The History of British Wealth and Industry

[jimmy olsen]

Why are there no Britons on this list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures

There is not even anyone from the 18th century or later on this list of the top sixteen richest Britons of all time, and none involved in Industry until number twenty and he is a man of the 20th Century.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-486221/1066-invader-Britains-wealthiest-man-history.html

As the first nation to industrialize, why is there not a Vanderbilt, Carnegie, or Rockefeller type figure that comes to mind? Was the economic scene there for some reason more fractured than in America? Why were the robber barons of America so much more successful at concentrating wealth in their hands compared to the fellows in Great Britain?

[Siege]

What about a JP Morgan?

[Eddie Teach]

Around age 48 (in 1916) his wealth was valued at up to US$881 million, which equals US$290 billion in today's money.

Sure it does.

[Siege]

I refuse to read linsk.

You cn post it here.

[Josquius]

The rothschilds?

[jimmy olsen]

The rothschilds?

Aren't they Austrians?

[Siege]

The rothschilds?

Aren't they Austrians?

What? They are judden!!!111

[Admiral Yi]

The rothschilds?

Aren't they Austrians?

And Andrew Carnegie was Scottish.

This is an interesting question Timmy.

I offer as a tentative hypothesis the desire of the newly rich in the UK to become members of the upper class.  One did this not by further expanding one's business but by buying a country estate, joining the right clubs, and sending one's sons to the right schools.  This had the added side effect of stifling competition, since it wasn't seemly to bankrupt your whist partners.

[The Larch]

The rothschilds?

Aren't they Austrians?

Originally from Frankfurt, but with branches in Austria, Britain, France and Italy.

And maybe US robber barons were able to amass that much money because the American society of the time was much more affable to their extremely predatory way of doing business, while British society might not have been so tolerant about it.

[Sheilbh]

The rothschilds?

Aren't they Austrians?

Historically there were a few branches of the family, including a British one. I'd guess they'd be up there given how important the Rothschild bank was to British finance at the time. I think they still have a very successful private bank in the city.

I think class is definitely part of it. Also the UK benefited far less from the second industrial revolution - which is when most of the robber barons emerged - it's at that stage that the US and Germany really start catching up, which may be part of it. Perhaps because the first industrial revolution still depended to a greater extent on skilled labour it made for a different sort of revolution. The UK's also quite small. You dominate the banking or steel in New York or Pennsylvania and you've a very solid base to take over the world. If you dominate the coal mining of County Durham it's more difficult.

Most of the famous industrialists I can think of are now most famous as philanthropists and were almost all Quakers or other non-conformists - Titus Salt, Joseph Rowntree, the Cadbury family.

The only people I can think of who would be like a US robber baron are imperial figures like Rhodes and Beaverbrock. They're not bound by the smallness of Britain and to an extent I think they were able to operate outside the class system. I'd guess any other British robber barons would be found operating in the empire somewhere.

[jimmy olsen]

The rothschilds?

Aren't they Austrians?

I think class is definitely part of it. Also the UK benefited far less from the second industrial revolution - which is when most of the robber barons emerged - it's at that stage that the US and Germany really start catching up, which may be part of it. Perhaps because the first industrial revolution still depended to a greater extent on skilled labour it made for a different sort of revolution. The UK's also quite small. You dominate the banking or steel in New York or Pennsylvania and you've a very solid base to take over the world. If you dominate the coal mining of County Durham it's more difficult.

Well, Vanderbilt was an industrialist of the 1st industrial revolution. And there was John Jacob Astor before him, though he was much more of a merchant than an industrialist. They both became fabulously wealthy and there seems to be no corresponding figure in Great Britain.

Why wasn't anyone able to gain regional dominance over the mining in Wales or Northern England?

[Sheilbh]

It would've depended on land ownership. You could own many coal mines and run them and make the money that way. But why would any landed estate sell you land that's got coal in it?

It's probably even more complicated because the areas that are famous for coal - Wales, Northumberland and so on - have lots of royal estates. So the land and the revenue probably would have gone to the crown or the Prince of Wales.

There is also the possibility that your Wiki link especially isn't that complete. I mean they list 7 people (including Carnegie) and then a separate list of North Americans

I'm not sure that many British industrialists would be on a fuller list but I'd be amazed if there were a number of 18th century merchants.

Edit: And of course 19th century landowners.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The coal mines were usually developed by the owners of the land where the deposits were found. Many of these were peers such as the Marquess of Londonderry who owned and developed my hometown of Seaham. They ran their coal mines as part of their estates but did not think of themselves as coal mining magnates, instead they would involve themselves in politics or public service. So there was little urge to consolidate the industry in fewer hands. Many fortunes were made, but not on the scale of the monopolists in the USA.

[jimmy olsen]

It would've depended on land ownership. You could own many coal mines and run them and make the money that way. But why would any landed estate sell you land that's got coal in it?

It's probably even more complicated because the areas that are famous for coal - Wales, Northumberland and so on - have lots of royal estates. So the land and the revenue probably would have gone to the crown or the Prince of Wales.

There is also the possibility that your Wiki link especially isn't that complete. I mean they list 7 people (including Carnegie) and then a separate list of North Americans

I'm not sure that many British industrialists would be on a fuller list but I'd be amazed if there were a number of 18th century merchants.

Edit: And of course 19th century landowners.

Well, in the 2nd list of richest Britons there were few of either to be found.

[Richard Hakluyt]

My favourite coal-mining peer would be the 5th Duke of Portland who owned large parts of Nottinghamshire. He was rather eccentric and extremely introverted and avoided all human contact. Partly for this reason he constructed a vast network of underground rooms and tunnels at his Welbeck abbey estate. This made him very popular as the work employed some thousands of people whenever there was a depression, work slowing during boom times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck,_5th_Duke_of_Portland