Its a Brit's concise explanation of a major social phenomenon. It can also be more academically explained, but it would require a longer discussion. That Brit's simple summary is the best I have ever seen in putting a lot of words into those few paragraphs.
> The "broader segment" as opposed to the genuine aristocrats - this seems like the natural working of society as it re-segments imperfectly
Privileged segments tend to form in every given society due to inequal dynamics. However, this is different from the system being set up in that direction. The UK is still an aristocracy, with royals with actual power...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...
...unelected, hereditary, aristocratic house of lords having de facto veto power through the power to send back bills to the parliament an infinite times, and the FPTP system. The Toff-producing public schools just feed this system.
> Maybe it's France, which was contrasted earlier with the UK
Yes, compared to the UK, France is much more egalitarian for a simple reason: The French Revolution originated in France, whereas it was never able to reach Britain. Hence, whereas the French Revolution and its Napoleonic aftermath wiped out entire Europe from the hereditary aristocratic houses and the power structures that kept in place (even with Napoleon's !appointed! psuedo-aristocracy), the medieval aristocracy lived on without interruptions in Britain.
This is the major reason why the UK still keeps not only these aristocratic power structures, but an undisrupted, entitled aristocracy that still has its late medieval mindset.
As I said, this is a gigantic history and political science topic. Also mixes in sociology, inevitably.
The House of Lords is mostly not hereditary nor aristocratic. Almost all members are life peers (~700) or C of E (26). 92 are hereditary aristocrats. I don't see the point in summarising in a way that gives people the wrong impression.
You can argue over whether or not the House of Lords in general is a good idea, but calling Britain aristocratic over it seems extremely misleading.
The "broader segment" as opposed to the genuine aristocrats - this seems like the natural working of society as it re-segments imperfectly. I don't know that anyone has devised a perfect society that helps and rewards in ways that have no bad outcomes. Maybe it's France, which was contrasted earlier with the UK. I would be keen to understand what it could be.