Not quite - in a very classical form of Conservatism, the Monarch and Nobles would have a different set of laws and social conventions. Usually, it's not an ideolgoical thing.

Aka Magna Carta '3 tiers of society' - the Monarch, Nobles, Plebes etc.

Or in Roman society, Nobles/Senators, Free people, slaves.

▲

monideas 2 hours ago | parent [-]

How is this different from what I’m saying? What you listed is precisely the examples of what I’m talking about

▲

bluegatty an hour ago | parent [-]

It's not about in-groups and out-groups - that is far to general.

Historically, conservatism would have been strongly related to power structures.

In more contemporary terms it is as well, but not ostensibly about class.

There are no popular conservative movements that are mostly concerned with 'noble birth' for gosh sakes, or titles.

This whole discussion is ridiculoous.

Nobody is saying that 'The children of Senators should have special titles and special legal status'.

	▲	monideas 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There are no popular conservative movements in the US at all. “Popular conservative movement” is almost an oxymoron. The “conservative movement” in the US is just liberalism, the US was conceived as a liberal project. The founding mythology is a revolution against a king