"He spits. He spits far too much," remarked a once-wealthy Sicilian aristocrat about the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, after hearing one of the Duce’s bombastic speeches in the early 1920s, soon after he came to power.
Here is how the Duke of Verdura, another aristocrat from the same island, recalled the social soirées held in Palermo, which was quite a fashionable summer retreat at the time, during the early years of the 20th century:
There were ladies in light-coloured dresses, with boas and enormous hats with veils; gentlemen with hats tucked under their arms; and the uniforms of officers, mostly naval, could be glimpsed here and there. Against the backdrop of palm trees and cypresses stood magnificent tables laid out with snow-white cloths, topped with pyramids of strawberries, a variety of ice creams, and other desserts.
Traditional, stereotypical attitude to aristocracy fits neatly into these two episodes. On the one hand, there is glamour, sophistication, and idleness. On the other, wit and a touch of snobbery. Monarchies still exist in Europe and even serve a not entirely meaningless role in symbolically maintaining national unity, but the aristocracy as a whole has long retired from the stage.
However, pre-World War I Europe was still very much a world of aristocracy, which held considerable power and privilege. Yet, the situation was far from uniform. The aristocracy was most politically isolated in republican France, with its official doctrine of "liberty, equality, fraternity," which left no room for class distinctions. Among French aristocrats, conservative Catholics still prevailed, which to some extent placed them in opposition to the Third Republic, which consistently pursued an anti-clerical policy.
Masked Ball in Versailles by Nicolas Cochin, 1745
Loyalty to the Republic, at least until World War I, was not held in high regard by the French nobility. A significant portion of them retained a nostalgic monarchism, aligning themselves with one or another of the three royal and imperial dynasties deposed in the 19th century. For instance, the father of the future general and president, Charles de Gaulle, was a monarchist. Many nobles could no longer afford to live in their gradually deteriorating estates, but when they entered service, they preferred traditional fields for their class—namely, the army and diplomacy. A military or diplomatic career allowed a noble monarchist to feel as though they were serving their country as such, the “eternal” France, rather than the republican political regime, which they considered "plebeian." The disappearance of the Republic would have been met with joy by many of these individuals.
After the Bourbon Restoration in 1814, Charles d’Artois, as heir-presumptive, became the leader of the ultra-royalists, advocating for absolute monarchy and opposing liberal reforms and civil liberties granted by the Charter of 1814. His influence grew after the assassination of his son, the Duke of Berry, in 1820. He succeeded his brother in 1824 as Charles X, but his reign was unpopular among liberals. His government compensated former landowners for feudalism's end, strengthened the Catholic Church, and reintroduced capital punishment for sacrilege, sparking conflict with the liberal Chamber of Deputies. His relationship with his daughter-in-law, who declared herself regent for her son, Henry, Duke of Bordeaux, was strained.
The French nobility might have envied their British counterparts, who, in the early 20th century, still retained a considerable portion of their traditional political influence. However, early 20th-century Britain was also a country undergoing significant political changes.
The British historian Antony Taylor dedicated his 2004 book to these events and the changing social status of the aristocracy. The book is titled Lords of Misrule: Hostility to Aristocracy in Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Britain.
At the height of the Victorian era, the British aristocracy primarily consisted of large landowners and represented a distinct social class. By the late 19th century, new power began to enter this class, thanks to people who had made fortunes in industries such as mining and newspapers. This diversification led to the formation of a broader class, replacing the previously narrow elite group. Marriages between aristocrats and members of the bourgeoisie were just one factor contributing to this process. According to the traditional view, the declining aristocracy sought to replenish its gene pool—hence the marriages with wealthy heiresses, including Americans.
Consuelo Vanderbilt by Paul César Helleu, 1901
A classic example is the family of the Duke of Marlborough. Consuelo Vanderbilt, an American socialite from the Vanderbilt family, is now widely known for her first marriage to the 9th Duke of Marlborough—an example of the loveless yet strategic unions of the Gilded Age. The Duke gained a large dowry, reportedly marrying her to "save Blenheim Palace." Despite her opposition to the marriage arranged by her mother, Consuelo became a popular duchess. The couple lived apart for much of their 25-year marriage, officially separating in 1906 and divorcing in 1921, with an annulment following in 1926. They had two sons together.
At times, this desire of the British aristocracy to attract new money is seen as a sign of weakness. Every aristocratic class must fight for survival, and that is exactly what happened—the influx of new energy was necessary to endure.
The British aristocracy’s economic foundation and main source of income had long been large landownership. However, landholding underwent significant changes before World War I. From the 1870s, Britain’s agricultural sector experienced a severe decline, largely due to foreign competition, particularly the arrival of cheap American grain. As a result, from the last third of the 19th century, land effectively lost much of its value. Agricultural production fell, jobs became scarcer, and by 1914, the commercial value of land had generally decreased. In a sense, the aristocracy began to see land not as a source of strength, but as a weakness. New fortunes were needed to pay off debts, recover from financial difficulties, and simply make ends meet.
Politically, the aristocracy still held considerable influence in Britain on the eve of World War I. Most pre-war political leaders were connected to the landowning elite in some way. However, traditional roles began to shift under the pressure of social change. In 1911, when the Parliament Act was passed, limiting the powers of the House of Lords, liberal forces capitalised on public hostility towards large landowners. Figures like John Bright and Henry George sought to extract money from the aristocracy by increasing inheritance duties and taxes on land income—essentially their way of funding new social welfare policies. This wasn't exactly a declaration of war on the old aristocracy, but rather a firm reminder that they needed to pay their share.
The movement to curb the rights of the aristocracy began in the late 18th century, when criticism of the “greedy peers” first emerged. In 1850, a British radical magazine described the lords as playing merely a “decorative role” in Parliament, and by 1888, another claimed that the aristocracy was “built on favouritism, propped up by royal will—an idle aristocracy contributing nothing to the state, yet absorbing much of its wealth.” Yet, it wasn’t until 1911 that the House of Lords was reformed in the name of democratisation.
During this time, several political processes were unfolding. Firstly, there was the evolving relationship between the Liberals and the rising Labour Party. The Liberal Party aligned with Labour on key issues, as the latter gained momentum. However, the political battle also extended to the entrenched power of the House of Lords. Some argue that the Liberals’ fight against large landowners was a tactic to stall Labour’s rise. Some historians suggest that the somewhat battered aristocracy resisted measures aimed at developing social welfare, such as the creation of employment exchanges. This led to the emergence of “die-hard” conservatives, a term used by Lord Willoughby de Broke, who opposed any social change, regardless of the challenges of the 1890s or the new approach to unemployment. As demands for social welfare grew, the Liberals and Labour found themselves at odds with the aristocracy—holders of untapped economic resources, power, and privilege.
The aristocracy suffered greatly during World War I. Many young scions of noble families went to the front and perished. Not only did the aristocracy lose some of its finest members, but it was also hit hard by the introduction of heavy inheritance taxes. The classic image of the interwar period is that of the abandoned ancestral estate. As for why aristocrats went to war, it was a matter of tradition.
During the interwar years, many felt the aristocracy led a directionless life, drained of energy—essentially, it had lost its way. Writers from Evelyn Waugh to Aldous Huxley described this aimless existence of the privileged class, whose members indulged in gambling, womanising, and experimenting with drugs. I believe this theory holds some truth: lacking purpose, the aristocracy, having lost its way, descended into a futile pursuit of pleasure.