Just call me McMoneypants

According to researchers at the University of California, people with “wealthy” names are likely to be significantly richer than their counterparts with lower-class names—even centuries later. Apparently, the rigid class structure of earlier days is nothing compared to the social stagnation caused by any ambitions towards a class-free society. So good job, everyone!

Mr. Darcy and family would still be on the Who’s Who, apparently, while the Smiths would have worked their way up to the snootier classes early on and stayed there. One assumes the Bingleys have done all right for themselves. Otherwise, when it comes to Austen names, it’s hard to say: the Bennets and the Morlands and the Prices sound sort of middle-class, but without any Hooter-Tooters of Braintree* running around for contrast, who knows? Maybe everybody in the UK has a firm grasp of Norman and non-Norman surnames, but unless we’re talking about the McMoneypantses and the Povertine-Smythes, I can assure you I’d be in need of some form of Cliff’s Notes.

(One wonders, as well, how the post-Industrial Revolution blending of cultures affects these sorts of statistics: in light of massive immigration, what’s the distribution of names that weren’t around for good old William the Conqueror, and how do they relate to the very old but not very wealthy families? Am I overthinking this? It’s okay to back away slowly.)

If all else fails, though, it’s comforting to know that we’ll never be richer than the Darcys.

* Get the reference, get a cookie!