CHAPTER 342: THE DECLINE OF THE BRITISH ARISTOCRACY

As the new month begins, Manchester United—who ended the previous month in second place—have slipped to third. Leicester City, remarkably, now sit in second, just a single point behind the league leaders, despite never having won a top-flight title. Chelsea follow closely in fourth.

A major turning point came when Manchester United captain Roy Keane suffered a serious knee ligament injury during a 1–0 defeat to Leeds United at Elland Road. The injury has ruled him out for the rest of the season, dealing a heavy blow to United’s title hopes.

Manchester City, meanwhile, continued their dominant form with a commanding 5–0 victory over Derby County at Maine Road—further cementing their position at the top of the Premier League table.

Done with that, Richard immediately turned his focus to the auction invitation.

He had already asked Miss Heysen to gather all available information about the guests, including the current realities of the British aristocracy.

The British aristocracy, and even the royal family, are becoming increasingly decadent.

This decline is particularly evident in the areas of economy and power.

Traditionally, land was an important source of income for the British nobility. It can be said that the nobility once owned a large share of the land in the UK! At the end of the 18th century, 400 noble families owned 20% of the country’s real estate.

By the end of the 19th century, this share had reached 24%!

It was precisely because the nobles owned so much land that they could live a luxurious life with a horde of servants simply by relying on land rent without engaging in production.

Well, for the nobles at that time, every day was a weekend. There was no concept of working days—ladies could change three sets of clothes a day and have parties from time to time.

From the perspective of British history, the turning point of the aristocracy’s economic power—from prosperity to decline—occurred in 1894. That year, the Liberal Party cabinet announced that an 8% inheritance tax would be imposed on those with assets of more than 1 million pounds.

This was the first time that inheritance tax was imposed on the nobility in Britain, but it was just the beginning.

Between 1909 and 1914, the tax rate was raised to 15%, and has been increasing year by year since then.

By 1939, it had reached 60%!

After World War II, the Labour government increased the inheritance tax rate for those with assets over 1 million pounds to 80%!

The nobles were not happy with this and shouted in the House of Lords: "This is simply robbery at knifepoint!"

The result was of no avail—taxes were still collected, and those in arrears had to pay an additional 8% interest.

The Conservative government that came to power later showed no mercy and continued to implement the policy of "robbing the rich to help the poor."

The direct consequence of high inheritance taxes is that, when it comes to inheritance, nobles have to sell their manors, homes, and artworks to make up for the financial deficit.

After several inheritances, inheritance tax is paid again and again, and even the most prosperous family businesses are severely damaged.

By 1976, the nobility’s estates in England and Wales had fallen by 76%, and in Scotland by 69%.

As time went on, the British aristocracy owned fewer and fewer properties, and their luxurious lifestyle became unsustainable.

There were even many British aristocrats who, due to their livelihood, had to lower their status and open their estates and private territories to the public for visits in order to make a little money.

Nobles were either lucky enough to complete the trust fund of their family assets during that period or had no choice but to sell their property, and many even fell into decline. Even the highest-ranking duke families among the remaining non-royal nobles were not spared!

This is why, if we look at the industries run by those aristocratic families who still have good economic conditions, the largest number of industries are still land-related—such as real estate, agriculture, and tourism.

For example, the current Duke of Westminster, who is considered to be the richest among the 24 duke families, mainly deals in real estate. The family currently has a wealth of billions of pounds, ranking among the top 15 richest people in Britain.

The reason why their family is so rich is not only because they injected family assets into trust funds early on to avoid high inheritance taxes, but also because they own a large amount of land in London—more than a quarter of the land in London belongs to the Duke of Westminster’s family.

Relying on these lands and real estate, they gained a lot of wealth and were able to use it to acquire the land of other impoverished aristocratic families, and purchased many properties in the United States, Australia, and Canada.

In addition to the worsening economic situation, the weakening of political power is also a major manifestation of the decline of the British aristocracy.

The British Parliament is divided into two houses: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The House of Lords is composed of aristocratic members, so it is also called the House of Lords.

At first, the House of Lords had the veto power over bills passed by the House of Commons, and the two houses often confronted each other.

At that time, the House of Lords was still quite powerful.

After the passing of the Parliament Act of 1911, the relationship between the two houses changed.

According to the Parliament Act of 1911, any financial bill passed by the House of Commons would become law as long as it was signed by the King one month after being sent to the House of Lords for deliberation—regardless of whether it was approved by the House of Lords.

All other social bills, if passed by the House of Commons three times in a row within two years, could be submitted directly to the King for approval and become law, even if they were rejected by the House of Lords three times.

In 1949, the Labour government enacted a new Parliament Act, reducing the period for the House of Lords to "suspend the veto" from two years to one year.

After these reforms, the House of Lords basically became an institution without real power, and the British aristocracy could no longer exercise political power through the legislative process.

Although the official website of the British House of Lords clearly states that "members of the nobility play an important role in supervising government decisions," since the House of Lords has no real power, it makes no difference whether they attend or not. More than 60% of the nobility rarely attend meetings, and only one-sixth attend half of the meetings each year.

Among the regular attendees, there are some memmbers of the nobility who do not attend for the purpose of "monitoring government decisions," but simply to collect a few dozen pounds in food and transportation subsidies.

In 1999, the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown took drastic measures and directly dismissed more than 600 members of the House of Lords, leaving only 92 members—effectively exposing the House of Lords as an institution in name only.

What is even more ironic is that there was not much resistance to Brown’s reform of streamlining the House of Lords, and even many nobles supported the decision.

In fact, the more powerful nobles simply look down on the House of Lords as a "retirement home," and for some members, the biggest impact of their removal was just the loss of a few dozen pounds in subsidies for occasional attendance at meetings.

Richard immediately understood why Earl Spencer was looking for him instead of his ’colleagues.’

Because Earl Spencer, the brother of Princess Diana, publicly criticized both the Royal Family and the media for their treatment of her in his powerful funeral eulogy.

The funeral was broadcast live on both BBC One and ITV, drawing more than 32 million viewers—making it one of the most-watched events in British television history, second only to England’s World Cup victory in 1966.

Not only that, the nobility was no longer trustworthy or capable. They had become politically impotent, grown passive, and many had resorted to selling off their estates or reducing themselves to mere ceremonial roles.

Richard, on the other hand, represented a new breed of power—decisive, resourceful, and unshackled by legacy.

A self-made figure, he wasn’t bound by the etiquette, obligations, or rivalries of the aristocratic class. Much like his sister, who broke from royal tradition and gained global sympathy by being modern, humane, and rebellious.

When Richard finally understood the nature of Earl Spencer’s request, he agreed without hesitation—refusing any offer of compensation or political favor.

"Just help me speak with Viscount Bute about the gas tank land," Richard said plainly. "That’s all I need. I’m not asking for anything else."

Earl Spencer’s plea was deeply personal. He wanted Richard’s help retrieving several of Princess Diana’s gowns—now in the possession of private collectors. Somehow, these garments had ended up in the hands of opportunists—people who viewed Diana’s memory not as sacred, but as profitable.

Richard was determined. He would make sure the dresses came home.