Gregory Clark’s To Have and Have Not: The Determinants of Social Status in England, 1600-2026 argues that differences among English people in social status measures, such as occupation, wealth, education, and property value, over the last 400 years were primarily due to genetic differences among individuals. In this commentary on the book, I argue that the analyses presented cannot support these claims about the primacy of genetics and do not bring us closer to understanding genetic vs. non-genetic sources of variation in social status. This is principally because parents transmit not only genes to offspring, but also wealth, property, connections, and culture. In the observational data on which the book bases its claims on, these streams of genetic and non-genetic transmission are strongly confounded and can produce nearly identical patterns of resemblance among relatives. Developing designs to appropriately model these two transmission streams jointly has been a major aim of the field over the past 50 years. However, in this book, a simple genetic model is fit to the data and then a patchwork of ad hoc analyses attempting to falsify a model of pure cultural transmission is presented. I argue that the quantity Clark claims to estimate as genetic heritability is actually transmissibility, an unknown compound of transmissible influences that includes genes, culture, wealth, and environment. The tests of environmental influence in the book do not convince me that non-genetic transmission is unimportant for the maintenance of social status, as the book argues. I propose an open, reproducible reanalysis of the Families of England data in this journal.