The brief panning reviews below mystified me also. Aldrich starts out not with anything construable as a "justification", but rather with a withering indictment of the source of his family's wealth -- in itself a mini-education in the dynamics of 19th century pork barrel politics. Aldrich's book is both a sort of personal exorcism of family demons that others would just as soon whitewash and preen themselves over, and a subtle and multi-dimensional account of a great many interrelated issues surrounding the institution of inherited wealth and privilege, and its effect on those both inside and outside the golden pale.
"Reasoned" and "balanced" are two other adjectives that suggest themselves with regard to the book's overall project. Outsiders may resent his sympathy for his own motley compatriots in hyper-enfranchisement, but you'll have to search elsewhere (e.g. the better-written WASP Supremacy diatribes) for the "our shortcomings are colorful foibles, theirs are hideous crimes" pathology that afflicts the comfortable somnambulists of the Far Right.
True, Aldrich hasn't climaxed his public catharsis by giving away his patrimony (though I'd be surprised if he hasn't been more than usually financially generous in all the right directions); but anyone accusing him of a lack of noblesse oblige is just being perverse or uncomprehending regarding the general thrust and intention of this eminently worthwhile read.
In Aldrich's defense, I can only suggest that the one virtually unassailable self-justification for Establishment predations -- "If it weren't us on top, it would inevitably be others, and probably the more harsh for lack of experience" -- is just slightly more justified for the occasional production of a gentleman as truly humane, culturally enriching, and deeply entertaining as Mr. Aldrich.
As for the alleged elitist style: I too lack basic French, and tend to resent its use in expository prose. But "blipping over" a phrase here and there doesn't usually harm the overall sense of a well-heeled authors' material; and a modicum of humility obliges any reader to make an effort to step outside himself and honor the sensibilities of the more accomplished. In this and other matters of vocabulary, would the disgruntled reviewer below prefer Aldrich to write down to him? Given the hazards of such behavior's leading to intellectual patronization or worse (i.e., just plain lazy thinking and/or exposition), I'll take the occasional mini-slight to my natural dignity as an uncultured reader -- there are dictionaries, after all -- and accept my cultural patrimony whole and unblighted by stylistic censorship.
The comment below about most writers on this topic being outsiders is well taken. "Old Money" lacks Ferdinand Lundberg's statistically-fuelled rantings, and stops a bit short of fellow outsider Veblen's ironic savaging of the cultural degeneracies of endemic privilege. The richly nuanced quality of Aldrich's treatment is due no less to his insider status than to his exceptional observational, analytic and descriptive powers, and the present reviewer is grateful for the synergy.
For those interested in the roots and mechanisms of wealth-as-power, Lundberg's trenchant "The Rich and the Super Rich" is quite irreplaceable; Epstein's and Fussel's mordant depictions of the invidious lifestyle are both entertaining and informative; and the other dozen-odd major authors are sources of endlessly varied morsels of cocktail party erudition. But no one ties it all together in as many different ways at once as Aldrich. Read him first, instead of last as I did, and avail yourself of an impeccable standard of measure for any other study of this topic that you'll ever find.