Hall of Mirrors at Versaille, France, 17th century

I have a problem with writing about wealthy aristocrats or oligarchs.

Since the invention of agriculture, sumptuous living has depended on the poverty of others. Wealth inequality began when the first ruler of a city state set some of his people to work in the fields and some to bop on the head any field workers who might object to the assignment, while he and his favourites got looked after. Sure, they had the tough job of telling everyone else what to do, and of going out to fight other city states when one side or the other wanted to extend their power and their authority. Conspicuous consumption led to envy on the part of others and a lust for a share. But for the peasants in the field and the servants scrubbing the pots, who was on top made very little difference.

Those of us who grew up in middle-class enclaves in Western countries after the second world war tend to forget this reality. In the 1950s and 60s, the oligarchs of our nations were carrying on the practice of centuries, exporting the exploitation of workers to poorer countries where their misery was out of sight. And few of us moved among the poor of our own countries often enough and humbly enough to recognise that theories about self-inflicted poverty where lies to protect the rich.

In the 18th century, Adam Smith wrote:

‘Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.’

In France in that century, the five hundred poor had had enough. Conspicuous consumption led to envy on the part of others and a lust for a share. The excesses of the French Revolution were horrible. Innocent people died in their masses, and their wealth or lack of it, their guilt or innocence, didn’t make a shard of difference. I’m delighted that the United Kingdom, from which my family lines come, managed to avoid following the French path to the guillotine. At least some of the British leaders saw the danger and shared power in a way that didn’t happen in France. Also, the government suppressed any hint of revolution with a ruthless hand. And the English middle-class had power enough and wealth enough not to follow their poorer brethren into blood, fire, and gore.

It was a fairly close run thing, at times.

The Music Room, Brighton Pavilion, England, Regency era

The noble classes about whom most of us Regency authors write had huge inherited wealth, though the value of agriculture-based enterprise was waning, leading to brutal land grabs through the enclosure acts and the Highland clearances. Even those who behaved fairly to their tenants came to their wealth through dubious means.

‘It is very well known that in England (and the same will be found in other countries) the great landed estates, now held in descent, were plundered from the quiet inhabitants at the conquest. The possibility did not exist of acquiring such estates honestly… That they were not acquired by trade, by commerce, by manufactures, by agriculture or by any reputable employment is certain. How then were they acquired? Blush, aristocracy, to hear your origin, for your progenitors were Thieves…When they had committed the robbery, they endeavoured to lose the disgrace of it, by sinking their real names under fictious ones, which they called Titles. It is ever the practice of Felons to act in this manner.’ (Thomas Paine)

A new class of industrialists and merchants were growing fortunes on the backs of sugar and tea plantations staffed by slaves, factories and mines staffed by underpaid workers including children as young as five, and gunboat diplomacy around the globe. In the middle of the 19th century, John Stuart Mills wrote:

‘The social arrangements of modern Europe commenced from a distribution of property which was the result… of conquest and violence: …the system still retains many and large traces of its origins. The laws of property have never yet conformed to the principles on which the justification of private property rests. They have made property of things which never ought to be property, and absolute property where only a qualified property ought to exist. They have not held the balance fairly between human beings, but have heaped impediments upon some, to give advantage to others; they have purposely fostered inequalities, and prevented all from starting fair in the race.’

Mills believed (and so do I, for that matter) that there’s nothing wrong with owning stuff that you’ve acquired through your own personal efforts. But owning twenty or fifty or eighty times as much as the average Joe? While paying starvation wages? That can’t be right.

So I make my aristocrats supporters of philanthropic causes, and I send them into Parliament to fight for fairer laws. They wear expensive clothing and surround themselves with the expensive trappings of their status, but I try to make them thoughtful about such things. It’s a balance.

But it’s a hard one, especially as I watch the 21st century repeating the mistakes of the past eleven thousand years. We have our own Palaces of Versailles, our own Brighton Pavilions.

Manhattan Townhouse, 21st Century

The richest United States families have an average income of 80 times the income of the average worker, and every country of the world has its own oligarchs, who would rather spend money on security and protection that share what they’ve managed to acquire.

It just isn’t fair.