The Economist article: Suitably Dressed: The lounge suit, battledress of the world’s

[Archivist]

Originally Posted by comrade

In my university studies of British politics and society, the Aristocracy included commoners, who usually
had inherited wealth. Many of these figures, including Beau Brummell, were the sons of actual nobles
"second sons" who did not inherit noble titles in the British system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beau_Brummell

Mr. Brummel was not an aristocrat. The aristocracy was, and is, an hereditary (originally military) class with titles and lands granted by monarchs. Having money or wealth has little to do with it. Brummel associated with aristocrats, and he had a great influence on them as far as dress and hygiene. But he was never one of them. That was rather the point of his plain, understated dress.

 

[comrade]

Originally Posted by George

That biog is wrong. What it should say is '..that he was the son of William Brummell who was the private secretary of Lord North...'

There is no relationship between North and the Brummell's other than a professional one.

http://www.janeausten.co.uk/magazine...pid=312&step=4

Aristocrats in Britain are part of the peerage and as such are distinct from commoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landed_gentry

Yes, I see. In Britain Aristocracy specifically means being a member of the Nobility.
In my definition it is essentially an hereditary Upper Class which would of course
include the Gentry in Britain . In the US it really only means "Old Money" and high
social rank for many generations. President(s) Roosevelt were Aristocrats by this meaning.
Kennedy wasn't.