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?
What about a JP Morgan?
QuoteAround 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.
I refuse to read linsk.
You cn post it here.
The rothschilds?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2013, 02:00:27 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2013, 01:58:34 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2013, 02:00:27 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2013, 01:58:34 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2013, 02:00:27 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2013, 01:58:34 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2013, 06:31:50 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2013, 02:00:27 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2013, 01:58:34 AM
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?
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 :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2013, 06:57:03 AM
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 :lol:
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.
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
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2013, 07:10:47 AMWell, in the 2nd list of richest Britons there were few of either to be found.
Yes. Largely because of literal robber barons :P
The full list would be interesting, but take the 1st Duke of Sutherland - guessed to be the richest man in the UK in the 19th century. Did his wealth diminish so much that the 2nd Duke isn't on the list? The full list apparently has 250 figures on it and given that by twenty we're talking a billion here and a billion there I imagine the 18th and 19th century will be better represented. Even then it was difficult to amass a fortune like a conquering lord.
The Daily Mail list looks very dubious to me, I think they may be conflating feudal obligations with outright ownership and then applying some inappropriate inflation multiplier. Take the Black Prince, they give him a fortune of £35bn, let us assume that the yield on that is 5% and that a soldier costs £20k pa to put in the field..........I get 87,500.........in practice he was usually in debt and struggled to field more than a few thousand.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 11, 2013, 07:32:05 AM
The Daily Mail list looks very dubious to me, I think they may be conflating feudal obligations with outright ownership and then applying some inappropriate inflation multiplier. Take the Black Prince, they give him a fortune of £35bn, let us assume that the yield on that is 5% and that a soldier costs £20k pa to put in the field..........I get 87,500.........in practice he was usually in debt and struggled to field more than a few thousand.
But he was too big to fail.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 11, 2013, 07:32:05 AM
The Daily Mail list looks very dubious to me, I think they may be conflating feudal obligations with outright ownership and then applying some inappropriate inflation multiplier. Take the Black Prince, they give him a fortune of £35bn, let us assume that the yield on that is 5% and that a soldier costs £20k pa to put in the field..........I get 87,500.........in practice he was usually in debt and struggled to field more than a few thousand.
It's from this book, don't know how they calculated wealth
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Richest-Rich-Philip-Beresford/dp/0857190652/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1384177342&sr=1-1
According to the Daily Mail article probate and old documents. Apparently all told about 10% are industrialists and half are landowners.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2013, 06:47:41 AM
Why wasn't anyone able to gain regional dominance over the mining in Wales or Northern England?
An established land ownership class on a relatively tiny landmass. Duh.
Was/is there anything about British law that made it impossible to sell mineral rights?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2013, 10:24:56 AM
Was/is there anything about British law that made it impossible to sell mineral rights?
No. You can buy mineral rights and as long as you register them with the Land Registry they're something you can sell on. It's separate to owning the surface and I believe there are even circumstances where the owner of the mineral rights could give a mining license without the consent of the owner of the surface.
But that means it's down to private owners to grant licenses for exploration, unlike in Australia where the state's very involved and regulates exploration. So we're not as good at exploiting minerals as Australia or, I think, Canada.
A recent example is the Church of England's got mineral rights for something like 500 000 acres and they're busily making sure that's all registered now so if there's a boom due to fracking they'll benefit, but also so they can sell those rights on and so they won't be extinguished because they weren't registered.
Here's the Land Registry on it:
QuoteWhat are mine and mineral rights?
In many parts of England and Wales it is fairly common that someone will own the surface of the land but someone else will own the land below the surface. The land below the surface is usually called 'mines and minerals'.
There are varying types of rights and ownership relating to mines and minerals. These can range from owning the mines and minerals outright and being able to take them away, whether or not the owner of the surface agrees, to having some rights to them that can be exercised with the agreement of the surface owner.
Where someone owns the land comprising the mines and minerals below your property they will continue to own it indefinitely. They can apply to register it if they wish but they do not have to and this will not affect their ownership.
- See more at: http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/faqs/what-are-mine-and-mineral-rights#sthash.nFCOdwxz.dpuf