If anything, it gives you a close-up view of man’s ability to enchant others with stories and narrative; and for you to exit the fiction where you want to. Although nihilism is a risk as you point out, the upside might be the realisation that meaning can be constructed.

One reason I don’t expect millennial princes to exit the monarchy, in the UK at least, is that they won’t be allowed to. Because their presence is a cornerstone to the entire fiction that is British social and economic culture, in which many have valuable vested interests.

Very much so. I not only came to understand this through my own experiences, but also came to realise that much of what I was being taught at school was how to wrest control of any narrative, and make it mine.

It was a useful skill in building a business, and it’s a useful skill in understanding the human world - practically everything is a battle of narratives, of finding the better story, the tale which speaks to the heart and ensnares rapt listeners, eager to repeat the story to others.

It’s also useful in understanding markets. I don’t buy or sell based on any objective reality, rather what the dominant narrative in the minds of others is.

Most are oblivious to this. They take the world at face value, and never even consider that they are principally a bit player in another’s story - and that lack of knowledge keeps them trapped in the fairytale.

On the other hand, those like me who are, wittingly or not, trained in setting the scene, inevitably end up being the authors of our collective destinies. Sadly, many of the stories are very repetitive, uninventive, and cast villains as heroes.

One last question: do you think your level of awareness is commonplace? I appreciate a baronet is not on a par with a Norman robber baron, but do you ever encounter a sense of shame amongst your peers (sorry for the pun).

No. There definitely are others from that circle who have gone down the same path as me, but it’s a distinct minority. Most end up completely inured within that world, and reinforce and justify each other’s values and prejudices.

Very interesting. Your comment opens more questions than is probably polite. But can I ask, what are the core tenets of this weltanschaung (the values and prejudices) and would you say there is an ethnic dimension to it? I ask because (whilst fuzzy at the edges) there’s a fair argument that British aristocrats are essentially ethnic Normans. Is there a sense of different ethnicity?

For full disclosure, I’m exploring my hypothesis that Norman conquest of Britain created a template for colonisation for the next thousand years. And in which a key component of colonisation was an inculcation of locals with a belief that one’s colonizers were superior beings by virtue of their ethnicity.

I very much salute your reflection and insight. I’m reminded of David Graeber’s quote: “the ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently”. But the first step must be awareness.

I wouldn’t say there’s a sense of different ethnicity, quite, but there’s definitely a view of inherent superiority. Behind closed doors, you’ll hear terms like “plebs” and “proles” and “chavs” thrown around frequently, to refer to everyone from the working classes - which from the perspective of the aristocracy is practically everyone who isn’t part of the aristocracy.

There’s also a distinct disdain for the “nouveau riche” - they are seen as well-to-do merchants (urgh, how bourgeois!) - but will mostly forever be on the outside - mostly, because there are exceptions, but you don’t get into the circle due to wealth, but due to class - which is something you pretty much have to be educated into from birth, as what you see from the outside is not how it works on the inside, and if you try to enter being all polite and humble and ever so nice you will be seen - as an imposter. The aristocracy are not polite - they have no need to be - you demonstrate that you are “one of us” by putting your feet up on the kitchen table, lighting a cigarette, and getting smashed (but not obviously so) before supper, and then throwing the croquet set in the reflecting pool.

So… it’s not so much ethnicity as it is culture - and it’s a pretty closely guarded and distinct culture, which I think your hypothesis of being Norman in origin is absolutely spot on - it’s even in the language - beef/cow, venison/deer, mutton/sheep, pork/pig and so-forth - the words of those who consume the product versus the words of those who produce the product. The proactive disdain for niceties is distinctly Norman.

Perfect use of Graeber, and I couldn’t agree more. If you’re interested in the topic of manufactured reality, Hobbes and Baudrillard both had some pretty stonking insights into it.

Thanks for the Baudrillard recommendation. Not someone I’d heard of.

Your choice of words (beef/cow, venison/deer, mutton/sheep, pork/pig) is interesting because they are all of either French or Germanic origin according to your consumption/production logic - likely Norman or Saxon I guess.

I found your comments on being “trained in setting the scene” to be curious, as it has seems to have more in common with a magical or mystical training than the familiarization with brute logic and scientific process that was my own education. In anthropological terms I should not be surprised, every culture has its Brahmin class adept in the use of secret knowledge.

It’s been enjoyable exchanging and given me much to think about.