Fact error: Bill Gates had a rich family
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not at all familiar with wikipedia editing, but can someone add something about, The Great Gatsby, and the different classes of people, or Old money - Tom, and New Money - Gatsby.
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)
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?)
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is everything under the sub heading for the USA?
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. (188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC))
Definition of Old Money
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Not Old Money
The only Old Money of those examples are the Astors and maybe DuPonts. The Rockefellers and Vanderbilts are noveau riche. Better exmaples of Old money include the Adamses, Roosevelts, Cabots, Lowells, Biddles, Bushes, and Cadwalladers.
Not Old Money
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. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)