My offhand opinion is that hereditary aristocrats in Great Britain made their biggest contributions to literature, philosophy, or to STEM during the Elizabethan Age. Literature: Sir Phillip Sidney and Edmund Spenser [Faerie Queen]. Francis Bacon.

I always took this as much-needed evidence that the French had a sense of humor. /ducks

Probably not 1 in 10,000, of the tens of millions liquidated by Stalin, Mao & company were enemies of their regimes. Much less any kind of threat. That wasn’t the point of the butchery. Duuhhhh…

Good point, Gringo. I must confess on the mathematical front I was thinking of Napier, but I believe that the hereditary aristocracy was prominent in literature. Alas, my English literature classes in college were … uh … a while ago, and I don’t recall specifics!

Now we can add the EU to that list.

The literary and mathematical output of British aristocrats is staggering, especially considering how small the population was from the 16th to 18th centuries (ca. 3-5 million, IIRC). From sonnets to logarithms, their achievements were remarkable.

The mathematical, scientific, and engineering achievements in Great Britain from the 16th to the 19th century were achieved in the main by Dissenters- who were not of the hereditary aristocracy, as pointed out in Darlington’s The Evolution of Man and Society. Napier, born into the Scottish aristocracy, was the inventor of logarithms. As far as I can tell, he was about the only member of the hereditary aristocracy who was prominent in math, science, or engineering.

Darwin’s family was well off, but they were Unitarians. His grandfather Erasmus Darwin, also a scientist of note, was named for his great-great grandfather Erasmus Earle, sergeant-at-law under Oliver Cromwell. Dissenters, dissenters, dissenters.

By and large, the contribution of the hereditary aristocracy in Great Britain were in the fields of war and government. The classes below the hereditary aristocracy did much better in advancing mathematical, scientific, and engineering knowledge.

IMHO, a similar argument can be made in literature. For every Sir Phillip Sidney, there are numerous Alexander Popes [son of a linen merchant], though I suspect that the hereditary aristocracy made a greater contribution to literature than it did to math, science, or engineering.

Yep. Kinda like the way people hate the NY Yankees. Nobody hates the Cubs.

Aristocracy wasn’t all bad, particularly in England and Scotland, where relief from the need to work for a living entailed an obligation to contribute to society. The literary and mathematical output of British aristocrats is staggering, especially considering how small the population was from the 16th to 18th centuries (ca. 3-5 million, IIRC). From sonnets to logarithms, their achievements were remarkable. (No doubt there were a vast number of wastrels, hence the expression “drunk as a lord,” but still …).

I’m less familiar with the accomplishments of French aristos, but recall that they were the backbone of French contributions to mathematics. And I can’t omit mention of Lavoisier, the French aristo who is considered the father of modern chemistry.

By contrast, what comparable achievements have our smelly socks aristos, such as Ted Kennedy, contributed? Anyone? Bueller?