The claim made by aristocrats, was that they were, well - superior. They had divine blood. They were half gods. They have themselves the divine right. They affirmed this right by force, and with this dominance they declared themselves superior to other men- they were the most fit, most able, and most intelligent. Through court, they acquired what they wanted, married whom they pleased - often to increase their land, property, and wealth.
This mindset in the latter half of the nineteenth century was made into a competitive, market based system that attempted to assure the ruling class was the most resourceful, that superior men could be rewarded, and through intermarriage they would improve their wealth, and social standing. They were told to have have numerous children, to benefit mankind.
As a consequence we have a proportionately large upper class that we cannot afford. Here is a good place for a reset. Instead we find people trying to establish dynasties, all from the same upper class group. Evelyn Rothschild had a marriage that was more of an acquisition than anything else. For her, she was marrying the big bank, marrying to acquire of piece of the big pie. How can they develop a less exclusive upper class if they do not mix with the lower classes? If they want capitalism to be more inclusive why don't the captains of economics marry down, rather than up? IF they indeed have superior genetics, why not mix those genes, so that the equality they say they support through the social forcing of intermarriage would also apply to themselves? In fact, to improve the gross imbalance that exists, should these "climbers" be shunned for this sort of incestuous intermarriage? This is an old motif, one intended to bury the lower class. Are they getting richer? Are they becoming more dominant?
There are a few that have seen this from within Rothschild's ranks. They, embarrassed by their inherited wealth left these stuffy people behind and married outside these little social circles. Predominately they are women, and often they are described as mentally imbalanced. But were they really?
It is not only banksters and leaders of corporations of which we speak, but we see this striving for exclusivity among other groups also- celebrities, for example, and political groups. Yet they also promote diversity. Is this all hypocracy, really?