Disagree. Nineteenth-century England was "a nation of shopkeepers". Tradesmen, artificers, chandlers, merchants big and small, freehold farmers, masters and mates, junior army officers, and a small professional class of doctors, divines ("passing rich on forty pounds a year" -- as per Oliver Goldsmith), attorneys, and engineers made up the middle classes.
Even Silas Marner could accumulate a little pile of gold sovereigns.
There were many of those as you indicate, however, they were small fry. They did not have the large holdings and considerable wealth of the gentry, and aristocracy. Those shopkeepers, engineers, and freehold farmers were still part of the lower classes unrelated to the crown.
Their success depended on the largess and in many cases the approval of the large manor owner or directly the crown.
Those who lived in cities were for the most part not landowners, and what land they did own was nominal.
Those who lived in the small towns operated on the direct and indirect influence of the manor.
Many of the locals worked directly for the manor, or in one of the ancillary businesses that supported the manor operations. Many were land lease farmers who worked land leased from the manor.
I don’t think that you fully appreciate the lingering effects of the royals and their extended families, and those who were bestowed favor by the crown and their extended families too. There is one hell of a lot of people. princes, counts, viceroy, etc. etc. etc. who are related to the crown, by blood. Though they may not be in the direct line of succession, they benefit from the influence and deference for members of the royal classes.
Remember, this is 1850. The crown still wielded considerable influence.
In the USA, there is no royalty with hundreds of years of accumulated wealth and influence. In 1850 this was still a pretty poor country for the most part. There were centers like the whaling and coal businesses that created wealthy individuals, but it was not centuries worth of wealth, it was the accumulation of a couple of decades of an individuals working lifetime. There are significant differences in the the scheme of 20+ years versus 200+ years.
Just a bit of perspective.