Okay, somehow, I feel as if this thread has deviated from its original topic... @Hambone: A very good point, thank you! @Cogito: Maybe I should have mentioned that my story takes place in a fictional, sort of high-medieval, setting? His critique pertains to a conversation between an aristocrat and a socialite, and he simply meant that my choice of words didn't fit that image. I only know this person in passing, but I doubt that he's a bigot. @Celebral: You've got it right. Now, one of these two happens to be an unpleasant person, but it's got less to do with his social standing, and more about the nature of this person. @prettyprettygood: Alas, that option poses one significant problem in that I live in a non-English-speaking country, but my story's written in English :/ Thanks for the advice, though. @Dante Dases: In what way was the point legitimate? I simply asked if anyone knew a quick way I could pick this lingo up and, if they didn't know of any, what material they could recommend for me to research. You both make it sound like I said that it wasn't worth the effort if I couldn't find an easy way to do it, which is clearly not the case. Also, she could've easily got her point across without the rudeness.
@ jezz: you make comments like the one I quoted, and then say there is no class hatred. @ lemex: you are spot on. @ teodor: it's a bit nouveau riche to have a "butler" unless your house is huge in which case it may be necessary. If you have a butler he or she is not like the old style butler. Generally they do other jobs as well, e.g. a kind of manager, housekeeper or tour guide. The thing is, in England "upper class" is a matter of attitude and culture rather than wealth much of the time. My grandmother's family now live in their stable block and most of their home is uninhabitable (and impossible to demolish as it's listed). There wasn't much money to inherit. Even if people own land or estates, there is often not much disposable cash. OP: as you say your story is set in medieval times, you need to disregard most ideas about how the upper class lives and speaks now, because these tend to be conventions from the late 18th century. In the old days people had stewards, not butlers, for example, and titled people often spoke with regional accents, even in the early 19th century: you can see this in Hansard (record of parliamentary debates). I would simply make the more privileged people speak a bit more precisely and grammatically than the normal countryfolk.
@madhoca: I gather that means you have no remorse about how you spoke to me in your last comment. Nice. Ok, I am exiting this discussion, I said everything I have to say.
madhoca, have you seen the documentary created by a young heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune? It gave me the impression that it's the upper class youngsters who feel "left out," in a way, not the adults. Although it's true that the documentary didn't focus on the adults, so I wouldn't know. I was also shocked to hear how some of the young heirs were actually angry that they were inheriting money (or, if not money, status) for just having been born. One young man (I think from the Vanderbilt line?) actually had some major pathological problems about his inheritance. He worked construction, while picking up his "high six figure" annual income. It was definitely an eye-opener. The only problem was that Donald Trump's daughter seemed just as insincere as her father. The rest of the kids seemed more than honest, and actually had me feel bad for them.
These are people in trade. They are not historically what is meant by upper class in England. Gentlemen sometimes married money, or younger sons were in the church or military but they did not set up corporations. Note that I say historically, I am not trying to be snobbish.
Maia may have made a legitimate point, even though it seemed that she misjudged the OP, but no matter what point she was trying to make, surely she could have been at least polite. There are ways of doing and saying things. The OP was new to the forums and as such an established member of this site should at least have tried to answer him in an acceptable manner. If she couldn't, which obviously she couldn't, then why bother at all? She was completely out of order.
Then report the post. Your own postings are hardly above reproach, so you might reconsider throwing stones.
Sorry, I forgot that when someone has a point of view that you don't agree with, they are the ones throwing the stones. Just to make it clear - I wasn't throwing stones - I was making a comment. I certainly don't see anything wrong with what I put in the post and I stand by what I said.
I'll admit my mistake and then we'll have an end to the bickering. We're all human, we all misread things. My apologies.
A British newspaper once, many years ago, published a list of word comparisons of terms used by three classes for common things in everyday life. I don't remember many of them but here are a few examples: Upper class: Lavatory Middles class: Toilet, loo, powder room Working class: Lavatory or lav. Upper: Frock Middle: Dress Working: Frock Upper: Drawing room Middle: Lounge Working: Parlour or front room. There were many more example, but the most noticeable thing about the terminology (back in the 1950s) was that the upper and working classes shared many of the same words for things, and middle class terms seemed to me more pretentious and prissy. Maybe it was the close employer-servant relationship between the upper and working classes that brought about the similarities. I've lived in the North America for many years and haven't noticed these distinctions among Americans.
