Servants of aristocrats, why don't they know they are slightly better than slaves?

I have always felt that there are somethings that while not illegal or obviously wrong that people are supposed to know not to do: one of these is being a servant to an aristocrat. These jobs at one time would have been done by an indentured servant: for indentured servant read slave. Yes there was in fact white slaves in the uk in the past.Is part of the problem with the aristocracy, that some people do not really know that you are not supposed to work a job where you call the people you work for Lord and lady, or Earl, or Duke. These servants are part of the problem as without anyone to work in their great houses they would lose power and influence. The servants don't know they aren't supposed to be servants to aristocrats.

reply to post by s12345


Indentured servants were more used in the colonies, rather than back in England. Up to the 16th century, most people were Serfs, which is essentially a slave as they were tied to the land they worked and weren't allowed to leave. That said, slavery was not allowed anywhere in England, so even Serfs had a certain amount of rights...

None of that applies today or even applied in the past 2-300 years, to be honest, so not really sure what the thrust of your post is.. Sorry..

Anyone who is not self employed is little better than a slave. If you work for the man, you are a slave.

reply to post by groingrinder


Not really as you can leave any time you want and you don't have someone whipping you, abusing you or, if they so please, killing you. It is a tad melodramatic to claim that we're all slaves..

Those jobs were done by indentured servants: there was indentured servants in the uk: my info comes from a documentary not wiki. I should say these people taking a subservient position helps create the problems of our society. People are supposed to know not to work a job where the person they work for s not an employer but a master: think instead of duke or earl the term master.

Hereditary titles are an insult. Imagine having to call your employee your grace, or duke, or duchess, they are a term meaning they are showed a higher level of respect and status than an employer, the most similar nonhereditary term is master.

reply to post by s12345


Show me..

As far as I am aware, and this is not from Wiki but a rounded education and a personal interest in the period, indentured Servants were a colonial thing and, if I am honest, was nothing like slavery.

Originally posted by s12345
Hereditary titles are an insult. Imagine having to call your employee your grace, or duke, or duchess, they are a term meaning they are showed a higher level of respect and status than an employer, the most similar nonhereditary term is master.

That is called brown nosing - some servants are the biggest snobs around.

I can give with a resounding fact that not just were indentured servants in the uk, they were people from the uk and at times were picked by the aristocrat themselves. If they ran away they were brought back: the were slaves. Yes at one time if an aristocrat wanted to, or you pissed him off then he could simply own you.

reply to post by s12345


That's called a serf, mate. Basically a slave in all but name and the practice died out after the Plagues.

An indentured servant is someone who trades a certain amount of time (4-7 years) of Labour, in return for passage, food, clothing and training. At the end of their indenture, they were set free with a new suit and a parcel of land to farm themselves. They had recourse to go to the magistrates to complain about mistreatment and in most regards, were treated as an adopted son of their "master" up until their release.

You're going to have to pull something rather special out of the hat to convince me mate, as I said, English history is a speciality of mine and you have it all about face at the moment.

Interesting facts:
The last serfs in England were freed by Elizabeth I in 1574, but Scotland kept hold of their serfs until as late as 1799.

However, I am informed that the laws governing serfdom have never been officially repealed from law. Don't know if that part is true.

every one is a slave. The great irony is the 1 percent believe the are the one's who are not the enslaved, they are the free. Fact is, they are even bigger slaves, they've just bought into their own justification rhetoric. If you have a passport, or have to travel with a passport, you are slave. If you use fiat currency debt notes to "pay" for things you are a slave. If you are "given" rights you inherently have, by a governing system, you are a slave. If you are subject to the whim of a man, or men, with guns and uniforms you are a slave.

The most enslaved are the CEO's ,the least enslaved are the: homeless, bank accountless, childless, debtless. Yet, the CEO's will argue to the end of dinner and beyond it is the other way around. We all live on a plantation, the true slave masters are unseen, and unknown.

Yeah, all workers are servants of 'aristocrats' AKA the capitalist class.

When you work you are required to produce more than you are paid for, in order for the 'capitalist' to make profit.
The when you buy goods in the stores, that you produced, you again pay for the profit that goes to the 'capitalist'.

Clothing Markups: 100-350%
Shoe Markups: 100-500%
Furniture Markups: 200-400%

Cheat Sheet: Retail Markup on Common Items

So the capitalist can live without working simply from their ownership of capital, and pay you from money generated by you.

Between 1979 and 2005, household income (after taxes):

Tripled for the richest 1% of households.
Rose 80% for the top fifth.
Rose 21% for the middle fifth.
Rose 6% for the bottom fifth.

Income Inequality in the U.S.

Who is the entitlement class again?

I agree that income inequality needs sorting out worldwide, not that every country needs the same wage: £1 in India is with more than in the uk or America, it is what you can buy with it that counts. I do think that the dynamics of having to call someone by a title are different. I will use someone as an example everyone has heard of:

Oprah Winfrey has huge wealth she employs lots of people, but she is not a duchess
she has no title. now the difference in the uk would be that she still would not be a duchess but others would be, based on hereditary principle.

No matter how much she achieved or made she would not be a duchess. She would be expected to call them by a hereditary title. It's a little different this perspective to an Americans. As America she may know these people but they are not her superiors, if she was born in the uk they would be (or supposed to be)

Before she made money she had a boss. But in the uk she could have someone as her boss who would be called your grace, Duchess, Earl of ....

This is a very different thing as a person can become a boss, become wealthy but they can never become aristocracy, unless you marry a male aristocrat and as I am a man this seems unlikely.

So working for someone you have to call by a hereditary title is very different to working for someone who hasn't. By doing so you help concrete their position. In America you are citizens where as we are subjects. So the dynamic if different. It is however an individual decision.

This is an overstatement but when slavery was abolished if someone worked for the same person they were owned by doing the same job they would be helping their past owners maintain an advantage over them.

If a person from the uk is a servant for an aristocrat, they help the aristocracy maintain their position.

reply to post by s12345


Judging by the way you are typing, I would hazard a guess and say you're not a native to the UK... Which could explain the utter tosh coming out of your mouth.

You seem to be under the impression we still have hordes of Aristocrats running around and we all must doff our caps or ceurtsey when we see one.. You'll be thinking we all have bowler hats and ride penny farthings next...

Newsflash - We don't have to call them anything, we don't have to bow and we certainly don't have to kneel for anyone, even the Queen. It is merely protocol which governs such things, but if you didn't want to, no one could make you. Even the Queen herself dispenses with the nonsense and prefers "ma'am" over "Your Highness", which is the same way you would talk to a female superior in many walks of life.

And that's if you ever meet an "aristocrat". Most, you wouldn't even know it unless they told you.

I am still lost as to what the point is you're trying to make...

Just because you haven't met any aristocrats does not mean others do not. The idea that if there are few that they aren't important is ridiculous: any elite is always small in number. Also apart from more spacing which I place in to be more readable, my English is perfect: I am English. You are obviously one of the masses of people who do not know a colon from a semi-colon. Some of us do not simply rely on Capital letters and full stops: we can punctuate with commas colons semi-colon. We are not functionally illiterate as many are.