Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Ancient elite surnames still elite

thett3
Posts: 14,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:34:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I read an interesting article today which pointed out that surnames present in attendance rolls at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1170's are still disproportionately represented there today.

An analysis in Sweden found that the descendants of the former aristocratic families had taxable incomes 44% higher compared with a common name, and that these families are represented in the Swedish Bar Association at 6 times the rate the occur in the population. The article further looked at the UK and noted:

"Looking at 181 rare surnames held by the wealthiest 15 percent of English and Welsh people in the mid-19th century " to be clear, these were not the same elite surnames as in the medieval era " we found that people with these surnames who died between 1999 and 2012 were more than three times as wealthy as the average person."

Even in China despite it's cultural revolution and redistributionist policies, rare surnames that were overrepresented in the Imperial examinations in the 1800s are still overrepresented in the countries elite universities today.

What does this mean? Obviously some of this is just be coincidental statistical noise, but I'm unsure as to what extent. Does anyone have any thoughts?

As someone with a low status English surname, this is bad news :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:54:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 6:34:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
I read an interesting article today which pointed out that surnames present in attendance rolls at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1170's are still disproportionately represented there today.

An analysis in Sweden found that the descendants of the former aristocratic families had taxable incomes 44% higher compared with a common name, and that these families are represented in the Swedish Bar Association at 6 times the rate the occur in the population. The article further looked at the UK and noted:

"Looking at 181 rare surnames held by the wealthiest 15 percent of English and Welsh people in the mid-19th century " to be clear, these were not the same elite surnames as in the medieval era " we found that people with these surnames who died between 1999 and 2012 were more than three times as wealthy as the average person."

Even in China despite it's cultural revolution and redistributionist policies, rare surnames that were overrepresented in the Imperial examinations in the 1800s are still overrepresented in the countries elite universities today.

What does this mean? Obviously some of this is just be coincidental statistical noise, but I'm unsure as to what extent. Does anyone have any thoughts?

As someone with a low status English surname, this is bad news :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

My name wasn't mentioned...

*sigh of relief*
Tsar of DDO
thett3
Posts: 14,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:58:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 6:54:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:34:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
I read an interesting article today which pointed out that surnames present in attendance rolls at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1170's are still disproportionately represented there today.

An analysis in Sweden found that the descendants of the former aristocratic families had taxable incomes 44% higher compared with a common name, and that these families are represented in the Swedish Bar Association at 6 times the rate the occur in the population. The article further looked at the UK and noted:

"Looking at 181 rare surnames held by the wealthiest 15 percent of English and Welsh people in the mid-19th century " to be clear, these were not the same elite surnames as in the medieval era " we found that people with these surnames who died between 1999 and 2012 were more than three times as wealthy as the average person."

Even in China despite it's cultural revolution and redistributionist policies, rare surnames that were overrepresented in the Imperial examinations in the 1800s are still overrepresented in the countries elite universities today.

What does this mean? Obviously some of this is just be coincidental statistical noise, but I'm unsure as to what extent. Does anyone have any thoughts?

As someone with a low status English surname, this is bad news :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

My name wasn't mentioned...

*sigh of relief*

Neither was mine, but you can kinda guess on it's historical status based on where it originated in the old country and what kind of people held it--mine came from the English-Scottish borderlands and they immigrated to the US early and into the backcountry, which strongly indicates low status

I feel like this article had a lot of cherry picked statistics, but at the same time it's a really difficult subject to broach.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:29:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 6:58:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:54:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:34:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
I read an interesting article today which pointed out that surnames present in attendance rolls at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1170's are still disproportionately represented there today.

An analysis in Sweden found that the descendants of the former aristocratic families had taxable incomes 44% higher compared with a common name, and that these families are represented in the Swedish Bar Association at 6 times the rate the occur in the population. The article further looked at the UK and noted:

"Looking at 181 rare surnames held by the wealthiest 15 percent of English and Welsh people in the mid-19th century " to be clear, these were not the same elite surnames as in the medieval era " we found that people with these surnames who died between 1999 and 2012 were more than three times as wealthy as the average person."

Even in China despite it's cultural revolution and redistributionist policies, rare surnames that were overrepresented in the Imperial examinations in the 1800s are still overrepresented in the countries elite universities today.

What does this mean? Obviously some of this is just be coincidental statistical noise, but I'm unsure as to what extent. Does anyone have any thoughts?

As someone with a low status English surname, this is bad news :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

My name wasn't mentioned...

*sigh of relief*

Neither was mine, but you can kinda guess on it's historical status based on where it originated in the old country and what kind of people held it--mine came from the English-Scottish borderlands and they immigrated to the US early and into the backcountry, which strongly indicates low status

I feel like this article had a lot of cherry picked statistics, but at the same time it's a really difficult subject to broach.

Yeah, I thought the same thing so I think you're probably right. My surname is Scottish. Most of my family is from Germany, Scotland and England, though.

I will say that tracing my family tree before one half of my father's side of the family before the Weimar republic. Like, so hard that I think I would have to go to Europe to do it.

The Scottish half of my dad's side of the family was easier, because we have a book that traces the family tree back to the 1600s.
Tsar of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:38:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 7:29:02 PM, YYW wrote:
The Scottish half of my dad's side of the family was easier, because we have a book that traces the family tree back to the 1600s.
You can consider yourself fortunate for having an overview of your family tree to such an extent. I wish the same was the case for me; since it is not, we have mostly passed on names and stories orally. I doubt archives even exist for any of my deceased family members born before he 20th century.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:43:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 6:34:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
I read an interesting article today which pointed out that surnames present in attendance rolls at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1170's are still disproportionately represented there today.

An analysis in Sweden found that the descendants of the former aristocratic families had taxable incomes 44% higher compared with a common name, and that these families are represented in the Swedish Bar Association at 6 times the rate the occur in the population. The article further looked at the UK and noted:

"Looking at 181 rare surnames held by the wealthiest 15 percent of English and Welsh people in the mid-19th century " to be clear, these were not the same elite surnames as in the medieval era " we found that people with these surnames who died between 1999 and 2012 were more than three times as wealthy as the average person."

Even in China despite it's cultural revolution and redistributionist policies, rare surnames that were overrepresented in the Imperial examinations in the 1800s are still overrepresented in the countries elite universities today.

What does this mean? Obviously some of this is just be coincidental statistical noise, but I'm unsure as to what extent. Does anyone have any thoughts?

As someone with a low status English surname, this is bad news :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Hmm... I'm not sure this list is very accurate.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:50:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the coolest "ancient" surname is Caesar, pronounced in its Latin form. Augustus is pretty cool too.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 9:12:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 7:29:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:58:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:54:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:34:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
I read an interesting article today which pointed out that surnames present in attendance rolls at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1170's are still disproportionately represented there today.

An analysis in Sweden found that the descendants of the former aristocratic families had taxable incomes 44% higher compared with a common name, and that these families are represented in the Swedish Bar Association at 6 times the rate the occur in the population. The article further looked at the UK and noted:

"Looking at 181 rare surnames held by the wealthiest 15 percent of English and Welsh people in the mid-19th century " to be clear, these were not the same elite surnames as in the medieval era " we found that people with these surnames who died between 1999 and 2012 were more than three times as wealthy as the average person."

Even in China despite it's cultural revolution and redistributionist policies, rare surnames that were overrepresented in the Imperial examinations in the 1800s are still overrepresented in the countries elite universities today.

What does this mean? Obviously some of this is just be coincidental statistical noise, but I'm unsure as to what extent. Does anyone have any thoughts?

As someone with a low status English surname, this is bad news :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

My name wasn't mentioned...

*sigh of relief*

Neither was mine, but you can kinda guess on it's historical status based on where it originated in the old country and what kind of people held it--mine came from the English-Scottish borderlands and they immigrated to the US early and into the backcountry, which strongly indicates low status

I feel like this article had a lot of cherry picked statistics, but at the same time it's a really difficult subject to broach.

Yeah, I thought the same thing so I think you're probably right. My surname is Scottish. Most of my family is from Germany, Scotland and England, though.

I will say that tracing my family tree before one half of my father's side of the family before the Weimar republic. Like, so hard that I think I would have to go to Europe to do it.

The Scottish half of my dad's side of the family was easier, because we have a book that traces the family tree back to the 1600s.

My mothers family is basically impossible to trace. Irish and most of the Irish records were destroyed in a fire in the 1920s. Then the rest is Russian Jewish, and it goes without saying that there are basically no records there, lol.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 9:17:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 7:38:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:29:02 PM, YYW wrote:
The Scottish half of my dad's side of the family was easier, because we have a book that traces the family tree back to the 1600s.
You can consider yourself fortunate for having an overview of your family tree to such an extent. I wish the same was the case for me; since it is not, we have mostly passed on names and stories orally. I doubt archives even exist for any of my deceased family members born before he 20th century.

Cheers :)

Why are archives so sparse, in your part of the world?
Tsar of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 10:47:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 9:17:01 PM, YYW wrote:
Cheers :)

Why are archives so sparse, in your part of the world?
I don't know how the situation is in general [although, many historical ones were destroyed during the previous war]; in terms of population archives, however, I don't think it has all been kept because of the many structural changes in political systems. [My country being ruled by three different powers in the last century, mainly.]