Noblesse Oblige (book)

Nancy Mitford writes in the first essay that the English aristocracy is the only real aristocracy left in the world today, even if it may seem to be on the verge of decadence: it has political power through the House of Lords and real social position through the Queen. Then she explains the order of precedence of dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, barons, members of a noble family, young sons, baronets, knights and knights of the Garter. Accused of being a snob, she quotes from Professor Alan Ross of Birmingham University who points out that “it is solely by their language that the upper classes nowadays are distinguished since they are neither cleaner, richer, nor better-educated than anybody else". Miss Mitford says Professor Ross invented the U and non-U English useful formula. Though she doesn't agree completely with the Professor's list, she adopts his classification system, and adds a few suggestions of her own.[10] She gives many examples of U and non-U usage and thoroughly explains the aristocracy saying, for example, dukes are rather new creations, the purpose of the aristocrat is most emphatically not to work for money, and nobility in England is based on title and not on bloodline. The ancestors of the lords spent months abroad, buying pictures and statues, which they cheerfully sell in order to spend months abroad, she writes.

The second article is a condensed and simplified version of Professor Ross’ "Linguistic Class-Indicators in Present-Day English",[11] which appeared in 1954 in the Finnish philological periodical Neuphilologische Mitteilungen. For him the English class-system was essentially tripartite — there exists an upper, a middle, and a lower class. Solely by its language it is possible to identify them. In times past (e.g. in the Victorian and Edwardian periods) this was not the case. In fact the Professor says there are, it is true, a few minor points of life which may serve to demarcate the upper class, but they are minor ones, and he is concerned in this essay only with the linguistic demarcation.[12] This line, for the Professor, is, often, a line between, on one hand, gentlemen and, on the other, persons who, though not gentlemen, must at first sight appear, or would like to appear, as such. Thus, habits of speech peculiar to the lower classes find no place in this article. He also addresses the written language, considering the following points: names on envelopes, etc., beginning of letters, names on cards, postal addresses on envelopes, etc. at the heads of letters, and on cards; finally, letter-endings.

Evelyn Waugh wrote the third contribution, An open letter to the Hon^ble Mrs. Peter Rodd (Nancy Mitford) on a very serious subject from Evelyn Waugh, which also first appeared in Encounter.[13] Widely regarded as a master of style of the 20th century, Waugh, who was a great friend of Nancy Mitford,[14] added his own thoughts to the class debate and points out that Nancy is a delightful trouble maker to write such a thing but also someone who only just managed to be upper class and now resides in another country, so — he asks — who is she really to even bring it all up?[15] Although this may seem offensive, Nancy Mitford said that "everything with Evelyn Waugh was jokes. Everything. That's what none of the people who wrote about him seem to have taken into account at all".[16]

A shorter version of “Strix's” article appeared in The Spectator and this is the fourth essay of the book. “Strix”, pseudonym of Peter Fleming,[17] was a British adventurer and travel writer, who was James Bond author Ian Fleming’s elder brother and a friend of Nancy. He begins saying that Nancy Mitford's article has given rise to much pleasurable discussion. Before pushing on to the less etymological aspects of her theme, he addresses how language evolves and changes naturally,[18] and U-slang, attributing to it a sense of parody. He says interest in the study of U-speech has been arbitrarily awakened and considers this interest unhealthy and contrary to the "national interest". He closes his article hoping (ironically) that the U-young will strive for a clear, classless medium of communication in which all say "Pardon?" and none say "What?", and every ball is a dance and every man's wife is "the" wife, but then saying that he will be surprised and disappointed if they do anything of the sort.

All groups talk a particular language. Thus begins the fifth essay of the book. It is the natural way of things that you say something one way which the lawyer says another way. Same with doctors. A doctor who can only talk like a text book may leave you in serious doubt as to your state of health, Sykes says. Same with sailors, same with all other craftsmen. Then he comments from Shakespeare, for whom language was a vast instrument at his command, to what he calls the irrational little vocabulary of the movements of fashion: newspaper fashion, pub fashion, cinema fashion, popular song fashion. But, for this English author, the great, the most desired fashion has always been that of “the best society,” of “the fashionable”, of “the chic”, which is kept by snobbism. After further analyzing the use of U and non-U habits and its progress, reflecting either by stress or reaction the mood of any time. Pursuing his argument he introduces Topivity — T-manners and T-customs[19] etc., meaning the likely social conventions of a remote future in which the peerage has survived by infiltrating the trade union movement on a large scale. Abandoning "U", he ends the article with "T" stating that one big T-point remains constant: nobody wants a really poor peer: it is very un-T not to be rich. However, T and non-T do not seem to have become popular though.

The last essay of Noblesse Oblige is a poem taken from A Few Late Chrystanthemums.

"The non-U-ness of fish-knives in place of fish-forks is delightfully satirised by John Betjeman in How to Get on in Society (1954):

Phone for the fish-knives, Norman

As Cook is a little unnerved;

You kiddies have crumpled the serviettes

And I must have things daintily served.

"Some say that the bluntness of a fish-knife reflects its primary function, which is to remove the skin while minimising the risk of cutting the flesh. Others say that the skin is delicious. David Mellor, an authority on cutlery, has pointedly remarked that you don't need a sharp knife to cut fish. He also considers the shape of fish knives to be purely decorative. A standard-shaped knife would do the job better.”

— The Independent.[20]