If you read this and, like I did, felt unfulfilled after reading it, it’s worth noting that this paper (which was linked in the OP, but which I [and perhaps the unfulfilled reader] overlooked) goes into more detail:
It is an interesting paper (excerpts, related excerpts), but to temper expectations: like Peter Leeson’s many papers ‘explaining’ this or that weird temporary thing in history like trial-by-ordeal, this is more of a just-so story in which Allen comes up with a plausible-sounding model which he post hoc fits to some interesting historical details or anecdotes, and he doesn’t present anything we would consider ‘hard’ evidence.
If you read this and, like I did, felt unfulfilled after reading it, it’s worth noting that this paper (which was linked in the OP, but which I [and perhaps the unfulfilled reader] overlooked) goes into more detail:
https://projects.panickssery.com/docs/allen-2009-a_theory_of_the_pre-modern_british_aristocracy.pdf
It is an interesting paper (excerpts, related excerpts), but to temper expectations: like Peter Leeson’s many papers ‘explaining’ this or that weird temporary thing in history like trial-by-ordeal, this is more of a just-so story in which Allen comes up with a plausible-sounding model which he post hoc fits to some interesting historical details or anecdotes, and he doesn’t present anything we would consider ‘hard’ evidence.
I agree that this description fits the paper.