Why rich families today were probably rich 1,000 years ago

This is an odd finding, best explained by genetic inheritance. Not all descendants of the rich remain rich but there appears to be an overall tendency in that direction nonetheless

Surnames which indicated nobility and wealth in medieval times are still richer even today, research has suggested. 'Moneyed' surnames, such as Darcy, Percy, Baskerville and Mandeville continue to have more cash than those with 'poor' names, such as Smith, Mason and Cooper.

The research, which uses university admissions, probate records and official information going as far back as the Domesday Book, tracked what happened to those whose surnames suggest their forebears were either aristocratic or 'artisans' from the working class.

Researcher Gregory Clark, a professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, found that in the group with rare names he studied from the 1850s until 2011, the gap between rich and poor narrowed.

However, those with 'rich' surnames left estates worth at least ten per cent above the national average, and also lived three years longer than the average, according to The Observer.
That's rich: Colin Firth as Fitzwilliam Darcy, in a scene from Pride and Prejudice. Research suggests that people with certain names such as name Darcy have always been better off

Such names indicated a descent from nobility who came to England after the Norman Conquest and are found in the Domesday book of 1086. They drew their name from the surrounding Normandy towns and villages, the Observer says, whereas other 'poor ' surnames - such as Carpenter, Shepherd or Baker - indicated an occupation.

In his paper - which is due to be presented at the Economic History Society's annual conference - Prof Clark says: 'Despite the social and political changes in England since the Industrial Revolution and the extension of the political franchise, if anything the rate of social mobility is slower now than in medieval England.

'The huge social resources spent on publicly provided education and health have seemingly created no gains in the rate of social mobility. 'The modern meritocracy is no better at achieving social mobility than the medieval oligarchy.'

And while rich and poor in general may eventually become 'average', with 'no permanent social classes', those from the 1850s may take another 'two to four' generations to get there, he finds.

Prof Clark added a warning for the current poor in Britain: it may be many generations 'perhaps centuries' before they achieve equality.

'The children of groups of recent immigrants to the UK – specifically those from Bangladesh and Pakistan – have levels of wealth, income, and education that are substantially below those of the general population,' his paper says.

SOURCE