#priviledge

Reform UK and the Conservative Party both campaign for a restoration of “traditional British values”. Reform UK’s social agenda includes “patriotic history” and a values-driven reinterpretation of British heritage. The Tory’s emphasise traditional institutions that protect heritage, such as respect for the monarchy and defence of the Crown as part of British identity.

There are, of course, other factors to do with “traditional British values” and “British heritage” that both parties subscribe to, but I want to concentrate on the Monarchy and the class aspect of being British.

The reason this is important is because the British people have always been portrayed, and in many ways correctly, as being subservient to the upper class. I don’t believe we Brits are inherently subservient, but Britain has long-standing institutions, norms, and hierarchies that encourage deference. The result is a society that often acts deferential even if at a personal level they don’t feel inferior.

Britain has a historically entrenched hierarchy. We had monarchs claiming divine authority, a landed aristocracy controlling political power, and a rigid class system tied to birth, accent and schooling. Our traditional institutions - private schools, the Oxbridge pipelines into politics, law, and the civil service, land ownership patterns where aristocratic families still hold vast estates, and the monarchy as a symbolic apex – all bolster and normalise upper-class dominance and working class compliance.

Many will argue that this view is outdated and no longer describes the realities of modern Britain. There would be some truth in this criticism. There is a strong anti-elite sentiment among the population, cynicism towards politicians, distrust of institutions, and the rise of populist movement such as Reform UK. These factors, critics would argue, all point to the opposite of what I am arguing.

Reform UK may use populist rhetoric but none of its policies is anti-monarchy or anti- upper class. In fact, its economic policies, donor networks, cultural stances and institutional loyalties place it firmly within the pro-monarchy, pro-establishment, pro-upper-class tradition of British right-wing politics.

Independent reporting shows Reform UK is heavily funded by millionaires, hedge-fund figures, fossil-fuel investors, offshore linked donors and high-net worth individuals. This donor profile is upper class, financial–elite and establishment aligned. Is it any wonder that Reform UK’s cultural message defends traditional institutions, opposes radical structural change, and frames elites as “patriotic” if aligned with Reform’s worldview, and targets bureaucratic elites and not economic elites?

Heading this hierarchy of privilege and protected interests is the Royal Family. Let us take the decision of Prince William and his wife the Princess of Wales to send their son Prince George to Eton. By sending their son to Eton they are unapologetically embracing and promoting elite reproduction.  They are telling Britain that the monarchy intends to remain socially anchored in the traditional upper-class institutions that have historically produced the country’s ruling-class.

Eton College is Britain’s most famous elite boys’ boarding school — a 600‑year‑old institution that functions as a training ground for the country’s ruling class. Fees are in excess of £60,000 per year and this pays for an environment where the male off-spring of the super-wealthy can socially network and acquire the cultural capital of their class  - accent, mannerisms, confidence, entitlement – before moving on to Oxbridge and from there to an elite career.

The decision to send Prince George to Eton has been broadly welcomed by the British press and politicians. Sky News has framed the move in terms of a carefully deliberated decision based on Prince Williams’s own experience at Eton and its convenient closeness to Windsor Castle. (news.sky.com: 16/06/26) The Independent follows the same line of argument. (16/06/26) GB News reports it as a natural continuation of elite royal schooling, and emphasised Eton’s role in preparing Prince George as a future king. Needless to say the Express is strongly supportive of the move, framing it as sensible and traditional.

None of this is surprising. Wealth buys privilege, and Britain’s ruling elite has long used their resources to ensure their children inherit the same entrenched advantages and positions of power as their parents. But does it have to be this way?

In Finland charging tuition fees for compulsory schooling (ages 7-16) is illegal and banned by law. Finland’s constitution demands equal access to education. Charging fees creates class-segregated schooling, which the Finish people explicitly reject. Finland’s educational system is built on the principle that children should not be segregated by parental income or position in society. Schools cannot compete for customers – the goal of Finish education is cohesion, not segregation.

All schools follow the same national core curriculum, preventing “elite vs sink” school stratification. Comprehensives must accept all local children and selection by wealth or ability is banned. Finland, unlike Britain, sees education as a public investment NOT the private purchase of privilege. They argue that a highly and equally educated population leads to higher productivity (Britain take note). This in turn leads to higher tax revenues and therefore more money to spend on public services and welfare.

Whereas Britain has 20+ distinct school systems – ranging from private fee-paying schools like Eton to faith schools – Finland has only one. The Finish model is built around uniformity, equality and simplicity. Britain’s educational system promotes and protects differences, breeds inequality and is structurally complex.

Is it any wonder that we are reading headlines like this today?

“White working-class children failed by England’s school system, inquiry finds”  (Guardian: 29/06/26)

Until we treat education as a shared, unifying experience rather than a system that divides society, nothing will change.

Privilege is something thrown around a lot these days, and mostly, for good reason. 

We all have it. 

If it’s not the colour of your skin, what’s in between your pants, your sexual orientation, your wealth or your health, it’s one of the other hundreds of things I could list. 

I am extremely privileged, I’m white, my first language is English, I can talk and read, I have a roof over my head and many others things. 

But I’m also at a disadvantage in a lot of other areas, my hearing and sight are both pretty bad, I constantly struggle with metal health, I’m fortunate enough to have a job but it isn’t well paying enough to remove the stress of money, my health is in constant ruins and, well, many other things. 

The same goes for every character we make. 

I read a lot of books where the author focuses in on the disadvantages a character faces, and it makes sense, that’s often more a cause of conflict, but they rarely take but a second to acknowledge that which they do have. A family that loves them? A stable job? Good health? 

I always find it weird when people say something then do another. Reflect your values in your work, in your art, if you believe in the philosophy where we should take a step back and be aware of our place inside society, do so in your art too. 

This also goes the other way, feel free to take a priviledged character and show the disadvantages they face. It’s a pretty common trope to show the rich kids with absent parents. That’s a disadvantage, it’s usually shown as though related to the privilege but I don’t think it’s necessary for them to be related. 

Why do people always choose absent family for the rich kid as their disadvantage? There are so many good ones out there! Health problems, both physical and mental, discrimination of any sort with the added bonus of it always being lessened due to their financial status, disfuncional relationships because nobody is completely free of the risk of an abusive dick, being incapable of passing at school despite the expensive tutors, having an ill pet... 

If you like that trope there’s nothing inherently wrong with it of course, I just yearn for some more variety. 

So, how can we incorporate privilege and disadvantages into our stories? As so often happens, I’m going to go over a quick example from my own book because it’s easy. 

Itazu is the main character in my series Dear Dragon. 

Relevant Privileges: Her father is both loving and wealthy having a good job, because of this there is no true expectation from her, she’s pretty free to do as she wishes. She’s a dragon and thereby more physically durable than humans. 

Relevant Disadvantages: She’s a dragon, one of the last of her species with all the social issues that entails. (I’m simplifying so as to avoid spoilers for second and third books, sorry). 

The relevant disadvantages obviously move the plot forward at many points. But that doesn’t mean her privileges are ignored. In fact, they are bought up often, sometimes more obviously than others. It’s bought up through reminders like: “Your Father won’t let that happens.” “Henry will take care of it.” “You’ll always have a place to go”. And from her father himself: “You can count on me for anything.” 

This is a treatment many other characters in the book (specifically the male lead), don’t get. And it is something that sticks out. 

My intention when showing this is several: 

1.- Make sure the audience understands that all the accomplishments in the books are not the protagonist’s alone. She has a support system and that does a lot for her. 

2.- Show that it’s not all or nothing. You can are both in a situation of privilege and disadvantage. A good character reflects reality. 

3.- Split the audience. And this is the most complicated to understand. Mostly because the goal isn’t truly to split the audience, but to understand that a good character, a realistic character, will not be liked by everybody. We all know somebody who was absolutely charming and did nothing wrong! Except for some weird reason you can’t explain, you hated them. No character is 100% likeable to everybody (except for some atla ones but I mean there had to be some kind of dark magic in the creation of that show, too perfect), and I don’t want anybody to hate my character’s because they’re boring. I want them to be hated because there is something about them you don’t like.

I’ve got a whole post coming out shortly about this last point that goes way more into detail so stay tuned! 

From what I’ve tested Itazu can sometimes be disliked because, “She complains about her disadvantages while having more privilege than other characters”. A perfectly valid critique. If not one I personally believe in. I and many readers find Itazu’s willingness to acknowledge both her disadvantages and her privileges not letting either one get in the way of the other is a perfectly enjoyable character trait. 

Itazu is bullied at one point for who she is, and she doesn’t treat this any less seriously because she gets to go home to a loving father. 

She receives plenty of love from her father, even though he isn’t a dragon and can’t fully understand her. And she at no point sees her father as less loving due to this lack of comprehension. 

Use both. 

And I seriously hope I got the point across because I do now know how ot express these thoughts why now. 

Please, I’m begging you if you made it this far, did any of that make sense to you? Please tell me. 

As usual,  check out my book, stories I’ve written plus other social medias: here.

Hey, it’s Christmas Eve on Friday, I hope all the students out there are holding in! Remember, not long left! I hope all of you have amazing holidays, and some extra time to read!