A wizarding lord is in no way restricted by servants. You have house elves, enchantments, transfiguration, apparition. You don’t have lesser wizards as servants. You don’t even fall into the problem of having too many lords and not enough land, since wizards can create or hide land among other land. It would be entirely plausible to me that a very large proportion of wizards were “lords.”
You can also remember that Hogwarts isn’t the only educational possibility for wizard children, and indeed that it is an expensive one, judging by how the weaselys complain about the cost every year. There’s probably a higher proportion of lords there than among the general population, due to the wealth needed to study at hogwarts.
All of those things except for house elves are accessible to any wizard. Having things anyone can get won’t set you apart status-wise. Without having things that are scarce to other people (not just things like land and wealth but intangibles such as privilege and authority,) there’s nothing to set a lord apart from an ordinary person. Slightly scarce assets can only lead to slight status elevation.
The Weasleys may complain about the cost of attending Hogwarts, but they’re poor, and have managed to send several children there, so it can’t be all that expensive. There may be a higher proportion of lords at Hogwarts due to its status as Magical Britain’s preeminent wizarding school, but if a low-income family can afford to put all seven of their children through the school, then the cost is clearly not a significant filter, and having several scions of Noble Houses in each year still looks weird unless Magical Britain is considerably larger than it’s implied to be.
A wizarding lord is in no way restricted by servants. You have house elves, enchantments, transfiguration, apparition. You don’t have lesser wizards as servants. You don’t even fall into the problem of having too many lords and not enough land, since wizards can create or hide land among other land. It would be entirely plausible to me that a very large proportion of wizards were “lords.”
You can also remember that Hogwarts isn’t the only educational possibility for wizard children, and indeed that it is an expensive one, judging by how the weaselys complain about the cost every year. There’s probably a higher proportion of lords there than among the general population, due to the wealth needed to study at hogwarts.
All of those things except for house elves are accessible to any wizard. Having things anyone can get won’t set you apart status-wise. Without having things that are scarce to other people (not just things like land and wealth but intangibles such as privilege and authority,) there’s nothing to set a lord apart from an ordinary person. Slightly scarce assets can only lead to slight status elevation.
The Weasleys may complain about the cost of attending Hogwarts, but they’re poor, and have managed to send several children there, so it can’t be all that expensive. There may be a higher proportion of lords at Hogwarts due to its status as Magical Britain’s preeminent wizarding school, but if a low-income family can afford to put all seven of their children through the school, then the cost is clearly not a significant filter, and having several scions of Noble Houses in each year still looks weird unless Magical Britain is considerably larger than it’s implied to be.