth and the way that the members of the class see themselves. Aristocrats are the fighting and political elite. This has always been the case in Indo-European countries.

They are not the merchant class. Industrialisation makes these lines difficult to maintain. Indeed, one could almost say that industrialisation is the death of true nobility, since it makes it essentially impossible for a landed military and judicial class to keep an exclusive hand on the power that is their raison d'être.

That's an aristocracy.

The word aristocracy has a precise meaning that belies the custom of people in modern Anglophone countries to use the phrase in some broad sociological manner or as a stand-in for "small group of people that have power" or "people with prominent families." The business elite, the banking elite, the haute bourgeoisie -- these are not an aristocracy. By any account that would not make the word aristocracy synonymous with oligarchy (and thus trample on a rich store of usage and memory in political science that goes back millennia), no modern business elite can truly claim to be an aristocracy, much less a nobility.

The US republican system makes it unlikely this could ever evolve into a true nobility or royalty with legally defined political roles for the aristocracy however.

If the US system were more like the classical city-states, it is quite possible. Say the gentry in Virginia and the Carolinas do succeed in making a class of landgraves and caciques, as some intended, and then form their militiae according to ancient Greco-Roman models. A different American "Enlightenment" could be had accordingly.

The greater Carolinian success in establishing a hierarchy could be caused by slightly different migration patterns, say from a different outcome in the English Civil War or else if James II was more successful. Perhaps Catholic nobility could find refuge in the colonies, having much in common culturally with the cavaliers. Then they could import Irishmen and German peasants as serfs.

One would have to make the "Enlightenment" less democratic. Perhaps Newton could be butterflied away due to a more successful James II not taking a liking to him. Or he could die from illness, etc. The republicanism of the late-XVIIIth century, if it still occurs, could then be more classically inspired. One would also have to alter Montesquieu's writings, which, without Newton, might be relatively easy.
 
Last edited:
And, of course, if Louisiana (the country) had stayed under the rule of the King of France longer, or else the Spaniards were more successful in settling it for whatever reason, there would be large plantations, manors, chateaux, haciendas, and ranches going north from the bayous of the delta up through the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, west along the Texas coast, northeast from Biloxi, Mobile, and Fort Prud'homme in what are now called the Alabama and Tennessee river valleys, west along the Red River of the South, etc. That is to say, nobility would permeate the entire North American interior, and it could do so quite easily, given the large potential for agricultural production, the humid summers, and the vast open spaces.

There were already feudal villages in the south of the pays des Illinois. Manorialism and seigneurage could have been significantly expanded throughout the upper Mississippi River valley and the Great Lakes region. If these were ever integrated into the United States or if English plantations, langraviates, and like establishments were incorporated into a more successful Louisiane, there would be fertile soil for mutual social reinforcement. In the pays des Illinois, the French villages used a common lot and common pasture system. They would draw lots to see who would farm which ribbon of land for the year, with a ring of common pasture land surrounding the long lots that ran out from the villages like spokes of a wheel.

This system could have been expanded onto a vaster scale, with the prairies and other grasslands being treated as a vast commons, protected by some kind of deputed policing body. Feudalism would have been much more prominent, but without there being as much room for the grand seigneurs of France. The Spanish, however, might be inclined to more devolution of military functions and governance in Louisiane.

So, if there were nobles in Virginia and Carolina and in the vast riverine interior, perhaps due to some kind of more successful reign of Louis XIV that led to increased stability for the Stuarts and a collaboration between the two powers, it seems like North America could conceivably have developed a permanent aristocracy. Co-religionists would marry across borders, languages would influence one another. The two aristocracies would reinforce one another, potentially even mixing with the criollo nobility of the Spanish colonies. The Gulf, too, could be a means of cultural cross-pollination.

The possibilities are endless. But one would have to look back into the mid-to-late XVIIth century for a viable POD, I think. Perhaps one would have to look back even earlier, such as a Valois victory in the Italian Wars, or else a defeat of Protestantism by Charles V, or a different outcome to the Thirty Years' War leading to more intensive French naval and colonisation efforts.
 
Last edited:
I think a better way to attack what I think you're going for might be,

"What sorts of factors would lead to the development of a stronger aristocratic class in the United States?"

After all, Southern planters *were* an aristocracy, just an increasingly irrelevant one as time wore on. A good way would be to change something about the economics of farming vs. industry in US.

The real problem lies in the fact the South had an aristocratic class, but the North did not. Maybe increasing the amount of division between the developing mercantile class and the general citizen in the North; either making the masses poorer, or concentrating the trade wealth earlier, in fewer hands.

I don't know quite enough about the specifics to tell you from where Americans might accept "nobility". I suspect that it would have to be wealth or politically related rather than bloodlines, at least initially. After the inertia gets going and there's a common "high culture" between aristocrats from the North and South, names will start to count for more.

In history existing aristocratic class absorbed top of middle class. Arrangement suited both, aristocracy got some fresh blood, middle class saw opportunity to advance and when it happened they adopted practices of aristocracy and existing order was kept and status quo mantained because enw aristocracy was eager to protect their new gaisn.

Couldn't this happen as well? Northern magnates, be it financial or industrial being absorbed into southern aristocratic class.
 
In history existing aristocratic class absorbed top of middle class. Arrangement suited both, aristocracy got some fresh blood, middle class saw opportunity to advance and when it happened they adopted practices of aristocracy and existing order was kept and status quo mantained because enw aristocracy was eager to protect their new gaisn.

Couldn't this happen as well? Northern magnates, be it financial or industrial being absorbed into southern aristocratic class.

That would fit the historical trend. One would expect them, however, to divest themselves from their business interests and to purchase large estates, so to enter their new class without the "taint of trade."
 
That would fit the historical trend. One would expect them, however, to divest themselves from their business interests and to purchase large estates, so to enter their new class without the "taint of trade."

Why? Historically that was the case since land was seen as primary source of income, even if it wasn't. So even people who made money elsewhere bought large country estates as sign of acceptance of their new position.

But they still kept their previous source of income and I don't see why this wouldn't be the case here. So northern industrialist would get enobled, buy large estate to fit in with old aristocracy but not sell his factories and buy palntation with slaves but rather kept factories and only adopt status symbols of his new position.
 
But they still kept their previous source of income and I don't see why this wouldn't be the case here.

No, they didn't. That's the point. Historically, they did not keep their previous source of income for the majority of the history of aristocracy. England and Venice are the exceptions to this, but even then it was encouraged to not be involved in business ventures, since it was seen as avaricious.

In most European monarchies, a nobleman would actually be stripped of his title if he was found to profit through business interests. It was incongruent with the dignity of the noble estate, which required incomes to be derived through disinterested and honest means, namely ownership of land rather than eager participation in trade or mercantile affairs. Land was essential because if one were to participate in the full franchise and be involved in the life of the governing power, one had to have a stake in the polity, i.e. own land. Then, one had to defend it, rule it well, etc. Land is fundamental to aristocracy and vice versa. Without land, there is no aristocracy, but something else entirely.

The contemporary habit is to use "aristocracy" as a synonym for "social elite" or "prominent families." But the aristocratic class is something that has a precise meaning and precise attributes -- land being one attribute that is central to what a nobleman is. At least, this is the case if we are talking about the world West of the Himalayas, East of the Atlantic, North of the Sahara, and not nomadic.

So northern industrialist would get enobled, buy large estate to fit in with old aristocracy but not sell his factories and buy palntation with slaves but rather kept factories and only adopt status symbols of his new position.

"Status symbol" is language that belongs to the game of climbing the social ladder. Land is not a status symbol of being an aristocrat -- land is essential to what it means to be an aristocrat.

This goes back to ancient Rome and the ancient Hellenic archaic monarchies and classical city-states, and likely further. In order to have the full franchise and to fight in the army, one needed to own land and therefore have a stake in the polity. Those who were not so endowed (or who were not consecrated to religious service) were per se in the servile state or something like it, having to survive through some form of servile labour. In Indo-European society, there have always been those who fight, those who pray, and those who work. An aristocrat is one who fights and judges and owns land -- not a merchant.

Like I said above, industrialisation confuses everything. It makes the erstwhile very clear and precise meanings of an institution that has existed for thousands of years somehow seem to be muddy and arbitrary, since merchants and businessmen have now seized the social power that once belonged to the nobility alone. But aristocracy was still a very well defined and well understood thing around, say, 1700.
 
Last edited:
How do you figure ?

In Western countries, aristocracy is the rule of the best, people whose wealth comes from land and not from any ignoble concern, such that they can lend their bodies to the polity in its defence and their minds to the adjudication of disputes. Oligarchy is the rule of the few, usually representing mercantile or money interests -- not the rule of the best. The two are not the same thing and each system has a profound impact, respectively, on social rules, manners, customs, laws, traditions, military structure, economic organisation, distribution of land and property, the high arts, the trades, political culture, etc.

in essence, aristocracy is feudal. oligarchy is capitalist.
 
in essence, aristocracy is feudal. oligarchy is capitalist.

Well, aristocracy is not necessarily feudal. The Mediterranean city-states had aristocrats despite many of them being non-monarchical mixed governments with citizenship, etc. And it seems anachronistic to say that all oligarchies are capitalist.

Even so, are you saying that there is very little practical difference between capitalism and feudalism ?
 
American Peerage

If you want an official Aristocracy in the US, two things need to happen.
1: The line in the constitution making it unlawful for US citizens to receive titles of nobility must either be not written at all or removed by an Amendment.
2: You need a formal system of peerage. Barons/Thanes of Counties, Dukes of Cities, Marquis/Earls of States, and people being knighted for such things as developing electronics ("Sir Stephen Jobs"?), Providing the US Military aid ("Sir John Browning, Captain-General of the US Armory"?), or being a really good artist ("Sir Harrison Ford"?).
For example: the President could have declared Thomas Eddison a Knight for his work, or declare a Medal of Honor winner a Knight. If Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (Did I spell her name right?) did a good job keeping the Baltimore Riots from getting out of hand, she could be created Duchess of Baltimore if the position is vacant.
Inheritance of Peerage: Parent to oldest child, probably naturally- if someone married a Peer, the Peer's spouse's title would probably be "Lieutenant-{insert title here}" or something along those lines. Either that or the spouse sharing the title but being recognized as the Junior Peer, the one who gets stripped of their Peerage in the event of a divorce. If a Peer dies childless, the Peerage is left "open"- ie. available for the next heroic figure to assume.
Of course, the US House of Representatives would have to be off-limits to anyone in the Peerage, and there would be issues of conquest or secession (if Robert E. Lee was made Duke of Arlington before Virginia Seceded, what happens after Appomattox?).
The US Presidency, however, has no equivalent Peerage- it must be kept open to Peers and non-Peers alike. The closest America will ever have to a monarch is the King of Spain (who is a Spanish Peer but not an American Peer).
Did I mention that with such a system, you can do something completely awesome and get rewarded with an open Peerage?
George Calvert (First Lord of Baltimore and the nearest thing America has to a Peer) would probably be proud.
 
No, they didn't. That's the point. Historically, they did not keep their previous source of income for the majority of the history of aristocracy. England and Venice are the exceptions to this, but even then it was encouraged to not be involved in business ventures, since it was seen as avaricious.

In most European monarchies, a nobleman would actually be stripped of his title if he was found to profit through business interests. It was incongruent with the dignity of the noble estate, which required incomes to be derived through disinterested and honest means, namely ownership of land rather than eager participation in trade or mercantile affairs. Land was essential because if one were to participate in the full franchise and be involved in the life of the governing power, one had to have a stake in the polity, i.e. own land. Then, one had to defend it, rule it well, etc. Land is fundamental to aristocracy and vice versa. Without land, there is no aristocracy, but something else entirely.

The contemporary habit is to use "aristocracy" as a synonym for "social elite" or "prominent families." But the aristocratic class is something that has a precise meaning and precise attributes -- land being one attribute that is central to what a nobleman is. At least, this is the case if we are talking about the world West of the Himalayas, East of the Atlantic, North of the Sahara, and not nomadic.



"Status symbol" is language that belongs to the game of climbing the social ladder. Land is not a status symbol of being an aristocrat -- land is essential to what it means to be an aristocrat.

This goes back to ancient Rome and the ancient Hellenic archaic monarchies and classical city-states, and likely further. In order to have the full franchise and to fight in the army, one needed to own land and therefore have a stake in the polity. Those who were not so endowed (or who were not consecrated to religious service) were per se in the servile state or something like it, having to survive through some form of servile labour. In Indo-European society, there have always been those who fight, those who pray, and those who work. An aristocrat is one who fights and judges and owns land -- not a merchant.

Like I said above, industrialisation confuses everything. It makes the erstwhile very clear and precise meanings of an institution that has existed for thousands of years somehow seem to be muddy and arbitrary, since merchants and businessmen have now seized the social power that once belonged to the nobility alone. But aristocracy was still a very well defined and well understood thing around, say, 1700.

But wouldn't Us aristocracy being olded along British model to begin with?

And if we assume this "trade is forbidden" clause applies then you are creating a whole set of tensions. Rich industrialists can't be nobles and continue to make money their way, forcing them to choose. Those that would choose to make money will continue to demand ore power since they have the money.
 
Top