Talk:Old money

message: Jon and Amy hacked their way to this point. It wasn’t inherited it was stolen with Scientology and stolen from everyone who had retirement plans for over 30 years. They never worked or had anything saved. So Madoff and petters helped a world of wealth takeover, stealing lottery tickets, killing families, targeting individuals with WW settlements, Native American benefits and always new identities. Daily obituaries is this groups job. These people used to rob houses, now they steal inheritances. The best inheritance hackers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B079:9432:89D3:A798:FE14:789D (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

message: I changed the text in the first definition from its original 'at least eight generations' to 'several generations'.  I very much doubt that there's any sort of numerical limits on the definition; even if there were, eight generations would seem to be a very high one.  If you can provide some verifiability on the 'eight generations' definition, feel free to revert it. --patton1138 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First definition

message: I copied and pasted the lead section to Old money (disambiguation) --Eastlaw (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: It seems to me that the Waltons would be a far better example of 'new money' than 'old money'.  Sam Walton only achieved his fortune in the 1960s - that's just a generation or two away from today.  It seems to me that 'old money' should date to at least pre-1945, maybe even pre-1914 - though I know there is no formal definition, there must be better examples out there than the Waltons (maybe the Du Ponts, or the Rothschilds?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.203.72 (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: I'm fairly certain Bill Gates' father was also very, very rich.  Far as I know, that reference in this article is simply incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.0.19 (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact error: Bill Gates had a rich family

message: Having grown up in an "old money" family (albeit a lesser known/wealthy one than those mentioned in the article, I guess you're considered "old money" if no-one alive could have known any member of your family who wasn't rich or had to work for a living. So - if the Waltons didn't get rich until 1960s, they're not true "old money" per se. Furthermore, I think that we should give some other examples. Being "old money" doesn't imply that you're a billionaire or some such - it just means that within the last many years, no one in your family had to work for a living (albeit they might have done so for other reasons.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.125.38 (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2009 

message: This article is written in a way that makes no sense. There is a heading for North America then a Sub Heading for the USA, where the whole article is. Even more odd is that the Rothchilds familly are listed under this heading when they are not an American Familly and Are mostly based in Europe. The term Old money is used in a simillar sense in most of the world so the current article could probably ditch all the headers and be expanded with more info on the Characteristics of old money. (188.28.115.97 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is everything under the sub heading for the USA? 

message: "For example, the Rockefeller family's estimated net worth of $1 billion in the 1930s grew to $8.5 billion by 2000." Is that adjusted for inflation?
130.195.124.56 (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation 

message: It may be sourced, but it's still a terrible definition. Old Money categorically does not mean inherited wealth, but rather long-standing wealth. If every generation earns their own money, but keeps doing so for generation after generation, the family's still Old Money. Very, very few families have been rich enough to split the inheritance at each generation without falling out of the wealth-bracket Old Money is considered to be in: typically, instead, the younger sons would go off adventuring and seek a new fortune, or marry into a new fortune, or some such. The Rothschilds are a classic example - there is not one family fortune, but many combined, each accrued by a different scion. Nat Rothschild, for example, has inherited a fortune, but made another (larger) one of his own without using the family's funds to any great extent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.92.3 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Old Money 

message: The only Old Money of those examples are the Astors and maybe DuPonts. The Rockefellers and Vanderbilts are noveau riche. Better examples of Old money include the Adamses, Roosevelts, Cabots, Lowells, Biddles, Bushes, and Cadwalladers. --24.128.52.57 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Old Money 

message: I don't think there's an article here. There's very little to be said about "Old money" that isn't purely opposition to New money, and what there is to be said is better discussed under Noblesse oblige. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace with Disambiguation Page? 

message: From the section onthe United States, "The lower-upper were those that did not come from traditionally wealthy families. They earned their money from investments and business rather than inheritance. In contrast to the nouveau riche, the upper-upper class was families viewed as "quasi-aristocratic" and "high-society".[3] These had been rich for generations. They lived off idle inheritances rather than earned wealth."
It's exactly the opposite! The nouveau riche are those new to large wealth and didn't inherit it. It's often used by those who did inherit as a perjorative term referring to those with new wealth who flash their money around, so to speak. Barkway (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Fact Error 

message: The section on the Lindsay family relies too much on primary sources and at times directly contradicts the rest of the article. I don't have the time right now, but could someone rewrite it please? Veilure (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lindsey family 

message: — Assignment last updated by Chiderahanaebue (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics

message: Might not the Whitney family better fit in the "Early American" subsection? They were present in the "Early Colonial" period but didn't come into their money until after the Revolution. Check the list of notable members on the family page and the only ones listed as born before the Revolution are the founder--who built a big house--and Eli who made the real fortune after 1792. VABaron (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Astor family is also hardly "late colonial" -as far as I'm aware their fortune was generated in the 19th Century. And oddly there is no mention of the Carroll family, arguably the wealthiest family of the colonial era whose descendants maintained a high social status well into the Gilded Age. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Whitney family