Tag Info

New answers tagged

3

This question should probably be closed as opinion based, particularly given the lack of prelimnary research. There is no clearly and objectively acceptable answer. I'm reluctant to contradict TheHonRose, but from my perspective, the fundamental division of society is between the aristocrats and the common folk. Royals are clearly part of the aristocracy. ...


3

I would suggest the answer is "No" - and the aristocracy would not actually include gentry either. Social gradations at that time were subtle but strong, a wealthy "gentleman" would still defer to a peer, even if the peer were the poorer. Read Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope for examples. But royalty was in a different category, as, indeed, it is today; ...


2

This depends on how you define the word aristocracy. Its not a legal term or anything, just a convenient categorization. Havng said that, 19th century writings refer to Britain's aristocracy and royalty distinctly. Most of the time, the two are just too different to be lumped together in descriptions. Aristocracy is usually considered below the royals today ...


8

In his momentous study L'origine des systèmes familiaux, Emmanuel Todd notes that, to the best of a rather sparse archival knowledge, first, the status of women in Eurasia in the 5000BC-1500CE interval seems to historically follow a lowering trajectory, second, this lowering trajectory seems to proceed in a top/down fashion and, third, the adoption of ...


8

Scholars have noted that pre-agricultural societies often have more egalitarian gender norms than agricultural societies. This had led to theories that agriculture led to the development of inegalitarian gender norms, because it privileged men's body strength. A more refined version of thesis was first posited by Ester Boserup in "Woman's Role in Economic ...



Top 50 recent answers are included