The difference between upper and middle classes in Themiclesian, particularly in the early 19th century to about 1855, appears to be one of difference income source.

The upper class derived their income mostly from astoundingly-large farms in the countryside, worked on by farmers who rented and paid rent or who worked for pay on the proprietor's demesne land.  The middle class mostly owned businesses or factories.  As the upper class produced more of the basic goods of life—staples, fabrics, and raw materials—their income was seen as more permanent, and their means of production—the land and labour force tied to it—more supported by social institutions to supported the perpetuation of their relationship with tenants.  Come hell or highwater, people will require food, and thus the income of the upper class is guaranteed, and by controlling land as tenants-in-chief, they were able to grant the same means to smaller farmers and collect rent thereby.  The middle class, which produced consumer goods, were more opportunistic, their fortunes more subject to the whims of the market.  One invention might in one morning make an industrialist, while an improvement, owned by another, could ruin him that afternoon.   The changes in technology pales in its influence compared to the vagaries of fashion; one pattern might be trendy one day, and it might be out the next, requiring any merchant to observe the trends closely or risk ruin.  The upper class, which enjoyed freedom from taxation for agricultural land, was able to share this with tenants; if this freedom is shared equally between landlord and tenant, both will benefit, thus creating an attractive proposition to remain on the farm.  This would also prevent tenants from as easily moving to the urban centres, which allowed labour prices to stay somewhat higher than if it were flooded with migrants.  This therefore created an eternal point of tension between the upper and middle classes.

The upper class thus favoured arrangements, particularly in politics and law, that protected their privileged positions, creating the early Conservative Party in the late 1700s.  The state, to protect its imperial interests, had taxed landowners and impoverished the labour force so greatly, that it made agriculture unprofitable, sparking the landed class to unite as a party.  Thus, while it had united over excessive taxation, it was in reality against the government's decision to pursuit imperial interests over the profits of the upper class.  The upper class was not categorically against taxation: they themselves were recipients of much tax revenue through egregious salaries and frequent embezzlement as civil servants.  The middle class, for itself, favoured liberty, needed to gain not only a domestic advantage over their competitors, but over foreign ones as well.  High taxes hurt domestic merchants equally but made their products less viable for export compared to foreign manufacturers not subject to the same regime.  Thus, for the Liberal Party, the ideal tax rate would be zero; any tax reduced their competitiveness.  They construed taxation as government interference with the free market.  Accordingly, they were against foreign governments that imposed excessive tariffs and regulations that would, equally, make their goods uncompetitive, as much as domestic taxes and transit duties.  Domestic rules they can influence through the political process, while foreign interference must be resolved through diplomacy or war.  As war, first and foremost, injured the Conservative interest by depriving them of a stable workforce, it was Conservative to oppose war and utilize diplomacy.  Liberals were not pro-war, but they were comparatively willing to use force to reap benefits from a better position.  This is because warfare is regarded as a faster way to realize rights to profit, which many middle-classed persons could not wait, given the impermanence of their sources of income, while the upper class, with their never-changing farms and long-term dominance of certain markets, could wait years or generations to obtain favours through diplomacy.

Socially speaking, both the upper and middle classes were leisured.  Their income was not their direct creation.  The upper classes relied on rights to land, which often they inherited and was ultimately acquired through public service.  Land itself, excepting speculation, did not produce value; labour was critical as the other part of the picture of a productive farm.  This created a bond between the upper class and the lower class that laboured on it.  The middle class relied upon entrepreneureship.  They saw a demand in society that had not been fulfilled and fulfilled it.  In very small scales, they could do it themselves, but most often they relied upon massive amounts of labour to multiply this profit and to compete with others towards monopoly.  [explain middle class relationship towards working class.]  Ultimately, both the upper and middle classes had in common the interest of protecting their respective property and preventing the excesses of state, which formed one part of their ability not to attack each other at any cost.  The common interest should be seen as part of the reason why they, sometimes bitterly opposed to each other, both assented to the legitimacy of political institutions in Themiclesia.

By about 1900, there were few quantitative differences between the upper and middle classes.  Industry had become so important to the economy that grandees of the industrial middle class were eclipsing the exemplars of the agricultural upper class.  There followed a qualitative evolution: as businesses began to expand into different markets, they became less susceptible to the whims of movements on any indidivual market.  If one market failed, the company had enough resources to stave off starvation and to develop a different product.  Thus, major businesses, to shareholders, were beginning to behave like land.  One could own a great interest in a company profitable in many different markets and depend upon dividents for income, without really making choices as to what the company specifically did.  These stakes could be inherited and continue to product dividends for its inheritor.  Conversely, many aristocrats were abandoning their traditional dependence on land and use its profits as investment funds.  To these lords, then, a commerce-friendly environment was naturally requisite.  In the early 20th, some members of the aristocracy were beginning to make a name for themselves as shrewd investors, rather than traditional agriculturalists or bureaucrats.  Thus, we see in the very end of the 19th century, the Commons and Lords were gradually converging on representation of two classes with very similar interests.  The sole distinction was that the seats in one house was elected, and the other inherited.