I would suggest that class distinction in Britain is tautological in nature, that British elites don't want to be elite so much as they cannot easily get used to the norms of any other class. One's class is too deeply embedded to feel truly comfortable in another class. I think it's mutual, too: a small number of those from lower classes attempt to imitate the elite (with varying degrees of success), but I think the majority wouldn't want to move into a different class if they could.
This is my purely personal perspective, and I think it puts me into the camp of ascribing class behaviour to Pierre Bourdieu's 'misrecognition' theory as described in the paper. Perhaps part of the effect is that (some) mannerisms and behaviours of the upper classes in Britain are simply more useful to those in positions of power. This then cements the notion of these classes as befitting social institutions - the social error is ascribing the virtue of the institution back to its leaders, who may well not be any more virtuous than the average across classes.
This is my purely personal perspective, and I think it puts me into the camp of ascribing class behaviour to Pierre Bourdieu's 'misrecognition' theory as described in the paper. Perhaps part of the effect is that (some) mannerisms and behaviours of the upper classes in Britain are simply more useful to those in positions of power. This then cements the notion of these classes as befitting social institutions - the social error is ascribing the virtue of the institution back to its leaders, who may well not be any more virtuous than the average across classes.