Noblesse Oblige: An Enquiry into the Identifiable Characteristics of the English Aristocracy

by Nancy Mitford (Editor), Alan S.C. Ross (Contributor), Osbert Lancaster (Illustrator)

Until Miss Nancy Mitford wrote on 'The English Aristocracy' in Encounter magazine, England was blissfully unconscious of 'U-usage' and all its lethal implications. The reverberations of that article spread rapidly from London throughout the British Isles, county and otherwise, and soon provided conversational pabulum at the U and non-U dinner-tables of English-speaking Paris and New York.It all started from a paper written by Professor Alan Ross of Birmingham University, printed in Helsinki in 1954, on 'Upper-Class English Usage'. The Professor pointed out that it is solely by their language that the upper classes nowadays are distinguished (since they are neither cleaner, richer, nor better educated than anybody else) and invented the useful U (for upper class) speaker versus non-U speaker. He then gave examples from the vocabulary of each, and some of these are quoted in the article which Miss Mitford based on his treatise.Miss Mitford's article was in due course implemented by 'Strix' in the Spectator; attacked by Mr Evelyn Waugh in Encounter; and became responsible for incidents in the Guards' Club, where certain unregenerate members continued to use the non-U expression 'Cheers!' before drinking.

Genres: Nonfiction, Essays, Humor, Language, Sociology, Classics, Satire

114 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1956

About the author

Nancy Mitford, styled The Hon. Nancy Mitford before her marriage and The Hon. Mrs Peter Rodd thereafter, was an English novelist and biographer, one of the Bright Young People on the London social scene in the inter-war years. She was born at 1 Graham Street (now Graham Place) in Belgravia, London, the eldest daughter of Lord Redesdale, and was brought up at Asthall Manor in Oxfordshire. She was the eldest of the six controversial Mitford sisters.

She is best remembered for her series of novels about upper-class life in England and France, particularly the four published after 1945; but she also wrote four well-received, well-researched popular biographies (of Louis XIV, Madame de Pompadour, Voltaire, and Frederick the Great). She was one of the noted Mitford sisters and the first to publicize the extraordinary family life of her very English and very eccentric family, giving rise to a "Mitford industry," which continues.

Reviews

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

U (upper class) v. non-U (middle class) identifiers in the language:

Highlights:
- Taking/having high tea: Non-U. I always knew this! Good to see it written down.
- Consulting etiquette books: Non-U. You either do it U, or you do it non-U. You aren't allowed to change or learn.
- addressing a man as "Sir": Non-U, unless you are an elderly academic(!).
- addressing a woman as "Miss": Non-U.
- "Cheers!": Non-U! "Until 1939, English U-speakers normally said nothing. Since then, however, the Service habit of saying something has become almost universal and most U-speakers therefore feel it churlish to say nothing; representing a shudder, they probably say 'Cheers!'."
- "To take a bath:" is non-U! Apparently everyone ought to "have a bath".
- "Cycle": is non-U. It's "bike".
- "Home": Non-U. Say: "They've a very nice house." and not "They've a lovely home." Nowadays we'd do something even worse and use "got" or "gotten" in such a sentence.
- "Sick": Non-U. It's "ill".
- ”Preserve": Non-U. It's "jam".
- ”Perfume”: Non-U. It's "scent".

...the list goes on... But most of the battles have been lost. Does even the Dowager Duchess of Devonshire ever say "looking glass" for "mirror"? The issue now is American versus British usage. So it was interesting to see:
- "Berkeley," "Berkshire," "clerk," "Derby,": U-speakers rhyme the first syllable with "dark (or "bar"), non-U with "mirk" or "burr". Really? I thought that everyone in Britain would have said "the D[a]rby" and it was only in North America where they would say "the Kentucky D[i]rby". Perhaps not! Which rather undermines why some British people are so precious about it.

As an aside, my favourite argument aabout an Americanism is with the full stop (period) after Mr(.) or Mrs(.). Apparently, "Mr" and "Mrs" are contractions (of "Master" and "Mistress") and not abbreviations. This means that if you want to use any punctuation you should use the apostrophe: "M'r" and "M'r's". Using a full stop, as North Americans do, is similar to writing "I dont. understand." for "I don't understand." "Prof." and "Rev." are abbreviations, and so the full stop is appropriate.

Look at what Evelyn Waugh has to say about genealogy: "My own scepticism about theories of inherited characteristics is based on the impossibility of identifying the real fathers in the ages when adultery was very common and divorce was rare." Yes! All these people who say that they are related to Shakespeare and Benjamin Franklin and Princess Diana ... sure, you've a family tree that suggests you could be ... but unless you've had some sort of DNA test then it means almost nothing.

[Sketchbook · Rating 4 out of 5]

An agitator of genius?
So Nancy Mitford was called. She couldnt resist a childish temptation to shock, says writer-scholar Harold Acton. For some years furious people harped on the U and Non-U game. Mitford produced a glorious tease on words we choose....(It's serious, but not serious, which lumpish readers don't grasp).
Do you ask a host, "Where's the toilet?" (Non-U) or just hiss, "Where izzit?" Playing along were pals Evelyn Waugh, Christopher Sykes, and John Betjeman, etc.

Nancy herself wrote a friend, "As for U, everybody I see says how tired they are of it, etc, to which I then reply, 'then leave it alone.' But they can't. It's really too extraordinary."

[Jess · Rating 5 out of 5]

I stumbled across a most pristine copy that has never been read for a mere $5. When opening the post, I ended up doing a reread of it and appreciating Evelyn Waugh's Open Letter even more. Such an interesting window into a time period and literary discourse.

[Anna]

So, by way of an old episode of Backlisted I learned about an essay by Nancy Mitford called The English Aristocracy, which is part of this volume (I have not read the whole collection, only this essay). I must say that this essay is simultaneously very informative and absolutely hilarious; I haven't laughed so much in a while (and I also learned a great deal about the English aristocracy, which put my beloved Downton Abbey in some perspective). I highly recommend this if you have any interest in the aristocracy or laughing.

You can read the essay here: http://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-19...

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love the Mitfords so I am biased, but this is a satiric look into English upper and non-upper class speech. Funny. Biting. Snobbish. For all of the humor behind it, it is a compelling sociological study as well.

[Wealhtheow · Rating 3 out of 5]

Squashed between fat books of grammar I found Noblesse Oblige, a set of essays on English colloquialisms and class in the twentieth century. The Hon. Mrs. Peter Rodd (aka Nancy Mitford)'s sharp little essay on "the identifiable characteristics of the English aristocracy" caused a flurry of letters and debate, some of which is published in this volume. Mitford set down a by-no-means comprehensive list of grammar, vocabulary, and modes of thought as Upper-Class or Not Upper-Class. In the 1950s, at least, members of the English nobility avoided euphemism, abbreviations and acronyms, while simultaneously using phrases that only had meaning if you already knew the people or place involved. She is followed by Alan S.C. Ross's turgid essay on "sociological inguistics," which was not worth slogging though, as it basically is just a list of how to pronounce vowels. There is a footnote per sentence, which makes it hard going. Evelyn Waugh apparently felt the need to stick his pointed little nose into the debate, and wrote a thirty-six page letter telling Mitford in the most patronizing language possible that she was a jumped-up pretender and not very smart, to boot. Since Mitford has facts and figures from Burke's and the College of Heralds, whereas Waugh has pithy anecdotes, I can't trust him much. Anyone who refers to a published author repeatedly as "a cutie" or "endearing" for daring to examine the society in which she lives, or who spends AN ENTIRE PAGE reminding his readers that "Nancy"'s father only succeeded to the peerage when she was 12, thus negating all her points because she's so very new to the peerage, is just not someone I can bear.
Luckily, Waugh's would-be razor wit is followed by "Strix"'s essay on colloquialisms, slang, and how language shifts over generations and geography. I think zie brings up the best points of all--that gentlemen have "a relish for incongruity": they love to sprinkle their speech with ironic snips of lower-class slang, they call a battle "a party" but a dull party "a disaster," and they play with understatements vs. overstatements. Actual events or people are talked about in an understated way, whereas feelings (petrified, nauseated, firghtful) are overstated. "Strix" also ends with a fantastic paragraph: "All tradition is bequeathed, however distrustfully, to the young. The upper-class young have not been dragooned about the use of words in the way their parents were; and they have ingested a richer, more variegated slice of the marzipan of English usage than reached, in the ordinary way of business, the gizzards of their elders. If they are sensible and civic, they will try to iron out these pregnant but elusive nuances and strive for a clear, classless medium of communication in which all say 'Pardon?' and none say 'What?,' every ball is a dance and every man's wife is 'the' wife. I shall be surprised, and disappointed, if they make the slightest endeavour to impoverish our extraordinary national life by doing anything of the sort."

[Ginger Jane · Rating 2 out of 5]

Clearly I am not in on the joke.

[Linda · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is just a 1900s discourse cycle, but sometimes it’s useful to read a primary source since many of the things now attributed to Nancy Mitford (coining U and non-U, saying posh English is more casual etc) were actually ideas from others within this volume. would absolutely not recommend reading this to anybody though. also Evelyn Waugh is a little bitch.

[Markwoods · Rating 2 out of 5]

Knocking off an item from the bucket list. It’s been on said list for at least twenty years. I laughed out loud several times; I also had to put it down several times, annoyed by the snobbery. Glad I’ve finished it.

[Kay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although of course it's now quite dated, thisexamination of "U" (upper class) and "non-U" usage remains a classic. Strangely enough, though British people are famed for their ability to "place" others in terms of class and origins by their speech, this wasn't a phenomenon that was much discussed before Mitford's book, which is a lighthearted but still quite penetrating look at British speech. Consisting of a group of pieces written by such literary luminaries as Mitford, Evelyn Waugh, John Betjeman, and Christopher Sykes.

Mitford begins by examining the English aristocracy and (based, of course on personal experience) delineates some key features of U vs. non-U speech, such as:

U: house non-U: home
U: pudding non-U: pudding
U: rich non-U: wealthy

The following chapter, by Professor Alan Ross, is a somewhat Henry Higgins-esque piece that sets out the distinctions in greater detail. More amusing is an open letter from Evelyn Waugh to Mitford.

While much of this information, as mentioned before, is now passé, it's still an interesting window on a period that survives especially in literature of the time, so knowing a bit about the U and non-U worlds is particularly useful for reading British novels. Having lived in England during the 1980's, I could still see the (altered) worlds of U and non-U at work.

The edition I've got of this book, printed in the 1950's, has wonderful illustrations by that peerless observer of class distinctions Osbert Lancaster.

[Bhan13 · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's pretty funny that some American readers think this series of articles was satirical (besides John Betjeman's poem, of course). It was an amusing close examination of a social custom, and a look at the contributors will let you know the level of the writing.

[Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

The English are super-weird about class.

[Lizzie · Rating 2 out of 5]

A few startlingly recognisable observances, and otherwise lost on me.

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nancy Mitford's Noblesse Oblige is one of the most peculiar books I've ever read.

Although it was a cause célèbre in Britain when it was first published in 1956, I wouldn't have expected it to get much traction here in Australia.  There are class differences here, but why would a collection of essays about the Identifiable Characteristics of the English Aristocracy, be of any interest?  Be that as it may, there was a battered copy of it in a local Little Library, and I couldn't resist taking it home to check it out.

The collection begins with 'U and Non-U, an Essay in Sociological Linguistics' by a professor of Linguistics called Alan S C Ross.  He published it in a Finnish academic journal in 1954, and a storm of controversy erupted over his analysis of signifiers of class.  (U meaning Upper Class, and Non-U, meaning the aspirational middle class.)  He covers forms of address, writing styles and pronunciation, but it was the way he codified vocabulary as U or Non-U that caused the ruckus.  The aspirational middle class trawled through the article, (and Nancy Mitford's summary of it) to find out if they were betraying their class status with an imperfect grasp of the unspoken rules.  Yes, this small book has a list of speech habits and behaviours that could instantly consign the unwary to the hapless middle class!

For example —

Dinner: U-speakers eat luncheon in the middle of the day and dinner in the evening.  Non-U speakers (also U-children and U-dogs) have their dinner in the middle of the day.

Greens is non-U for vegetables.

Home: non-U — they have a lovely home'; U — 'they've a very nice house.'

LOL I think Mrs Sheedy who taught me in Grade Six must have been non-U, because she taught us never to use nice except about food.

I'd heard my parents cracking ironic jokes using its U and non-U terminology —

Is this tie U or non-U? my father might say, and my mother might respond with: I have no idea but it is surely non-U to care about whether it is or it isn't.

Nancy Mitford on page 38 tells me that my mother was thus betraying the U-habit of silence:

Silence is the only possible U-response to many embarrassing modern situations: the ejaculation of 'cheers' before drinking, for example, of 'it was so nice seeing you,' after saying good-bye.  In silence, too, one must endure the use of the Christian name by comparative strangers and the horror of being introduced by Christian and surname without any prefix. This unspeakable usage sometimes occurs in letters — Dear XX — which, in silence, are quickly torn up, by me. (p.38-9)

Whatever would Nancy make of the informality of email and SMS?

To read the rest of my review please visit https://anzlitlovers.com/2025/03/31/n...

[Kirsten · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nancy Mitford war eine Schriftstellerin aus der englischen Aristokratie. Neben ihren Romanen schrieb sie auch zahlreiche Artikel, in denen Betrachtungen über ihre Umgebung und ihre Mitmenschen anstellte. Die stießen nicht immer auf Begeisterung, was ich schon nach den ersten beiden Kapiteln verstehen kann.

Die Autorin nimmt kein Blatt vor den Mund. Sie beschreibt, wie ihre Eltern zwar körperlich anwesend waren, sich aber um ihre und die Erziehung ihrer Geschwister kaum gekümmert haben. Das war zu Nancys Zeit zwar üblich, trotzdem hat sie darunter gelitten. Ihre erste Liebe war ein Offizier, der mit ihrem Vater bekannt war und dem sie im ersten Weltkrieg dutzende von Handschuhen häkelte. Näher als das ist sie ihm und dem Feind leider nicht gekommen.

Das zweite Kapitel ist eines von denen, die machen wohl nicht so gut gefallen haben. Verarmte Adlige wollen offensichtlich nicht arbeiten, um ihr Vermögen wieder aufzubauen. Nein, lieber entlassen sie nach und nach das Personal und bedauern ihr Schicksal. Das ist schicker, als sich die Hände schmutzig zu machen. Das dabei Namen genannt werden, hat ihr bestimmt keine Freunde eingebracht.

Miss Mitford beobachtet genau, wie ihr Tagebuch eines Russlandbesuchs zeigt. Dort war sie 1954 und sollte eigentlich nicht darüber schreiben. Aber nachdem alle, denen sie mit der Veröffentlichung des Tagebuchs schaden könne, Russland wieder verlassen haben, veröffentlicht sie doch. Auf den ersten Blick ist es eine Reise mit einigen misslichen Begebenheiten, auf den zweiten Blick sieht man deutlich die Misstände, die man als Gast nicht sehen soll.

Aber es ist auch etwas an ihrem Stil, was mir nicht gefällt. Dass sie ein bisschen von oben herab schreibt, trifft mein Gefühl am besten, wenn auch nicht zu 100%.

Die spitze Feder bleibt auch in den nächsten Kapiteln. Darin redet sie über den (nicht vorhandenen) Modegeschmack ihrer Landsleute, die sich in "Tweed in der Farbe verschiedener Porridges" kleiden und immer mindestens zwei Jahre hinter der neuesten Mode aus Paris her sind. Auf der anderen Seite macht sie sich lustig über die Frauen, die sich herausputzen und keinen Tiefgang haben. Sie teilt also nach beiden Seiten aus.

Sie redet auch über Touristen, die über kleine Orte herfallen und sich über die scheinbare Armut und Antriebslosigkeit der Bevölkerung auslassen. Diese Passage ist sehr aktuell, da hat sich seit ihren Beobachtungen nicht viel verändert.

Nancy Mitford hat ein gutes Auge und eine spitze Feder, aber sie benutzt sie nicht. Ich hatte beim Lesen oft den Eindruck, als ob sie sich zurückhält und ab einem gewissen Punkt ihrer Geschichte das Thema nicht wechselte. Diese Zurückhaltung hat für mich nicht zu den Anfänge ihrer Geschichten gepasst. Es interessiert mich, warum sie das macht. Vielleicht finde ich im nächsten Buch die Antwort darauf. Das hier hat leider nur einen durchschnittlichen Eindruck hinterlassen.

[Christian A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dynamic, vigorous, entertaining. Noblesse Oblige is a must have book for your library. Indeed, any Englishman’s library… Objectively tearing into the heart of English society, this collection of essays — featuring Professor Alan S. C. Ross, Miss Nancy Mitford, Mr Evelyn Waugh, and ‘Strix’ to name but a few — provides a clear landscape on the English aristocracy in 1956. But what makes the work so gripping? For me, Professor Ross’s remark captures the energy of the debate. An aristocrat is not “better educated, cleaner, or richer than someone who is not of this class.” And instead, choice of vocabulary naturally plays the greatest part for distinguishing social class; through a litmus test named U- (Upper Class) and non-U (non-Upper Class). For instance, saying “toilet” (non-U) to mean “lavatory” (U). Subsequently, a key idea in fostering hope for social mobility in a society cementing in social rigidity.
On the contrary, the book is clearly outdated. Published in 1956, Noblesse Oblige harnesses the crucible concepts of a late Victorian, late imperial and late Greco-Roman ideas on nobility. Moreover — in the emerging context of a growing intellectual snobbery, perhaps best seen today in neoliberal apologists through the Brexit debate — Mr Waugh and ‘Strix’ sharply call its readers to the typical “snobbery” of elitist values within the work. And whilst accepting the work of Professor Ross as an objective observation (with his work being the spark to start the flame) for the Helsinki based magazine Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, Mr Waugh and ‘Strix’ also highlight the importance of fashion (such as the wearing of Georgian livery today) being non-U not by inductive superstition, but by class taste and preference alone.
Noblesse Oblige is undoubtedly divisive! Short, a tad dry, yet tinged with wit, Noblesse Oblige is both sumptuously socialist and enough to vigorously churn the gut of any Communist: of all provinces. Noblesse Oblige is the must have book for aspiring aristocrats and critics alike.

[Ariadna73]

Nancy Mitford wrote her essay as a joke; making fun of her own class. She was one of the famous Mitford sisters: young, rich, aristocrats. Some of her sisters had affairs with prominent figures, not always respectable, such as Hitler and other Nazi heads. Some other married into even more nobility. Even Lady D. was directly related to one of them!

So Nancy thought it would be very funny to write a manual "from an insider" on how to be a noble person or a U (for Upper-class) opposed to a Non-U character. She made up a set of ridicule rules that a bit too late she found out were being taken seriously by her fellow upper-class people. It would have been too funny only if she hadn't had so much hate mail and so much serious success with it.

Here is the cover, editorial page and contents of the book I read:



The book is also full of funny cartoons, depicting the noble life. 



Here is a little poem she used to satirize the upper-class ways:



More cartoons (the best of the book, to my taste):





Here are some examples on how to speak if you want to sound "U" and avoid being mistaken as a "Non-U" person (Heavens forbid!)



And here are some interesting musings about fashion.


In conclusion, this book is entertaining, and if you do not take it seriously at all, it can be quite funny. A good piece for a short domestic flight.

Psst! I have a blog too! Take a look here: http://lunairereadings.blogspot.com

[Bryn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Once upon a time (1955ish) Nancy Mitford read a socio-linguistics paper that had been published in a Finnish journal (how she found it I do not remember, if I ever knew) about the differences in speech between the English aristocracy and the rest of the English people, and she took it and ran with it in a piece of light journalism for the literary magazine Encounter -- and for whatever reason, it caught on enormously and sparked much debate and discussion both in Britain and the US. I had read this once before, years ago, but didn't much remember it and enjoyed reading it again -- it is amusingly written, and walks a good line between serious engagement with the issue of class and making fun of people who take it too seriously. A quick, fun read but it does not go deep, and I rather missed that; I wanted more.

[tumulus]

Mitford and Waugh, it's Christmas come early; they're both on familiar territory - snobbery and the aristocracy - Waugh does steal the show a little bit, being an outsider unlike Mitford his observations seem keener, and more a shade more profound. Most of the content itself is actually of rather little interest - the prose itself is the most engaging this about this, it's dripping with wit and almost every phrase is perfectly tuned and balanced. I typically despise nostalgic reminiscence (back in the good old days etc.) and yet I can't help but think that some of the art to brilliant, clever writing has been lost somewhere over the last century.

[Molly Cleary · Rating 3 out of 5]

A delicious correspondence between Nancy Mitford and Evelyn Waugh makes up the second and third sections, but the subject is either out-dated or totally over my head. This is a great reference point for how the socialist side of the Mitford family viewed the majority population of England at the time, but it’s not probably anything worth actually studying. I have a hard time believing Nancy knew enough about the outside world to even speak for other U’s - let alone provide an accurate view of the non-U.

The illustrations are so fun, though. Happy to have this on my shelf.

[Patricia Ulrich · Rating 3 out of 5]

Teilweise fand ich das Buch sehr gut und es ist auf jeden Fall nette Unterhaltung. Nancy Mitford lbeobachtet und analysiert die Gesellschaft auf eine sehr intelligente, aber teilweise auch bissig-böse Art und Weise. Den letzten Abschnitt fand ich allerdings etwas unnötig, ohne diesen wären es 4 Sterne gewesen. Ich bin auf jeden Fall neugierig auf andere Werke von ihr geworden.

[Margaret Conmey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wanted to read as famous essay and concept of U and non-U, but very slight and a lot has dated
EvelynWaugh’s essay is probably more relevant

The idea of ‘tribes’ of people/professions,etc have words,phrases etc.that divide groups into Us and non-Us (rather than the originalUpper and non-Upper class is still true

[Rose Stanley · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading this, I can only conclude that, despite my vocabulary containing a mix of U and non-U terms, I am definitely too middle class to understand the British upper class.


PS: On this note, it seems Bridget Jones' mother was solidly non-U. I always suspected as much.
PPS: Were this book written today, I suspect it would include a How U Are You quiz at the end.

[Mike Pinter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an informative read, and useful to me while reading books about 1920's and 1930's books by such authors as Evlyn Waugh and Aldous Huxley. Perhaps dated but also interesting when reading where one of the essays tried to imagine how the remaining "upper class" of England would be talking a hundred years after 1956.

[Sheffielder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Remarkably hard to find at a sensible price (I eventually got a cheap-ish copy from a French book seller!), but worth the effort. There are a few tedious bits, but this is a quick read and more fun than not.

[More Books Than Time · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read about Nancy Mitford and her five sisters and was curious how she sorted U vs. Non-U. She wrote the first article in this collection, which was witty and snobby, and to my American ears, a bit silly. I read most of the second article and decided enough is enough.
Did not finish

[Mary Pagones · Rating 3 out of 5]

Less fun and funny than I thought it would be. I picked up some linguistic nuances I didn’t know about British upper-class (U) speech, but the presentation was rather gratingly whimsical, except for Mitford’s original essay.

[Jamandelb · Rating 2 out of 5]

“...for generations of English have used the epithets ‘common’ and ‘middle class’ as general pejoratives to describe anything which gets on their nerves.”

[Umi · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fun one, plus I learned that Nancy was friends with Peter Fleming, Ian's brother and an explorer of South America?? Where are people like this today and how do I befriend them

[Madeeha Maqbool · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is out of print and I've wanted to read it for a long time. The British Library came to my rescue.

It is elitist.