Axios retells a remarkable story:
When Queen Victoria's mother and husband died in quick succession, the result was a significant expansion of public education in England.
- That's the conclusion of what is easily my favorite economics paper of the year so far, from Marc Goñi of the University of Bergen in Norway.
How it worked: The 1860s were a high point for assortative mating within the English elite. The peerage, in particular, "was likely the most exclusive elite ever to exist," writes Goñi: "unusually small, exclusive, and rich."
- The mechanism for maintaining that small ultra-elite group was the London Season — a series of balls where the eligible offspring of the peerage would meet and match.
- Invitations were extended only to families of the highest social status, and attendance was very expensive, meaning you needed to be well-born and rich to participate.
What happened: When the Queen went into mourning, the Season was effectively canceled for three successive years (1861–1863). As a result, posh rich daughters failed to meet posh rich men, and married commoners instead.
- Peer–commoner intermarriage rose by 40%; titled women married husbands 44 percentile ranks poorer in terms of family landholdings.
- Such marriages caused real harm to the daughter's brothers and even fathers. Her brothers were 50% less likely to enter parliament; her family's prestige fell; and she was much less likely to become the kind of terrifying matriarch so familiar to readers of PG Wodehouse.
The bottom line: Constituencies that were no longer represented in parliament by the local peer were much less likely to oppose the introduction of state education — which eventually became law in the 1870s.
Even if you dismiss the political outcome as inevitable sooner or later in the 19th century, the fact that assortative marriage practices in the U.K. were so fragile that the could change so dramatically despite the major socio-economic impacts of the shift is remarkable all by itself.
4 comments:
'Constituencies that were no longer represented in parliament by the local peer'
This can't be quite right as in the UK peers are not allowed to sit in the House of Commons. In fact they are not even allowed to vote in elections for the House of Commons, or enter the chamber.
It took some effort, but I found a free version of the original paper
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lLyZlMWA1u7MCCuMIb4daLGGNGwPN6Gm/view
From the Wiki: "The Commons, the last of the "estates" of the Kingdom, are represented in the House of Commons, which is known formally as, "The Honourable The Commons in Parliament Assembled" ("commons" coming not from the term "commoner," but from commune, the old French term for a municipality or local district)"
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-Lords-Temporal-life-peer-be-elected-to-the-House-of-Commons-retaining-both-seats
@RobertD
I noticed that but let it be without comment.
I don't know if this is because the non-eldest brothers of titled aristocrats, don't get the title and thus could and often did run for office in the commons (more likely), or because the rules have changed between the 1860s and the present.
@DavidBarnes
Thanks for the link.
Post a Comment