Derived from those basic feudalistic principals which still unofficially dictated the social organization of the country, British Society had changed little by the 1880's. Daisy, Countess of Warwick, remarked "when I came out, social prestige meant something. There was a definite aristocratic society of the landowning families... [who] owned then practically the whole of the land of England." (Evans, pg. 8). These families had remained more or less constant for hundreds of years, and certainly for as long as anyone could remember. Gradual changes, however, which had been building up in the period prior to the end of the 19th century, forced these families to reevaluate themselves, Society, and their very society.

First of all, it is necessary to define what we mean by the term "Society." To say that it is "a group of old landed families" is certainly not enough, nor is Karl Marx's definition, calling them simply, "upper ten thousand." (Perkin, pg. 63) There were two real branches of Society, which can best be thought of as an "inner circle" and an "outer circle": basically, you were "in" or you were "out." Those in the outer circle were allowed to participate to a degree in the festivities: they "may entertain Society, amuse and feed it, but they will never LEAD it," (from an 1896 issue of The Ladies' Realm, Evans, pg. 11) meaning that they will never be the ones setting the trends by which Society is defined, but will be forever pattering around trying to keep up with the whims and fancies of the inner circle.

It is, however, this inner circle which were the rulers of Britain, both politically, socially, and economically. As a result, they were the people whom the mass population of Great Britain looked up to. There is no strict definition for this "inner circle" of Society. These are, however, the people whom it is really necessary to understand: there are always arrivistes who attempt to be included. They are generally not allowed to fully participate in the festivities, because they rarely get it right, and entrance to Society requires a complete and innate knowledge of what to do. In order to understand this inner circle as a whole, it is necessary to examine the various individuals who were considered to be part of the "inner circle."

All of the members of this inner circle gave off the air of great amounts of disposable income, and, for the most part, this was true. There was, however, much more to entering the ranks of Society than money. The Countess of Warwick wrote, of the early 1890's, that Society was made of the aristocratic families, and a few others, but that "it was difficult to enter from the outside, and impossible unless Royalty approved. The Prince of Wales was broad-minded and inclined to welcome some of the professional class. A few doctors and artists were accepted. Sometimes a rich manufacturer might be able to poke his nose in, but he caught it for his temerity no matter how rich he might be. Political people were included, and any outstanding man or woman, say an explorer or a musician, but brains were rarely appreciated and literary people and intellectuals were not welcome." (Evans, pg. 8) One must read between the lines of that statement. There were two things that society really wanted: money and adventure, and people who could come up with one or the other of those things (preferably, of course, both) were on the right track to social acceptance.

There was, however, still more required of any member of Society. One member scoffed at the idea of "the wives of the nouveau riches, of the haute Juiverie, or of the Anglicized Americans who are always advertising themselves and their parties in the newspapers" as ever becoming leaders of Society. She is, however, overly vague about who these truly accepted people are, saying "we have only to recall the names of the great ladies who have entertained considerably of late years, and whose houses are known as places where one meets all that is the best in Society today:" (Evans, pg. 11) a rather circular definition! It is, however, possible to think of a few more concrete traits which defined a leading member of Society. A lady had to be beautiful, a gentleman had to be witty and charming. Tact was essential for both sexes. The most important requirements, however, was taste. Good taste: neither too ostentatious nor to dowdy, neither too much drinking and cards, nor too little "fun," neither too shy nor too loud. There was a very thin line which could not, under any circumstances, be crossed.

What is probably the most accurate definition of Society, though probably too biting to be taken entirely at face value, comes from Beatrice Webb, who, after a brief time playing hostess to her father in the late 1880's, wrote "There were no fixed caste barriers; there seemed to be, in fact, no recognized types of exclusiveness based on birth and breeding, on personal riches or on personal charm; there was no fastidiousness about manners or morals or intellectual gifts. But deep down in the unconscious fitness for membership of this most gigantic of social clubs, [there existed] a test which was seldom recognized by those who applied it, still less by those to whom it was applied, the possession of some form of power over people." (Perkin, pg. 65) This power could embody itself in many ways: political power, wealth, beauty, charm, but it was necessary that the populace be captivated in one way or another. The fact that these people did indeed generally have power, and were therefore public figures, presented another thin line: the matter publicity.

Members of Society shied away from too much publicity as if it were the plague. There was nothing which rivaled the smug pleasure of having a description of your dress in the society page of the newspaper, but anything which might bring scandal upon Society was shunned. It was quite all right to have adulterous affairs, to engage in somewhat illegal matters, to occasionally hang out in a red-light district (the last only for gentlemen, of course), so long as it was done privately. The minute word of the matter escaped beyond the confines of those involved and maybe a few close friends, the social life of the perpetrator was officially over, and would probably never be salvaged.