> No, not really.

Yes. Really - objectively so. Not only the English elite keep the aristocratic behavior patterns today, but also the Brits were able to gain the vote only at the end of 19th century, almost 50 years later than the prominent countries of Europe. Today it still has a monarchy with actual veto power...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...

...while it has an upper house with hereditary aristocrats, theocratic appointees and other lifetime appointees. It has the power to send back to parliament any bill for whatsoever reason despite 'not having' veto power. So it can send a bill back as much as 60 times until it is changed how it wants. Another case of hypocrisy and elitism inherent in the system: The hereditary aristocrats cant veto, but they can refuse to pass anything they dont like indefinitely.

Even further - this privilege and mentality are things that are kept alive institutionally - the English elite literally raise their children to make them get that kind of mindset:

https://makingsense.quora.com/Why-Does-The-British-Upper-Cla...

> But it did happen in the US. In fact the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution.

That's not correct. First, both of them were inspired and based on the principles of the Age of Enligthenment. Second, American Revolution was not a revolution per se, but a rebellion that sought either representation for the taxes or overthrow of the English control for the benefit of the local elite. At the start of the event, a republic, or even breaking away from Britain was not even entertained. Not surprisingly, the resulting format of the new society was established based on those lines - a system of 'checks and balances' that actually prevents the democratic majority from democratically deposing the incumbent elite was created to prevent any popular demand - like those pesky land redistribution ideas - from being voted on, passing and taking effect. John Adams, de facto architect of the US constitition openly declared that it was going to protect the opulent from the masses.

Even more importantly, as coldtea also noted in his reply, American rebellion never reached the point of 'Everyone is equal'. It remained as a movement led by mainly the elite that sought to overthrow the English control while also incorporating some Enlightenment ideals. Their republic was based on mostly the Dutch republic, which was largely based on the Venetian Republic. Hence, not only from the angle of aristocracy, but also from the angle of the actual chosen format, the emerging US has born as an oligarchy where the existing elite would retain its power. This still plagues the US today.

Whereas the French Revolution was the one in which the polished, clear principles of modern society were established in the form of the Declaration of Human Rights, and the civil code that followed it. The societies of the entire world bar the US and the UK are based on those principles.

> You have offered no evidence for this claim

The initial post was written for those with a measure of knowledge of history. There is no way to provide easy links to educate a random, uninterested reader on this topic who hasnt got enough knowledge on the subject, like...

> there never was an aristocracy in the US.

...this. A large part of the US was owned by English aristocrats. These were either deposed and exiled and their lands redistributed, or they sided with the rebellion and integrated with the colonial elite. Even before the revolution these two segments were already one elite that had a common culture to start with.

> Unless by "aristocracy" you simply mean that the rich hold power, in which case that has nothing to do with Britan and exists in almost all countries.

The Aristocracy is not 'rich holding power'. Its a specific socioeconomic format. And no, as said above, there was actual aristocracy as such in the colonies.