Sherlock Holmes: is he upper or middle class?

[Anonymous]

I recall he has mannerisms and tastes of a gentleman. Are his parents aristocrats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recall he has mannerisms and tastes of a gentleman. Are his parents aristocrats?

and he plays the violin for relaxation, and is very well educated, so yeah, probably born into a prosperous if not aristocratic family.

[Anonymous]

I thought this was about the TV series. It was good for a couple of seasons. Is it dead now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you had to work those days you were not upper class.

he didn't have to work.
In fact, he only took cases that interested him. He went long periods without doing any work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Classssssssss.... ugh.

Read the f’ n books.

Classy response.

Did you read the f'n books? What's the answer?

What is wrong with OPs question? I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Definitely Victorian UMC/MC gentleman. Not nobility. His ancestors were country squires, so they were landed gentry but not peers. He didn't have a large fortune--he needed a roommate to pay the rent, rented a suite of rooms in a house from a landlady, and did not have any personal servants--but probably had some income from investments/bonds so he didn't have to work to eat. He eventually made a lot of money from his detective work. He was educated and had gone to university, but didn't graduate.

[Anonymous]

If you really must know then the answer is upper middle class with ancestry in the minor gentry. Much of the professional upper middle classes (barristers, clergy, army officers, senior civil service, certain types of doctors) were effectively younger sons and grandsons of the gentry. They carried themselves similarly as the gentry did, they attended the same schools, went to Oxford or Cambridge, held the same values, belonged to the same clubs, had the ancestry, but were a bit of a notch down due to not being landowners themselves. They, as a group, were somewhat different from the other half of the upper middle classes whose incomes came from trade and manufacturing.

His brother, Mycroft, is a very senior government civil service official. Another typical role for this group.

It was also normal for many of this class to live off of private incomes, the interest of capital invested in the markets. Being a gentleman of leisure was desirable. Or private incomes supplemented what incomes they earned if worked.

John Watson was more middle class than Holmes because he did not have wealth nor gentry ancestry but by American standards he'd have also be upper middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you really must know then the answer is upper middle class with ancestry in the minor gentry. Much of the professional upper middle classes (barristers, clergy, army officers, senior civil service, certain types of doctors) were effectively younger sons and grandsons of the gentry. They carried themselves similarly as the gentry did, they attended the same schools, went to Oxford or Cambridge, held the same values, belonged to the same clubs, had the ancestry, but were a bit of a notch down due to not being landowners themselves. They, as a group, were somewhat different from the other half of the upper middle classes whose incomes came from trade and manufacturing.

His brother, Mycroft, is a very senior government civil service official. Another typical role for this group.

It was also normal for many of this class to live off of private incomes, the interest of capital invested in the markets. Being a gentleman of leisure was desirable. Or private incomes supplemented what incomes they earned if worked.

John Watson was more middle class than Holmes because he did not have wealth nor gentry ancestry but by American standards he'd have also be upper middle class.

DP. Thank you for taking the time to give this answer.

OP - At least read the first volume of stories "Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" to get some insight.

[Anonymous]

NP. I'm so glad to know that if you have a question about a character from a movie or a show, you may not ask it if you have not read the book on which it is based. For some reason that is a deeply wrong thing to do.

Snarky posters, please reevaluate your lives.

OP I thought this was a really good, interesting question. Thank you for asking it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you really must know then the answer is upper middle class with ancestry in the minor gentry. Much of the professional upper middle classes (barristers, clergy, army officers, senior civil service, certain types of doctors) were effectively younger sons and grandsons of the gentry. They carried themselves similarly as the gentry did, they attended the same schools, went to Oxford or Cambridge, held the same values, belonged to the same clubs, had the ancestry, but were a bit of a notch down due to not being landowners themselves. They, as a group, were somewhat different from the other half of the upper middle classes whose incomes came from trade and manufacturing.

His brother, Mycroft, is a very senior government civil service official. Another typical role for this group.

It was also normal for many of this class to live off of private incomes, the interest of capital invested in the markets. Being a gentleman of leisure was desirable. Or private incomes supplemented what incomes they earned if worked.

John Watson was more middle class than Holmes because he did not have wealth nor gentry ancestry but by American standards he'd have also be upper middle class.

I don't think that we get much information about Watson's ancestry. It's established that his father and older brother are dead, and the scene where Holmes analyzes his watch reveals that Watson's father started out with "good prospects" (meaning money and probably education), but squandered them (he was apparently an alcoholic). Watson appears to be pretty solidly MC by the standards of the time, but from a family that has come down in the world--hence the practical education and enlistment in the Army. Holmes is a step above, since he comes from the landed gentry, received a gentleman's education, and appears to have at least some private income (if not enough to allow him to live in particularly high style).

[Anonymous]

Did he not have the money to live in particularly high style or did he, being Sherlock, think the whole thing preposterous and choose to live as he did/does?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you really must know then the answer is upper middle class with ancestry in the minor gentry. Much of the professional upper middle classes (barristers, clergy, army officers, senior civil service, certain types of doctors) were effectively younger sons and grandsons of the gentry. They carried themselves similarly as the gentry did, they attended the same schools, went to Oxford or Cambridge, held the same values, belonged to the same clubs, had the ancestry, but were a bit of a notch down due to not being landowners themselves. They, as a group, were somewhat different from the other half of the upper middle classes whose incomes came from trade and manufacturing.

His brother, Mycroft, is a very senior government civil service official. Another typical role for this group.

It was also normal for many of this class to live off of private incomes, the interest of capital invested in the markets. Being a gentleman of leisure was desirable. Or private incomes supplemented what incomes they earned if worked.

John Watson was more middle class than Holmes because he did not have wealth nor gentry ancestry but by American standards he'd have also be upper middle class.

Wow. That pretty much answers it then. You sound like you know what you're talking about

[Anonymous]

I dunno, perhaps I paid more attention than others but after years of watching the various iterations of Sherlock the answer to OP's question just seemed obvious via context clues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Did he not have the money to live in particularly high style or did he, being Sherlock, think the whole thing preposterous and choose to live as he did/does?

In the first story, "A Study in Scarlet," Holmes needs someone to split the rent on a set of rooms (two bedrooms and a sitting room) in a house run by a landlady. That suggests that he has limited means. Eventually, he makes enough money from his consulting detective business that he could probably afford better lodgings, but probably doesn't feel like it's worth it to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dunno, perhaps I paid more attention than others but after years of watching the various iterations of Sherlock the answer to OP's question just seemed obvious via context clues

yeah that must be it